bb in tallaght

dazzareds

Hi all,

Just bought a house in aylesbury tallaght and thinking of either upc or wimax due to no outrageous line rental, can anyone advise which is more reliable.

Thanks

Dazza

jor el

UPC is broadband, Imagine Wimax is not. The choice should be fairly obvious.

dazzareds

Ok which one provide a better service?

MagicMarker

UPC.

jor el

dazzareds wrote: »

Ok which one provide a better service?

You're looking for broadband, and UPC is the only one of the two that is broadband. If both are available, the choice is not really a choice at all. Just pick UPC.

lucernarian

jor el wrote: »

UPC is broadband, Imagine Wimax is not. The choice should be fairly obvious.

That's quite a curt answer for someone looking for a broadband connection for their new house...

jor el

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's quite a curt answer for someone looking for a broadband connection for their new house...

Why? Only one of them is broadband, which I said is UPC. If he has a choice of Imagine Wimax or UPC for broadband, then he should be made aware that UPC is the only one of those that actually can be defined as broadband. Imagine Wimax simply isn't, so he needs to rule that out before even thinking any more about it.

Where's your answer to the OP, or is it just snide remarks you'd like to contribute?

GerardKeating

dazzareds wrote: »

Hi all,

Just bought a house in aylesbury tallaght and thinking of either upc or wimax due to no outrageous line rental, can anyone advise which is more reliable.

Thanks

Dazza

UPC broadband would be the best option by far, next after that would eircom (et al) for DSL.

hobbit stomper

So far WiMax has only had a big budget in advertisement, but let's face it. Broadband via Cable or Phone line will always... ALWAYS be more reliable than any sort of Internet via over the air. WiMax, 3G/4G and all those other
Midband products should only be a temporary solution, or if you can't actually get proper broadband.

lucernarian

jor el wrote: »

Why? Only one of them is broadband, which I said is UPC. If he has a choice of Imagine Wimax or UPC for broadband, then he should be made aware that UPC is the only one of those that actually can be defined as broadband. Imagine Wimax simply isn't, so he needs to rule that out before even thinking any more about it.

Where's your answer to the OP, or is it just snide remarks you'd like to contribute?

My point is simple. Telling a new poster that a choice "should be obvious" with absolutely nothing to qualify the remark is quite flippant. And as a somewhat experienced poster here, I would think the jury is still out on whether Imagine's wimax implementation is actually Midband or not... I don't recall Irish Broadband's breeze product being moved to a midband forum even though Three would give them a run for their money when it was at its worst.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055888157&page=2 seems to suggest that the technology is capable of being proper broadband, unlike UMTS. Speedtest is often very wrong when it comes to ping times, so that's why I feel the jury's out. I'm not going into this any further here.

hobbit stomper wrote: »

So far WiMax has only had a big budget in advertisement, but let's face it. Broadband via Cable or Phone line will always... ALWAYS be more reliable than any sort of Internet via over the air. WiMax, 3G/4G and all those other
Midband products should only be a temporary solution, or if you can't actually get proper broadband.

Fixed Wireless Access using microwave-based links have a proven track record when done right, be it Microwave links for the majority of mobile phone masts in this country or the likes of Digiweb Metro which has offered generally top-notch quality with low ping times. Your statement of fixed wire connection being always more reliable is factually incorrect.

jor el

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

My point is simple. Telling a new poster that a choice "should be obvious" with absolutely nothing to qualify the remark is quite flippant.

UPC is broadband, Imagine Wimax is not. Where is the lack of qualification? Looking for broadband, pick the one that is broadband.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And as a somewhat experienced poster here, I would think the jury is still out on whether Imagine's wimax implementation is actually Midband or not... I don't recall Irish Broadband's breeze product being moved to a midband forum even though Three would give them a run for their money when it was at its worst.

Mobile Wimax and Breeze are completely different technologies. Mobile Wimax is not capable of what Breeze is capable of, and as an experienced poster here I think you are well aware of the difference.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055888157&page=2 seems to suggest that the technology is capable of being proper broadband, unlike UMTS.

From looking over that thread, the general concensus seems to be that Imagine Wimax is the worst thing anyone has ever seen.

Wimax as a technology can be implemented as proper broadband, but not if it's done as a non-fixed, mobile, network. This is the way Imagine has set things up. I believe it's Westnet that use fixed Wimax in their network.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Your statement of fixed wire connection being always more reliable is factually incorrect.

True, as Metro has a proven track record of being as good, if not sometimes better, than DSL. Implementation is key, and is what led to Breeze being such a bad product for a long time.

watty

Imagine's Wimax is using FWA licences. But actually it's Mobile technology on an unsuitable band. It doesn't use exclusively outdoor directional fixed aerials. This makes it 10 to 16 worse than true fixed wireless in same spectrum http://www.techtir.ie/comms/fixed-wireless-broadband-better

Metro is Cable technology on LOS links. It's only installed if the signal is good enough and contention (customer numbers, not connections) won't be exceeded in a sector. It's available in parts of Tallaght. Metro bases always have enough backhaul for 100% traffic. Breeze in the past had problems due to it being poorly installed or lacking infrastructure. IBB largely fixed all that before Imagine took over. I don't remember Breeze ever being relegated to Midband. It's an FWA (Fixed Wireless Access) Broadband technology, as is Fixed WiMax. Mobile Wimax (Imagine's Wimax) is not a Broadband product.

