E-net, what are they doing in Kiltimagh?

glav100

Even if it was not a problem to connect to the backbone, Rural Ireland would still not be connected. If I had gone to Kiltimagh and got connected to a lit MANs and got the bandwidth I wanted it would be in my own hands to a certain point to provide BB to customers. But if I want to avail of the Government Grants I would be hung with red tape. For example Westnet were 8 months behind in getting BB to my house. And there services are very limited to the home user. Do we really need a 1Mb to view web pages? If you browse the Internet at 64kb/sec it will be OK its when you want to download Music, movies, pdf's, large pics and so forth that you need the bandwidth. So why is it anytime I want to download a file of just 10Mb that the speed drops to less than 64Kbs. (and that is Kbs and not KBs). In my view if that is the case it is not BB. Companies that set up a WISP do not want this but the fact of it is the uptake is to slow to justify getting any more bandwidth. In kiltimagh the MAN's is not connected because the one company that would make a difference to it is not willing to use it if it was lit. That company is CMS and this is good business sense for them. If eircom provide enough bandwidth for then through they're several BB business accounts why should they use MAN's. Oh wait if it was cheaper they would.

Basically I could find places to connect and it would cost but it would be the recurring costs that make the difference.

I would require the bandwidth for more than just WISP.

As for a mickey mouse company providing the backhaul for e-net. I was dropped a name and if it were true I would not use them. But I have given my word and shall keep it.

And if it were true then it would be unlikely that anything greater that 155 would be provided. Unless the one company using it would incur the cost.

bminish

glav100 wrote:

So why is it anytime I want to download a file of just 10Mb that the speed drops to less than 64Kbs. (and that is Kbs and not KBs). In my view if that is the case it is not BB.

You would be well advised to learn the difference between KBytes per second and Kbits per second before entering the ISP market.

You are on a 1Mb bursting service this gives you 1024Kbs/sec for the first 30 seconds of any sustained download, after 30 seconds this will scale back to 512Kbs per second.

512Kbs (Kbits) = 64 KB (KBytes)
To compare with good dialup
48Kbs = 6KB

Since we reconnected you a few days ago following your unauthorised access to our CPE that took place from your premises (which required a site visit to resolve), You have downloaded just a shade under 6GB and uploaded more than 100MB. Your speed is usually hitting the upper limit of 512Kbs for sustained downloads for your service level as explained above. I have the server logs to back this up.

Your latency (ping time) to boards.ie when your connection is not full to your service level is around 12 msec.

lastly any further attempts to gain unauthorised access westnet owned equipment from your IP will result an a suspension of service.
.brendan

lucernarian

lol, burn....

Are WestNet interested in using the MAN in Kiltimagh or will it remain unused?

SkepticOne

cgarvey wrote:

MANs are a waste of money, IMO. I'm merely saying there's no point in wasting more money, in putting up bonded wireless links to match the fibre's Gbps rating, until the demand is there. I'm merely pointing out that they're easier to add later, if demand warrants it.

A very similar argument was used by Eircom and their regulator before DSL was available anywhere. Why bother spending money on it if there is little or no demand? It is like building a town in the middle of nowhere and then using the fact that no one lives there to justify not building roads out to it. While this argument is still made, such comments are thankfully rare, thanks to the efforts of IrelandOffline.

watty

There is a difference between doing nothing and providing a 155Mbps and full fiber capacity. That is adequate to connect about 100 to 500 people at some contention. More can be added later. It's not the same only providing pair gained fax speed dialup with no flat rate charge. I don't think it is a fair comparison.

bminish

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Are WestNet interested in using the MAN in Kiltimagh or will it remain unused?

Yes we would use it, if lit.

.brendan

SkepticOne

watty wrote:

That is adequate to connect about 100 to 500 people at some contention.

Good. Or a much lower number of people at internationally acceptable bandwidth.

