Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Broadband for a student
Comments
-
Pretty much everything comes with a 12 month contract. I think UPC used to do 9 month deals for students, so that may still be an option.0
-
Ya I figured as much,thanks0
-
O2 do a 6 month contract
They also do half price broadband for students for 12 months, €9.99 a month I hear0 -
Just signed up with O2 myself, its an offer for students, seems good to me... so far...!
Its quick enough, 20 euro up front and 10 euro a month... 12 month contract.
Looked around a fair bit myself, and it seems the best offer going.
You'll need student ID, proof of address and passport or driving licence0 -
Ya the thing with the mobile broadband is though is the pings seems to be quite high,i have a 3 one myself and its ping is 175 I think.0
-
Advertisement
-
-
Jor El doesn't seem arsed to explain himself, so I'll put this in context: O2's mobile "broadband" is pretty poor in service quality and speeds, and the technology will never be able to perform at the level of Cable or DSL or proper wireless broadband no matter what O2 do. Mainly due to the overwhelmingly negative experiences associated with Mobile Broadband-type products, they were branded round these parts as Midband products. And rightly so. Though some people *cough* around here are too stubborn to admit that some people are happy to put up with second best, and a lack of reliability that is compensated for by cost.O2 don't do broadband.
Even to the extent that they won't acknowledge any point if it involves 3G mobile internet being construed as some sort of broadband service, heaven forbid:rolleyes:0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Jor El doesn't seem arsed to explain himself,
I, and others, have explained the differences enough times, in enough threads, that it should be relatively simple to find out, so you can drop the attitude.
The OP wants info on broadband, which is why I never mentioned mobile services. If he wants information on sub-par half baked Internet access, then let him ask for such services. If he wants broadband, then UPC would be a very good starting point, and they may still do shorter term contracts for students.0 -
I, and others, have explained the differences enough times, in enough threads, that it should be relatively simple to find out, so you can drop the attitude.
No matter how many times people explain fact that mobile midband is not broadband. The telco marketing is pervasive and promises the sun and the moon (in broadband terms) we'll see 100s of these posts and we need the patience to explain it yet again for the 100th time. Sad but true.
Maybe we should just blow the posts up or something:)0 -
I, and others, have explained the differences enough times, in enough threads, that it should be relatively simple to find out, so you can drop the attitude.
The OP wants info on broadband, which is why I never mentioned mobile services. If he wants information on sub-par half baked Internet access, then let him ask for such services. If he wants broadband, then UPC would be a very good starting point, and they may still do shorter term contracts for students.
Probably shud have worded my question better,since i already have mobile "broadband" but wired broadband providers was the info I was looking for.0 -
Advertisement
-
That part is fine. So why the need to tell someone that their information was irrelevant (aka "O2 don't sell broadband") and not even bother making a substantive point as to why that was the case? It's unreasonable to expect people looking for basic information on cost-effective broadband to know why O2 broadband isn't actually broadband. Why would they search for something in other threads when it wouldn't occur to many people that there even was an issue with mobile internet in the first place?I, and others, have explained the differences enough times, in enough threads, that it should be relatively simple to find out, so you can drop the attitude.
The OP wants info on broadband, which is why I never mentioned mobile services. If he wants information on sub-par half baked Internet access, then let him ask for such services. If he wants broadband, then UPC would be a very good starting point, and they may still do shorter term contracts for students.
It's quite obvious to me as a student that many would rely on these mobile internet adapters and would be perfectly ignorant to why they shouldn't be called broadband-capable. Trite one-liners aren't going to help anyone find cheap internet connectivity, no matter how valid they are.
There shouldn't be an issue with suggesting mobile internet so long as it's pointed out too that they won't work as well as fixed internet, especially where and when congestion will have a particularly significant impact. A little bit of patience with new posters would go a long way.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »So why the need to tell someone that their information was irrelevant (aka "O2 don't sell broadband") and not even bother making a substantive point as to why that was the case?
O2 should never have been mentioned in the first place, because they don't offer broadband, except to business customers. All mention of mobile services are irrelevant in this thread.
If someone is looking for mobile services, then the thread belongs in the Midband forum. Since he's not looking for that, the thread belongs here, and mention of these services doesn't belong on thread.0 -
That statement is frankly ridiculous. I can't tell if you're making this call as a moderator decision or not, so I apologise if you think I'm questioning a moderator decision on thread.If someone is looking for mobile services, then the thread belongs in the Midband forum. Since he's not looking for that, the thread belongs here, and mention of these services doesn't belong on thread.