Even LTE isn't really a Broadband product unless they install 3 to 6 times higher base station density than 3G and have at least 6, ideally 9 x 20MHz FDD channels. I don't think either of those scenarios are going to happen, never mind both. So LTE will be inferior on average when economically loaded (real customer base) to entry level DSL and any Metro, Breeze or Fixed WiMax no matter how good the peak speeds sound. However LTE will be typically 50% better on average as Imagine's WiMax and 50% to 100% better than 3G/HSPA on average if it's only got 5MHz channels. It's actually pointless "upgrade" for an existing 3G operator unless they get at least 3 x 20MHz FDD channels. Also of course any 3G operator needs a new licence. They can't run LTE on the existing licence. Not compatible with existing handsets and modems anyway..

lucernarian

@Jor el: Where exactly would our discussion help a newbie looking to pick a broadband provider in Tallaght? Arbitrarily declaring that one service "is broadband" and the other is "not" couldn't count as a qualification. Then saying that the choice should be obvious, is frankly bizarre. Why would a person ask about the reliability differences except when they don't know much about the service and the tech bits to begin with? The replies directed to dazzareds was bad form on your part, more meant as a f.u to midband providers than an actual answer to the question.

Once again, I do not want to discuss technical merits here as my argument is fairly empirical and based on actual experiences. I'm only saying there was a higher scope for doubt on what Imagine counts as, compared to Satellite and UMTS. They both are inherently incapable of either consistent or <100 ms ping times or both. The thread linked showed a user with what appeared to be a technically sound service, so there at least exists a hypothetical possibility that someone could get a proper broadband experience with imagine's "Wimax", whatever about the usual suspects. That's why I wouldn't object to putting Imagine queries in "Midband", but do object to the assumption that 802.16e mobile wimax should be ruled out from ever being discussed as a possibility for sactisfactory service. I thought discussion forums were for just that. For the record, any journal articles which recorded TCP response times over the radio network mentioned a ballpark figure of 100 to 120ms. Not good, but still superior to what I've seen with HSPA in Ireland.

watty

Because Imagine's WiMax is using substantial numbers of indoor aerials at 3.6GHz, which is only suitable for Fixed Outdoor aerials/radio (exclusively) and it's nomadic mobile thus contention only really controlled by download cap.

Broadband is about more than ping times. The fact is that while Imagine's WiMax may on average be better than UMTS (3G/HSPA) and doesn't have the CDMA evil cell breathing of 3G, it's not Broadband. For some people and locations 3G/HSPA may actually work better (with 80ms ping) than Imagine WiMax. As both are Mobile/Nomadic, the performance today is not related to performance next week, which can be radically different.

Looking at Satellite, Imagine WiMax, 3G/HSPA or Digiweb Mobile is only to be done if you can't get broadband. There are at least three different broadband technologies available in Tallaght. Anyone wanting broadband will thus examine UPC, DSL (phoneline) and Digiweb Metro (fixed Wireless that exceeds entry level DSL and about x10 better than Imagine's WiMax) before looking at non-broadband internet connectivity.

Imagine's WiMax unlike properly engineered and installed Fixed Wireless can't guarantee a good service.

Good Fixed Wireless Broadband has

• Minimum speed at peak time reasonably close to package speed (controlled contention)
• Ping/Latency less 40ms
• very low jitter/variation of Ping (just as important as actual latency)
• Always on, doesn't disconnect
• Usually zero packet loss
• Not installed unless signal has rain margin.
• Speed the same no matter distance from mast if install signal level is OK
• No significant change in performance with time. Won't get suddenly better or Worse

DSL latency has been high due to a combination of contention on backhaul and use of ATM. Upgrading exchanges to IP NGN backhaul with more capacity is halving DSL latency.
Cable latency is typically under 20ms.

Due to being on 3.6GHz and using ANY indoor aerials and Nomadic/Mobile nature the Imagine implementation of WiMax can never be regarded as Broadband, nor ever deliver a reliable consistent service. Buzz in Australia made the same mistake and in the end their network closed.

Installing fixed outdoor radio only with Directional aerial is possible using the version of WiMax and band Imagine have. This costs more but delivers more capacity (proven) and a Broadband quality network. Imagine choose to have low customer acquisition cost and the resulting low quality network instead of an extra €100 to €250 once off install cost and Broadband network. Their choice. But they and the customers have to live with it. You can't make a deliberate decision to install a network inherently not Broadband spec and call it Broadband.

Obviously Imagine wants to compete with O2, 3, Meteor and Vodafone in Mobile Internet rather than with real Broadband. Except because it's 3.6Ghz and no national licence and not 2.1GHz National Licences the 3G/HSPA (UMTS) is actually FAR better as Mobile "on the go" solution for anyone needing mobility.

If you need Mobile Internet, then O2, 3, Meteor and Vodafone Mobile 3G is best solution (really mobile and National). If you need Broadband, then you need true Fixed wireless (100% outdoor units), Cable, Fibre or DSL.