I think it would be be more constructive to start looking at how this bandwidth can be cost-effectively distributed to the people? What are the prices of this bandwidth? If no company is taking it up at the current prices and the fibre is remaining unlit why aren't prices coming down? It is surely better to make some money at a lower price than no money. What is the lead time for delivering the service? How can that be got down? And so on.

We should be looking at more than just getting rid of splitters.

glav100

Brendan I am not downloading anything near 512kb/s. I am downloading under 64kb/s. I do not even need to look at the download speed to know this as all I need todo is look at the time taken to download. Not saying your records are not as you say they are but are they correct. I have mentioned this to your colleague already and am waiting for a reply. I am talking about Kbps not KBps. small 'b' for bit and capital 'B' for Bytes. My downloads run at 55 Kbps on average. It is not wise to use Bytes even though eight-bit byte architectures dominate today. It's to easy to confuse the two acronyms and virtually everyone use bps. I have never checked my Internet speed using a java browser application or a local application and got a download speed of 512kb/s or more it is always well under. Yes you sent a technician to my house and he said he checked my download speed for a 1MB file and he got a result of 512kb/s. Exactly 512kb/s, wow that is good bandwidth scaling.

It simply is not even close to this.

And, Mr. Minish you are very lucky man that I am not a malicious person because after you posting to a public board information about my account be it true or not, you could find yourself in a lot of hot water. Kindly be more professional and do not do the same again. As for my router been accessed from my premises, it tuck a 16 year old 10 minutes to do that. And again if I was malicious I would post the method on how do this. But keep in mind that it was not hacked in any way. Nothing that complex.

bminish

glav100 wrote:

Brendan I am not downloading anything near 512kb/s. I am downloading under 64kb/s. I do not even need to look at the download speed to know this as all I need todo is look at the time taken to download.

Since my post this morning you have downloaded another 1.5Gb. and uploaded another 40Mb Can you please explain how exactly you have managed this in 5 hours on your '64kbs' connection.

Not saying your records are not as you say they are but are they correct. I have mentioned this to your colleague already and am waiting for a reply.

My colleague replied to your e-mail yesterday, After first checking with me on your current service level.
My records are accurate and very detailed

I am talking about Kbps not KBps. small 'b' for bit and capital 'B' for Bytes. My downloads run at 55 Kbps on average. It is not wise to use Bytes even though eight-bit byte architectures dominate today. It's to easy to confuse the two acronyms and virtually everyone use bps.

You are getting in excess of 52 KBytes per second averaged over the last 5 hours.
It is you who are confused on this matter. Perhaps you should revert to dial-up for the purposes of a comparison?

I have never checked my Internet speed using a java browser application or a local application and got a download speed of 512kb/s or more it is always well under.

Using which site please? some of these sites are half way around the world, Clock a download from HEAnet or other well peered European site.
In addition to this may of these Java applications do not upload large enough files to accurately test upload speeds if they are more than a few hops away.

Yes you sent a technician to my house and he said he checked my download speed for a 1MB file and he got a result of 512kb/s. Exactly 512kb/s, wow that is good bandwidth scaling.

yes it is good bandwidth scaling, as in it works as I described earlier. You are getting your service level in full.

And, Mr. Minish you are very lucky man that I am not a malicious person because after you posting to a public board information about my account be it true or not, you could find yourself in a lot of hot water. Kindly be more professional and do not do the same again.

You are making inaccurate and defamatory claims about your ISP (My company) in a public forum. If you have a support issue bring it to us though the normal support channels please.
I simply countered your claims in the interests of protecting my company's reputation in a public forum and I have disclosed no personal information.

As for my router been accessed from my premises, it tuck a 16 year old 10 minutes to do that. And again if I was malicious I would post the method on how do this. But keep in mind that it was not hacked in any way. Nothing that complex.

You did make various unauthorised changes to the CPE (our property) eventually breaking your connection. Any further activity of this nature WILL result in you having your service suspended permanently.