What is particularly galling about that is the inherent assumption that people know exactly what is broadband and what is not. It sort-of defeats the point of having a "discussion forum" if these dogmas are to be already known by anyone looking for information, no?
Plenty of people would refer to O2 as providing broadband, rightly or wrongly. But insisting that they can't even be mentioned in the broadband part of this forum is misguided and counter-productive. I think O2 can and should be mentioned in these threads, if the caveat of its lower performance is added. As a student, I know too well that many would like to make do with the cheapest internet service possible and would include the mobile services as "broadband" for the sake of simplicity in a post or perhaps ignorance.
Making such an obstinate stand on "where something belongs" serves no purpose other than to alienate new users and stifle natural discussion on something that most people would know less about than the regular posters.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »That statement is frankly ridiculous. I can't tell if you're making this call as a moderator decision or not, so I apologise if you think I'm questioning a moderator decision on thread.
It would be in bold if it was. Why is it ridiculous. I've explained that I gave advice about broadband providers, and that when a non-broadband service is mentioned, I dismissed it. If the OP had any questions about why I thought O2 did not provide broadband, I would have answered it. I really don't see what your issue is, other than you seem to want to make an issue out of something where there is no issue.To_be_confirmed wrote: »What is particularly galling about that is the inherent assumption that people know exactly what is broadband and what is not. It sort-of defeats the point of having a "discussion forum" if these dogmas are to be already known by anyone looking for information, no?
There's no assumption in my post, merely a statement of fact. Any question about this could be brought up, or others are free to add additional information, as you did. I'd just prefer you dropped the attitude when you do it.
If someone is looking for broadband, then until they explain more about what they're looking for, or prepared to accept, I'll offer advice on broadband services, and not midband and mobile alternatives. The right tool for the right job should always be selected first. The reason why mobile midband is so bad in this country is that far too many people are using it as broadband. Continuing to recommend it will make that even worse.To_be_confirmed wrote: »I think O2 can and should be mentioned in these threads, if the caveat of its lower performance is added.
If you read the two posts that recommend 3G services, you'll see that no such caveat was mentioned, and the service was being offered as a viable broadband solution, which it is most definitely not.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »That statement is frankly ridiculous.
I tend towards disagreement.
Midband is marketed as broadband when it simply cannot be broadband or anything close to it. If the mobile marketeers believe there own marketing then they should be using 3G services which in general they do not.
This forum is incredibly busy and 100's more posts about how bad midband actually is would just clutter it up no end. It's already hard enough to follow.
Midband has it's own forum where people can soon realize how bad the service actually can be. So they should post there and leave this forum for real broadband services.
The mobile marketeers hate the idea that midband has it's own forum as it exposes their nonsense to the cold light of day.0 -
I don't think you simply dismissed the service, you actually dismissed its existence. Saying O2 don't do broadband in the context of a student looking for internet access (which is often what's meant when someone says broadband nowadays) was more than a little disingenuous.I've explained that I gave advice about broadband providers, and that when a non-broadband service is mentioned, I dismissed it.
Someone who is ignorant of a difference is not going to ask a question about it in the first instance! And new members shouldn't have to ask for a CMod to clarify his lazy quip. Making a "statement of fact" like you did was never going to actually inform someone of why they were wrong for their comment, it was nothing more than a trite one-liner to shoot down the suggestion that O2 and Broadband could even be in the same sentence.jor el wrote:There's no assumption in my post, merely a statement of fact. Any question about this could be brought up, or others are free to add additional information, as you did. I'd just prefer you dropped the attitude when you do it.
I can accept this, but now that people simply equate broadband with internet access and don't have forewarning of Mobile non-broadband, we all need to be a bit more flexible in dealing with it. I'm not saying O2 et al should be recommended in the first instance. But if your average punter was looking for "broadband", I would mention mobile services out of sheer cost, and then point out the sub-standard solution it offers. I do see it working better for some people than for others so if someone is happy to take that risk and would be with no internet otherwise, then they should be informed of it here. The "broadband" forum has become more of a general "internet access" forum now, and many here wouldn't even think of the Nets & Comms forum if they had e.g. a phoneline issue. As a mod who has to move such posts, you know this well.If someone is looking for broadband, then until they explain more about what they're looking for, or prepared to accept, I'll offer advice on broadband services, and not midband and mobile alternatives. The right tool for the right job should always be selected first. The reason why mobile midband is so bad in this country is that far too many people are using it as broadband. Continuing to recommend it will make that even worse.