Ranicand

dazzareds wrote: »

Hi all,

Just bought a house in aylesbury tallaght and thinking of either upc or wimax due to no outrageous line rental, can anyone advise which is more reliable.

Thanks

Dazza

Here are my results for UPC.



Wixmax is not broadband in the same way a shopping trolley is not a sports car sure a high-end sports car and the shopping trolley bolt have four wheels.:D

watty

My results on 8Mbps Digiweb Metro package (over WiFi to my Router)


Limerick Mast at 12.5km distance
Upload is usually about 0.85 to 0.9Mbps and Download can drop to 7.5Mbps at peak time. Ping & Jitter better on Cabled Ethernet as we have 3 to 7 WiFi Users.
Download speed never worse than 7.5Mbps and ping is rarely worse than 35ms. Packet loss always zero, jitter always low.

lucernarian

Watty, your entire post is based on a very fluid definition on what is or isn't "broadband". One can't on one hand give many variables on what makes a good broadband connection while in the same sentence insist that something could never be considered as true broadband. I don't disagree with the conclusion that Imagine is not up to scratch currently, but I find it too arrogant an assumption to think that everyone will accept someone's imprimatur on this and be told it shouldn't even be questioned, to boot. I am not claiming you/your posts are arrogant btw.

The good fixed wireless broadband characteristics are still a matter of interpretation on anyone's part. Digiweb's Airspan FWA service would fail on 4 of those points but not all of them, based on my experience. Contention and speed consistency were serious issues with them.

Being on perlico DSL now, VoIP is much more pleasant simply because speech doesn't break up anymore etc, yet it still would fail on one of those criteria if it were applied to fixed wire services.

I have never even witnessed any IMT 2000 standard claiming even theoretical <100ms response times or have I seen it in the wild, though I am open to correction. I am perfectly aware that ping times are not the only factor in weighing up a good service but every post you discuss this issue seeems to involve a benchmark set by yourself on what counts as an acceptable RTT. As for consistency of ping speeds, I was referring to jitter and service consistency overall in my post.

And the point about frequencies isn't true theoretically, up to a point. Higher frequencies are simply a matter of increasing numbers of base stations and powers until the attenuation provided by a brick wall or two exceeds any realistic connection benefits. I also understood that users had issues with wimax regardless of whether the antenna was mounted outside or not.

The protocol itself is mobile (not just nomadic from what I remember of the standard). But that doesn't mean that the product itself would be "mobile" like 3G products are. I expect most "Wimax" routers don't move very far from their usual shelf.

Btw, I don't know where you're getting this info on DSL ping times. My first stage return trip time, to perlico's wholesale POP in Summerhill , Dublin is 55ms. Not for all the tea in China will this fall unless perlico bother their backside to lower DSL interleave depth from 64/8 for me. Over time, most improvements I've seen for others and for my other connection has been with content providers taking advantage of akamai-type networks or else building their own networks direct to INEX (google), or else providers sorting out their peering arrangements and improving them over time (UPC). It's true that contention has caused unbelievable problems for some users on eircom-supplied DSL in various places like Dublin and Cork suburbs, and Limerick.

Once again, my main point is that jor el's manner was rude and flippant to a person new to the website. If the choice was so obvious, people wouldn't be here looking to discuss broadband options. That's my last point I'm making in this thread and that hasn't changed (or been adequately addressed) between my first post and now.

watty

Imagine's Wimax isn't Fixed Wireless. It's a Cost reduced system based on a Marketing / Investment decision. Bad Engineering and as such can't ever be considered as Broadband. Imagine's decision. It's in no way comparable to UPC's Broadband or any product that meets Broadband criteria. There is no value in considering Imagine's WiMax or 3G Mobile if you are looking for Broadband unless you can't get real Broadband. Real Broadband is available in Tallaght.

See
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055442502
and
http://www.techtir.ie/forums/internet-faq

I didn't examine Digiweb's older FWA. Only Metro.


On the Midband Speed test thread



HSPA, HSPA+ and iHSPA can do sub 100ms Latency. It's not reliable and any connection on 3G can be like Ripwave and head off toward 2000ms

Ripwave was I think S-CDMA and if too much contention got really poor. IBB tried a Mobile card with it too. Imagine are selling Mobile Dongle packages on the same network technology as the indoor modems. No amount of power fixes the issues of 3.6GHz in building and mobile use without first interfering with other cells before solving the issues. The existing Imagine WiMax would be much better, possibly broadband class, with x10 capacity/performance if there was not a single indoor or mobile dongle but only directional outdoor fixed aerials/radios that are not installed below a certain signal threshold.

Even 2100MHz 3G isn't great in building which is why the Mobile operators want UMTS 900MHz. They prefer 900MHz GSM to 1800MHz GSM. Why they don't push for a single shared RAN on 900/800MHz with LTE as part of end of GSM 900 licences and Digital Dividend is a mystery. Perhaps they are more interested in a cheap single infrastructure 3G voice network with much fewer rural bases than decent data performance.

Jarren

in tallaght:D