Kindly refrain from posting wildly inaccurate claims about the service that we are providing you with and take up any remaining support issues you may have with us via our normal support channels.

.brendan

glav100

used this site http://www.irishisptest.com

The bandwidth test is provided by Blacknight on their servers in Dublin.
The network is peered with the Irish Internet Neutral Exchange (INEX), in Data Electronics.
Most of the other bandwidth tests you may find are based outside Ireland, so their results are not as accurate for Irish users.

po0k

glav100 wrote:

Brendan I am not downloading anything near 512kb/s. I am downloading under 64kb/s. I do not even need to look at the download speed to know this as all I need todo is look at the time taken to download. Not saying your records are not as you say they are but are they correct. I have mentioned this to your colleague already and am waiting for a reply. I am talking about Kbps not KBps. small 'b' for bit and capital 'B' for Bytes. My downloads run at 55 Kbps on average. It is not wise to use Bytes even though eight-bit byte architectures dominate today. It's to easy to confuse the two acronyms and virtually everyone use bps. I have never checked my Internet speed using a java browser application or a local application and got a download speed of 512kb/s or more it is always well under. Yes you sent a technician to my house and he said he checked my download speed for a 1MB file and he got a result of 512kb/s. Exactly 512kb/s, wow that is good bandwidth scaling.

It simply is not even close to this.

And, Mr. Minish you are very lucky man that I am not a malicious person because after you posting to a public board information about my account be it true or not, you could find yourself in a lot of hot water. Kindly be more professional and do not do the same again. As for my router been accessed from my premises, it tuck a 16 year old 10 minutes to do that. And again if I was malicious I would post the method on how do this. But keep in mind that it was not hacked in any way. Nothing that complex.

Bandwidth is in bits, rate is in bytes.

Please stop.

glav100

So do I take it that when I see my internet speed represented in bps this mean Bytes per second and not bit rate per second.

bminish

glav100 wrote:

So do I take it that when I see my internet speed represented in bps this mean Bytes per second and not bit rate per second.

Generally the following applies
bps = bits per second
Bps = Bytes per second

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bits_per_second

.brendan

Capt'n Midnight

Drapper wrote:

REmeber what we said about LUAS ??

that each luas line provices the equilivant of 3 QBC's but it cost the same as a decade subsidy to Dublin Bus,
I wouldn't begrudge it as much if the same govt had supplied Dublin Bus with the 200 buses they requested 6 years ago...

it's just a shame there is so much dark fibre
condidering the INCREASE in the cost of houses all new ones could have had FTTH for a negligable cost increase, even ducting that third parties could use to a central box per estate.

I've posted before, telecomutting could save on new roads. on that basis it could be cheaper to upgrade/rebuild our comms network than to build more roads.

watty

Using various irish speed tests I get about 1Mbps down and 512kbps up on my 3Mbps/512Mbps account.
I'm happy with that.
1) The speed varies a lot with time of day. The package is a contented package, not Smart or Magnet DSL2 without contention.
2) I'm on a 5 year old Laptop with only 11Mbps Wifi
3) Two other Laptops (54Mbps) are on the same MIMO wifi
4) Server, 3 PCs and DMZ PS2 might be doing stuff
5) I have no idea what the other users are doing.

6) If I try on LAN with PC at odder times of day and when no-one else is using Internet here I get close to the 3Mbps.

Speed tests are usually in Bits Per Second.

Firefox, FTP and IE Explorer are actual Bytes not bits per second.

Due to protocol overheads etc your actual bps is less than package bps. Actual Bytes per second download would typically be 1/10th "package bps ordered" rather than simple 8 bits per byte. But with compression and certian types of data your Bytes can be 1/4 of "package bits per second". Jpeg, MPEG, MP3, GIF, TIF, DivX, WMA will not compress and may even get bigger if the site tries on-the-fly compression as they are already compressed till they squeak! Not good things to "zip" unless there is adaptive no-compress option.

cgarvey

SkepticOne wrote:

A very similar argument was used by Eircom and their regulator before DSL was available anywhere.