But your post wasn't about the lack of clarification, it was simply about mentioning O2 in a thread like this. And as I've referred to, even in just service quality the line between broadband and midband is not as clear cut as some here make it out to be (when it comes to general user experience). If people only want to use facebook and youtube, it could and sometimes does "work" (i.e. load faster) even better than my 1mbit Perlico connection does. To put it better, you can't say that someone *could not* like or effectively use a mobile internet service if they originally wanted broadband, for all its potential and continuous flaws. The differences in quality between mobile and e.g. cable or DSL become more academic for certain users, or else actual costs decide the issue before they even become aware that Mobile Internet as it is in this country could never be broadband.If you read the two posts that recommend 3G services, you'll see that no such caveat was mentioned, and the service was being offered as a viable broadband solution, which it is most definitely not.0 -
And here's an example of this stubbornness.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68613462
Someone declares that they are moving to midband for cost reasons. The next two posts consist primarily of how mobile internet isn't broadband and should be avoided. Though I readily admit that jor el's post had useful and practical advice not relating to midband which would still probably help the poster.
But to answer the OP's original question after informing him/her of the pitfalls? Heaven forbid, it would be too denegrating to suggest one provider over another in the relevant forum. Is it that hard to treat people like grown-ups? That's an attitude I have particular issue with in this forum and its subforum.0 -
-
-
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Which answer? Because I couldn't find the answer to "Which is better out of Meteor, Vodafone or O2?".
The problem is that none of them are "better". There are too many variables like distance from mast, no. of users on the cell site and so on. So there's simply no answer to that question. "How long is a piece of string" is the real question.
It may seem unsatisfactory as an answer but that's the way it is. It may be good today but it may be awful tomorrow who knows?0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't really accept that view. It's possible to differentiate between the three and add personal experiences for what they're worth. Differences can be qualitatively or even quantitatively shown. E.g. usage of EDGE on their network, throttling or pricing policy for excessive usage, all manner of customer care issues like how good their english, tech knowledge etc is, if they have a forum, if they can be contacted by twitter/facebook and so on. Then you have additional promotions that can come with the service, e.g. meteor's hotspot promotion.
So it's certainly possible to at least have indicators of which one would be better. It won't be possible to give a definitive answer but then I wouldn't apply that to eircom or UPC either, who can have very hit-and-miss service themselves.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Saying O2 don't do broadband in the context of a student looking for internet access (which is often what's meant when someone says broadband nowadays) was more than a little disingenuous.
You can continue making assumptions all you like, I've already explained that when someone asks about broadband, then they get broadband recommendations.To_be_confirmed wrote:And here's an example of this stubbornness.
Explain exactly how this is an example of stubbornness. First a one line answer is me "not being arsed" to answer, then a full and concise answer is me being stubborn. Do you even listen to yourself? You can't have it both ways. watty's response on that thread was also perfectly legitimate. Some looking to switch from DSL to 3G is looking for trouble. This should never be recommended.To_be_confirmed wrote:So it's certainly possible to at least have indicators of which one would be better. It won't be possible to give a definitive answer but then I wouldn't apply that to eircom or UPC either, who can have very hit-and-miss service themselves.
Statistical indicators are meaningless to the individual, which is why the only answer on which 3G service to chose is; try them all, and decide for yourself. Whatever works for you, the individual, is the only right answer. The speed survey, linked in my sig, would suggest that Three is not the worst provider, even though hundreds of posters on the Three Megathread would completely disagree. O2 are the worst, yet O2 works great for a lot of people. No one person's experience on 3G should have any bearing on what another chooses.
UPC, and eircom, have a much greater degree of control on their networks, and line capabilities, then 3G operators. Where you have problems with cable, there's often something that can be done. When there's a problem with 3G, that's mainly just the way it works, and nobody can change that.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »I can't really accept that view. I
Facts are facts and cannot be changed just to suit some statistical analysis.
The very nature of mobile systems means "contention" cannot be controlled. No matter how you jump up and down about it the laws of physics can't be changed to suit your world view and to answer the question about "which is best".
You need to try them all, even in city locations and find out which one works for you. Then you've got to hope to chance that not too many people use voice calls in that cell or just happen to roam in and then none of your neighbours decide to get a mobile service too.
That's why it's impossible to say which is best.
Which bit of this is difficult to understand?0 -
This debate is only expanding out in content and I don't have time to deal with it all. I'll say that pointing out a trite answer for what it was - lazy - and the underlying attitude behind it, stubbornness, in another thread are hardly contradictory. In one case, you were answering a question. In the other (this thread) you took aim at someone else's suggestion and shot it down without explaining yourself in the slightest. The stubbornness had nothing to do with how concise or not you were, it's the fact that you won't even consider giving one mobile internet provider the nod over another, just because they're mobile. If someone has to use a mobile provider of some sort, e.g. for mobility or availability reasons, surely they deserved some sort of relevant opinion, not some condescending attitude about how they shouldn't be used anyway.
You've also apparently completely forgotten about the comparisions that can be made between customer service, usage policies and promotions that can and do exist between these 3 companies. If a few users experience poor technical support, then it's quite likely the experience will be shared with other users who come up with similar technical problems. This is assuming that staff were trained in very similar ways, which is quite probable. On the one point you criticised my ideas of comparisons being advised upon, your comments are even shaky there. You've advised other people that any of their problems were inherent to mobile technology, yet the issue was still fixed somehow after contacting the relevant provider. Three in Tuam I think is an example of a thread in Midband. Regional variations in speeds do exist and shouldn't be ignored.
Basically, if this is a discussion forum, then it's up to other people to take on board or not the suggestions or experiences made by others. No one should be prevented from adding their experiences or be criticised for adding them, just because they might not be applicable. The sharing of real world experiences of broadband products lies behind much of the success of this forum. You shouldn't forget that.0 -
I'm not sure you're reading all of what I'm saying. I never said it would be possible to say what's best, I did say however that comparisons are possible and that some companies are going to have stronger and weaker points over others. I thought I clearly made that point. You might not have noticed, but contention is not the only problem with mobile internet, despite watty's exhaustive posts on the subject. And I don't remember jumping up and down about any laws of radio propagation or the nyquist shannon theorem either:rolleyes:Facts are facts and cannot be changed just to suit some statistical analysis.
The very nature of mobile systems means "contention" cannot be controlled. No matter how you jump up and down about it the laws of physics can't be changed to suit your world view and to answer the question about "which is best".
You need to try them all, even in city locations and find out which one works for you. Then you've got to hope to chance that not too many people use voice calls in that cell or just happen to roam in and then none of your neighbours decide to get a mobile service too.
That's why it's impossible to say which is best.
Which bit of this is difficult to understand?
If you took a moment to see my main point, you'd know that I wasn't trying to force anyone to pick one of the three companies as an answer. I just feel that it shouldn't be too much to ask for some sort of experience or suggestion to add to the discussion on which of the 3 would be better. Not a flippant "none of the above". That doesn't help anyone who has no choice but the three options. And I do accept the thread's case is different in that respect.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »This debate is only expanding out in content and I don't have time to deal with it all. I'll say that pointing out a trite answer for what it was - lazy - and the underlying attitude behind it, stubbornness, in another thread are hardly contradictory.
Sometimes real life gets in the way of a forum post, so there's not always time for concise answers. There was no stubbornness or lazyness, and you have completely failed to prove your point. Saying it again isn't proof. Back up your statements with fact, or accept that it is simply an opinion.To_be_confirmed wrote:it's the fact that you won't even consider giving one mobile internet provider the nod over another
This is something I will refuse to do, as it's meaningless. If you can't understand that, then you are the stubborn one, not me. I won't apologise for apparently understanding this technology better than you, I also will not offer an opinion that I myself know is biased, and irrelevant to the user. I use Vodafone midband, but I won't recommend it to you or anyone else in favour of O2, Three or Meteor.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »This debate is only expanding out in content and I don't have time to deal with it all.
All discussions about miband go in the midband forum...There's plenty of room for discussion there.
This is going round in circles, engineering facts are engineering facts and cannot be changed to suit somebodies view of the world. This isn't sociology it's (mostly) an engineering forum and we like to point out the issues as to why midband will never be a broadband substitute, no matter how well it's marketed.
It's still dialup with clever adverts.