Ah come off it!!

The MAN is built. Nobody has been served by it. I agree they should light it, otherwise it's a complete waste of money. However, I'm saying that the priority should not be to get fibre-capacity backhaul, until such time that there is demand to support that but, rather, to scale the backhaul to suit the demand. It's in no way similar to DSL, the LUAS or any other bizarre analogies like that.

"MANs are a waste of money comments" are not rare, with most coming from IrelandOffline members and committee alike, so I'm not sure what your latter point was refering to. MANs were a political stunt with little planning and shared thinking. Yes, we should finish what we started (whether it was right or wrong), but to compare the arguments for MANs vs. DSL provision is laughable, IMO.

Sponge Bob

MANs have made a BIG BIG difference in the larger towns where they are up and running, Galway Limerick and Cork come to mind.

Thanks to MANs together with ESB fibre those larger towns have widespread LLU and also Fibre Carriers to your office offering 5mbits for €500 a month on a 95th percentile basis (means you can burst WELL above 5mbits for 24 hours a month) and no contention .

Compared to what was on offer in those towns only 3 years back the Mans are MANna from heaven in technological terms.

Altreab

Sponge Bob wrote:

MANs have made a BIG BIG difference in the larger towns where they are up and running, Galway Limerick and Cork come to mind.

Thanks to MANs together with ESB fibre those larger towns have widespread LLU and also Fibre Carriers to your office offering 5mbits for €500 a month on a 95th percentile basis (means you can burst WELL above 5mbits for 24 hours a month) and no contention .

Compared to what was on offer in those towns only 3 years back the Mans are MANna from heaven in technological terms.

Basically if it wasnt for the MAN's connected to ESB and ESATBT fibre there would be no real broadband availibility in Ireland today. Eircom have a LOT of dark fibre around the place. what a waste!!!

eircomtribunal

Altreab wrote:

Basically if it wasnt for the MAN's connected to ESB and ESATBT fibre there would be no real broadband availibility in Ireland today. Eircom have a LOT of dark fibre around the place. what a waste!!!

The bulk of today's broadband in Ireland is supplied via Eircom's fibre and copper network. The smaller MAN's have no function in the supply.
How much MAN-power are SMART (!), Digiweb, Magnet and BT using? Is it mostly the mobile operators who avail of the State fibre network?
P.

thegills

How much MAN-power are SMART (!), Digiweb, Magnet and BT using? Is it mostly the mobile operators who avail of the State fibre network?

You should contact e-net directly for answers to questions like this as any answer here probably won't be acurate.
thegills

oscarBravo

Notwithstanding thegills' reply (which is correct), a note in support of the MANs: we had to build our own licenced wireless infrastructure from Galway to Mayo last year, because there were no backhaul options in Mayo. Now that the Ballina MAN has been lit, we are in a much better position to source redundant backhaul suppliers.

Altreab

eircomtribunal wrote:

The bulk of today's broadband in Ireland is supplied via Eircom's fibre and copper network. The smaller MAN's have no function in the supply.
How much MAN-power are SMART (!), Digiweb, Magnet and BT using? Is it mostly the mobile operators who avail of the State fibre network?
P.

Maybe i should rephrase what i said .... If there were no MANs ESB and Esat Fibre Networks Eircom would still be telling us that Broadband isnt needed or wanted. The availibility of them allowed a significant "workaround" the Eircom stranglehold.

watty

The problem with the MANs was no plan from customer to MAN and no backhaul in Plan. If Eircom was not such a strangle hold they would not be used much, but as it is some are (under) utilised in connecting backhaul ESB & BT/CIE fiber etc to other sites and masts.

SkepticOne

watty wrote:

The problem with the MANs was no plan from customer to MAN

I doubt if a government department would be allowed to create an alternative last mile in direct competition with Eircom. Probably not a good thing if they were to do this either. Better that the last mile is provided for by competing companies.