Anyway that's the underlying reason there is a forum for midband only.0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »If you took a moment to see my main point, you'd know that I wasn't trying to force anyone to pick one of the three companies as an answer. I just feel that it shouldn't be too much to ask for some sort of experience or suggestion to add to the discussion on which of the 3 would be better. Not a flippant "none of the above". That doesn't help anyone who has no choice but the three options. And I do accept the thread's case is different in that respect.
Would it please you to know that certain cells are perfectly fine with my dongle but other cells are terrible. Is it any use to posters to know that my midband works well in cells X and Y but are terrible some of the time in Z and A. They'd have to be in my cell to figure that out and I am not going to tell anybody where I've found good service because lots of others will start to use it which defeats the whole purpose of me having midband. <sigh>
That's the end of my input to this thread as I've said a few times :
engineering is engineering and cannot be changed to suit a world view even if it's the DECNR's view and marketeers too. Wishful thinking never changed the facts.0 -
For better or worse humans are behind the technology that runs these services, so irrespective of technology i could still, hypothetically and realistically, find one company better than another. To say it again, customer service being one big example. I never made a point about radio engineering in my original views as there's plenty enough comparisons I would make before going into something inherently unpredictable. There's no need to be unreasonable about discussions, the world will not end if someone decides to suggest midband in the context of better alternatives to someone who may appreciate that suggestion. Even if it's the broadband forum.All discussions about miband go in the midband forum...There's plenty of room for discussion there.
This is going round in circles, engineering facts are engineering facts and cannot be changed to suit somebodies view of the world. This isn't sociology it's (mostly) an engineering forum and we like to point out the issues as to why midband will never be a broadband substitute, no matter how well it's marketed.
It's still dialup with clever adverts.
Anyway that's the underlying reason there is a forum for midband only.
Also, I'm still waiting to see how jor el's and watty's answers were satisfactory for the question at hand in that other thread. It's one thing to not be able to answer the question, quite another to rule out all possibilities of picking one over another and with the advantage of trial periods too.
And jor el, the only point I made with the "I'll say that pointing out a trite answer for what it was - lazy - and the underlying attitude behind it, stubbornness, in another thread are hardly contradictory" sentence was that no contradiction existed in my criticisms of those two posts. It's up to you to prove any logical clash or error there.
Once again, I put it to anyone that someone can feasibly recommend one company's customer service over another and that can be discussed in the context of an overall recommendation. Bringing up only the technical aspects, which I never disagreed with in and of themselves, is a nice aunt sally against the point I was trying to make, which I've repeatedly made now... And by the way, you do not have the right to decide what is or is not relevant for other users, only the user it was directed at can make that call0 -
Advertisement
-
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Also, I'm still waiting to see how jor el's and watty's answers were satisfactory for the question at hand in that other thread.
Read that thread again then. That poster is looking to save money, that's the sole reason for switching. If he's under the impression that he can achieve the same service on 3G, then he is wrong. Perhaps it will do, but no one can tell him which provider to chose, so stop trying to get me to say I can. The question in the thread was; Any thoughts/recommendations would be greatly appreciated. . If you think mine and watty's posts are unsatisfactory, then why don't you go and answer the question if you know so much about it.To_be_confirmed wrote: »It's up to you to prove any logical clash or error there.
And your proof? Where is the attitude in my post? How can one post be wrong because of lack of information, and another be wrong because of all the relevant information?To_be_confirmed wrote: »Once again, I put it to anyone that someone can feasibly recommend one company's customer service over another and that can be discussed in the context of an overall recommendation. Bringing up only the technical aspects, which I never disagreed with in and of themselves, is a nice aunt sally against the point I was trying to make, which I've repeatedly made now...
Customer service has little or nothing to do with broadband or midband, and should be only a very minor part in choosing. The opinions on customer care are even more variable than the speed you get with midband anyway. The technical aspects are the most important ones, and a product that isn't, and never will be, broadband, should never be a recommendation to someone looking for broadband. It may be their only choice, or the one that makes sense for their requirements, but when someone asks for broadband, they get broadband options.To_be_confirmed wrote: »And by the way, you do not have the right to decide what is or is not relevant for other users, only the user it was directed at can make that call
As I said, my opinion of which 3G provider to chose is irrelevant, as is yours, when someone is looking for one. Neither of us can tell someone else what to chose, and if you think you can, then you are deluded. One persons experience is irrelevant to another. Anyone that thinks they can give an accurate recommendation on which 3G Internet provider is best for any and every person looking at it, is a deluded fool. You simply can't do it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement