Breakthrough in dispute between Eircom and Doyle on DSL system

IrishRealist

I just got back from Hong Kong, they have competing high speed products:

8 Mbit/sec for approx EURO 35/month

6 Mbit/sec for approx EURO 28/month.

And we're going to pay 100+ EUR for 0.5 Mbit/sec.

Obviously it's better than nothing, but if insulin just became available here would we celebrate or cry?

Bard

Originally posted by IrishRealist


And we're going to pay 100+ EUR for 0.5 Mbit/sec.

Not quite... somewhere between €50 and €75 per month, it seems... which I, for one, would definitely pay. It's a lot better than the approx. €130 p/m that they were originally proposing.

However, it does still make us one of the more expensive places in the world for DSL.

Anyway... I think it'd be a good idea to get it available to all first, - have eircom release the iStream product and get some uptake on it from the punters, and THEN campaign for the price to be brought down in line with our European neighbours.

Canadian

We must walk before we run, Mr. Realist!

I'm sure this isn't an easy process for Eircom - deep down inside, they know that they're years behind and out of touch. That can't be an easy position to be in. I'm sure their expenses are huge - given the labour problems they have and the crap infrastructure they have to work with....And that mouse guy can't be cheap - he's really slick.

I say 'always on' is a great start, no matter how slow it is. They may also find out the same thing other countries did - that as they lower the price, the customer base increases exponentially, along with their revenue.

It has to be expensive at first as they could never deal with the demand if they sold if for 30 Euro.

Do what you do when you're sitting in your house waiting for a plumber. Shrug your shoulders and accept it.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Bard


Not quite... somewhere between ?50 and ?75 per month, it seems... which I, for one, would definitely pay. It's a lot better than the approx. ?130 p/m that they were originally proposing.

Well they've reduced the wholesale price from EUR75 down to EUR50 a reduction of EUR25.

The retail price (ex VAT) was EUR 105 so if they pass on the savings, it will be down to EUR80 retail (ex VATl. Add in the VAT and you are up to EUR96.80.

However, this assumes that they will pass on the savings. Remember the "margin squeeze" objection. Eircom may keep the retail price as it is in order to keep the margin high to satisfy the regulator.

Having said that, the priority should be to get the products out.

Frank Grimes

From the adsl.ie site

The product has both a USB port or ethernet option
Speeds are up to 512kbps downstream/128kbps upstream
Connection fee is 125 excl. VAT - Monthly fee is 110 excl. VAT
Additional equipment required: ADSL USB modem 145 excl. VAT or
ADSL Ethernet modem 200 excl. VAT
For eircom i-stream solo the monthly allowance is 3GB.**

That's 2 weeks old though. But I don't think it's going to be a case of passing on savings made from the reduction of the wholesale price.

SkepticOne

Thanks Mr Grimes. I was working from memory with the 105 price.

If Eircom decide to pass on the full savings from the reduction of the wholesale price we are down to EUR 102.85 retail price (inc. VAT).

However, as you say, it is unlikely that this full saving will be passed on. We are probably looking at about EUR 115 /month (inc. VAT).

This translates to £89 in old money or for comparison STG 71.

Currently the UK hold the proud distinction of having the most expensive broadband in Europe but it looks like this is about to change.

Frank Grimes

I guess it's just a matter of wait and see.
The whole DSL thing is turning into the net version of the making of 'Apocalypse Now'

dahamsta

I'm betting on €99 meself. Should we start a book?

adam

Frank Grimes

yeah, and the winner get's their DSL paid for by us for the year
They might go for the whole €99.99 marketing gimmick, but I can't see them giving away that extra cash they're saving. It's back to basic supply and demand imho, they have it, we want/need it etc.

dahamsta

Standard rule of business Frank: Never go back with the same price. Never, ever, no matter what your position. You can go up, you can go down, but you can't stay the same.

If Eircom come back with the same price, it'll just be another demonstration of their cluelessness. Like I said, I reckon they'll go down, and croon about it. And the meeja will love them for it.

If there's one thing Eircom /are/ good at, it's marketing.

adam

greys

about Hong Kong and such. They guys over there got their network deployed many years ago, and that means something. We're just going to get the thing started, and it would be surely more dearer. But I still think this is a good think (30% better that it was before, anyway). I also think, other companies would try to go as lower as they virtually can, just to take over the DSL in Ireland (or at least spoil everything for the Eircom).

About the cap: I think the importance of Eircom being forced to give DSL lines to competitors at a lower price is that THEY don't have to follow the same rules. They might not have a cap at all.

BTW, looking at some calculations, I wonder if we really have to pay for a line and for connection time in DSL? AFAIK, ISDN is the thing where you pay both. But DSL doesn't necessarily have to be the same. So, if seems possible to have 75-80 euros per month with no caps. Sound a hell better to me

dahamsta

Like I said greys, DSL comes over your current line, so you simply continue to pay the line rental on the line you already have. If you get a new line, well, you pay rental on that too. Why shouldn't you, it's a line, isn't it?

adam

Frank Grimes

Standard rule of business Frank: Never go back with the same price. Never, ever, no matter what your position. You can go up, you can go down, but you can't stay the same.

I agree completely with you dahamsta. It's just so much of what's gone on so far hasn't exactly made sense it's hard to know how it will go.

greys

You're probably right. I wasn't just sure it's going over my current phone line.

But at some point there should be a distinction between a cable modem line, meant to be there forever, up and running 24x7, and a regular phone line, which is going to have lower quality, but be more complex.

I think there should be a lower price on cable systems lines. Once they've got the line installed, they don't have to care about anything but the noise on the line. THat's easier than support a phone line, I believe.

PiE

Ok, let's just say eircom release ADSL for €99 next month. There's sure to be a 12month contract*. So no matter how much we campaign for lower prices after the release, the people who signed up are gonna be stuck paying this, right? Therefore I think it would be a better idea to continue to push for lower prices now.



*if not, disregard this post

dahamsta

Sorry Pie, but I gotta disagree with you (at least personally). DSL rollouts have to be managed, or it will get very messy. Neither Eircom or the competing ISP's will be able to cope with demand if the price is set too low, and the quality of service will be atrocious. That will result in an almost exact replica of the situation in the US, with people /afraid/ to sign up for service, because of all the horror stories. We have to avoid making the same mistakes as other countries.

Eircom had a point in setting the price so high, they just wanted to manage demand, and would have brought the price down anyway. They just got greedy, they wanted too much, far too much. But bringing the price down is the consumers task. The consumer has to pressure the ISP's, and the ISP's have to pressure the wholesaler. We also need external pressures, like new cable rollouts, and community and commercial WLAN's. And that will happen.

As to contracts, well, that's something people are just going to have to accept, and make a decision on. However, I think that competition will be very quick in coming, if not right from the off. Unless DSL is absolutely vital to users, it might be best to hold off until a couple of competitors come on-stream. I would certainly prefer to give my money to a forward-thinking new venture than to one of the current abusive members of the duopoly.

adam

yellum

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
I guess it's just a matter of wait and see.
The whole DSL thing is turning into the net version of the making of 'Apocalypse Now'

But Copollas end product was a magnificent piece of celluloid and the redux version which came out years later was even better.

I myself would probably pay around the €99. Now that I have left my present employer where I had full access to a nice 26mb line I need something faster than a 56k line so I can download nonsense quickly.

PiE

I don't mean to imply that we should shout "Stop the damn roll-out!", but just to keep highlighting the issue; that it's still waaaay too pricey.

If we don't people may take it for granted that DSL is so expensive. If they do that then the other companies that may come along won't feel the need to drop their prices much lower.

Typedef

Personally I think this is a right stitch up.
First off the notion that rural areas will be used as guinea pigs would worry me 'if I were the guinea pig' and secondly as has been pointed out 'probably' inumerate times, there has already been an adsl trial in Dublin.... so why would it have to be guinea pig tested outside the capital before implementation?
Bottom line, whats good for the Dublin economy is good for the macro Irish economy, we all live in the same country 'funnily enough', and to my mind this 'rollout' reeks of election bumpf and bluster, but perhaps I'm being overtly cynical.
The notion that the government will quoute 'in the next three years' implement some kind of broadband in Dublin is a nonesense, in three years for example computers will be 8-16ghz or more so the lexicon of IT companies in Dublin and their spinoff industries simply cannot wait that long, the government have a duty to foster IT in Dublin, not to simply attempt to pass off delays in it's implementation as being part of a guinea pig trial or 'somehow' denying broadband to Dublin as being in the 'national interest'.
Would the same be true of electricity? Surely if Dublin had no electricity companies would be encouraged to invest elsewhere, which is a concept I agree with, though I'm not so sure it would make them invest elsewhere in Ireland.

The one factor that gives me cause for redress from my sceptical machinations is that if the dispute between the ODTR and Eircom is now in a state of resolution, does this not mean that *stream products that errorcom put on hold will now come onstream?

jmcc

Originally posted by Typedef
Personally I think this is a right stitch up.
First off the notion that rural areas will be used as guinea pigs would worry me 'if I were the guinea pig' and secondly as has been pointed out 'probably' inumerate times, there has already been an adsl trial in Dublin.... so why would it have to be guinea pig tested outside the capital before implementation?

This is not a case of the areas outside of Dublin being used as guinea pigs for broadband. Some of the solutions that will work in these areas will not work in Dublin and vice versa.

As I pointed out in that locked thread, people seem to be getting this broadband strategy mixed up with LLU. Many of these non-Dublin solutions will not be active for about a year and LLU may already have happened in Dublin by that stage.

Connectivity wise, Dublin and indeed the larger cities in Ireland are in a far better position for fast rollout of broadband. Most of the cities in Ireland have cable systems which could with some investment be pushed into use for cable internet. Also the concentration of population allows for DSL solutions.

Wireless options also allow for a faster implementation of broadband and I think that the ex-Formus guys are trying to roll out such a solution in Dublin within the next few months.

It is not a question of Dublin being denied broadband while the rest of the country gets it. Taking it from a business viewpoint, the telcos have to examine how to implement broadband and recover costs. Most ISPs have traditionally lost money. A simple solution that some techies seem to think has merit is to play with the contention ratios for domestic and business users. Thus you may have something like a 100:1 contention ratio at the low end of the market - the bulk domestic rate and a significantly lower ratio at the top business end. Is this fair? Probably not in some eyes but from a business point of view, it makes sense.

Most of the telcos seem to realise that there will be increasing competition in the internet market from these new operations. Indeed I saw Deutsche Telekom registering a pile of .ie domains a few days ago so either they are looking at the Irish market or are just protecting their trademarks.

Regards...jmcc

SkepticOne

This is slightly off-topic here, but sticking with the subject of regional broadband...my main worry is that the early towns to be upgraded will be used as 'showcases' for technology that is in widespread use in other countries, thus causing us embarassment. Look at 'information age town' Ennis.

A second worry is that by doing one set of towns after another, natural private investment that might occur will be put off until after the upgrading has occurred since the project will involve installing a lot of the infrastructure that would otherwise be left to companies. Of course, it could be argued that this investment would not happen in the first place. However, I would argue that stronger regulatory powers should be implemented first and then supplement it later with public funds, if necessary.

All above IMHO.

dahamsta

What JMCC said. This downtrodden Dubliners thing is starting to get kind of annoying Typedef, and it's flying in the face of reality. For a start, we don't even know if this initiative is genuine, or if it's just more pre-election guff. Secondly, I'm not sure anyone knows what it really is - I certainly don't. And thirdly, if it's what I /think/ it is, simply fibre rings: 1) it remains to be seen if it will solve the problem they're highlighting themselves (last mile delivery); and 2) it will be bringing towns and cities up to level of Dublin, and not beyond it. In other words, it's intended to bring the rest of us up to /your/ level.

in three years for example computers will be 8-16ghz or more

Gordon Moore would turn in his grave. Well, he would if he was dead.

adam

Arboration

"s'behhur d'n ****'n nah'n."

jmcc

Originally posted by SkepticOne
This is slightly off-topic here, but sticking with the subject of regional broadband...my main worry is that the early towns to be upgraded will be used as 'showcases' for technology that is in widespread use in other countries, thus causing us embarassment. Look at 'information age town' Ennis.

I don't think it is intended to be like the Ennis Information Town. The underlying logic of that venture was faulty and it was largely the happy-clappy Rondomondo aspect of Eircom that pushed it forward. As a result you had every crackpot in Eircom thinking that it was a good thing while in reality it was just a bit of PR for Eircom.

The regional broadband strategy seems to be have been created by people who had a clue. If you look at it, some of the main towns are regional/local hubs. The phases II and III towns are all clustered around these hubs. The result is that you get a more logical, and indeed natural, growth pattern. This has another aspect - the establishment of strong local/regional hubs allows for a the creation of a locally orientated cluster of websites and services. I read somewhere that the value of a network increases with the number of people connected to it. With this, it would create a local drive to get services and businesses on the net.

A second worry is that by doing one set of towns after another, natural private investment that might occur will be put off until after the upgrading has occurred since the project will involve installing a lot of the infrastructure that would otherwise be left to companies. Of course, it could be argued that this investment would not happen in the first place. However, I would argue that stronger regulatory powers should be implemented first and then supplement it later with public funds, if necessary.

The creation of Phase I hubs may actually trigger some investment in these Phase II/III towns. In many of the towns it is often a case of dealing with Eircom or Esat. Eircom has really killed investment in internet projects with blackmail leased line pricing. One of the questions that comes up time and again is why get a leased line when you can rent a server in the US for a fraction of the cost? Now with these hubs, it may be possible to get local hosting that will in turn lead to local services/sites being more accessible. If these hubs use WiFi to facilitate access, then Eircom and Esat will have to get moving to compete and maintain their market share. In effect, these hubs will act as an incentive for competition and the rollout of broadband from the incumbents. The only way that Eircom could be 'encouraged' to move is by the introduction of competition and this is doing it the fast way. The problem for Eircom is that it went from being a largely debt free operation to a debt ridden hulk which will be assetstripped over the next few years. It is now in a far worse position to withstand competition than it was before the fire sale. Hub WiFi could provide the biggest threat to Eircom's DSL.

Regards...jmcc

dahamsta

I read somewhere that the value of a network increases with the number of people connected to it.

Metcalfe's Law?

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
I read somewhere that the value of a network increases with the number of people connected to it.

Metcalfe's Law?

adam

Ironically, the first few search results are entitled "Metcalf's Law in Reverse', which is pretty much what is happening here.

Typedef

I simply have difficulty in accepting that the government can forstall investment in the capital when so much of this state's money is generated from the capital it seems a little crass to simply refuse to reinvest it equally, and with respect seeing as how people are so vague on what will be implemented in the regions and in Dublin, is it not a little biased to argue against immediate governmental investment in Dublin on an equal basis, when you don't even know the logistics of the infrastructural difficulties you argue against? I mean if there are so many different possibilities for implementation in the capital of which people seem to be unaware of the vicissitudes, vague on the specifics, then how can you argue against bilateral implementation?

Clearly this country is being left behind because of the fiasco of privitisation that the government perpitrated, now, vis-a-vis some peoples view of Dublin as a quote 'old world industrial city' I could care less... vis-a-vis growing this economy and providing jobs for a sector that I have a vested interest in obviously that matters. Therefore, if there is government investment for broadband it is in my view as a person who lives in the capital, unacceptable that the government will put on a long finger investment in the capital's infrastructure for reason(x), for period(y). So I will not and do not accept a laissez faire argument with government investment in the capital why should I, what is in it for me? People were saying such a long finger policy would make sense, because it would 'iron out the bugs' or to paraphrase it would make 'guinea pigs' of the test areas. Furthermore I was under the impression that there was 'already' quite a bit of fiber optic cabeling traversing the country, therefore why spend more state money on more of it... is this not simply an example 'yet more' fragmented backbone?

Bottom line, rather than spending state money on this plan, Eircom should simply be put in place, other policies are simply interventionist big brother governance that does nothing to instill confidence in the Irish economy and gets government money involved where it need not be. Economics not politics should dictate when and where broadband becomes available, not some moronic governmental type's notion of making a techine town, that is a nonesense, that is not how you make money, that will not attract business, natural evolution of the sector will and all that is really required for that is for eircom's rod to be removed.

Really, it is unfair not to give proportinal investment to the greatest single body of citizens in the Republic, not only is it unfair, but misleading in it's supposed proportion of investment 'when to really invest in broadband you must tackle the capital'. Really I don't notice many people from Dublin calling for the government to invest in the regions first, Adam you live in Cork, jmcc you live in Waterford, Typedef obviously lives in Dublin, so I'm not saying you are biased, far from it, but perhaps you don't have quite the same perspective on this issue as I would.

This is my rifle this is my gun
This is for god and this is for fun

jmcc

Originally posted by Typedef
Really, it is unfair not to give proportinal investment to the greatest single body of citizens in the Republic, not only is it unfair, but misleading in it's supposed proportion of investment 'when to really invest in broadband you must tackle the capital'.

Just explain again what the Dublin Media Lab and the Dublin Digital Hub are again. (Apart from an obvious waste of money intended to please the happy-clappy clueless in the Irish Times and the SBP ) Then explain about all the grants those now dormant datacentres got to establish in Dublin. Then explain about the internet related businesses in Dublin that get grants which don't have to be spent on paying for overpriced leased lines and or internet connections from Eircom.

Much of this investment strategy is about creating an infrastructure for broadband in these areas. Due to complete underinvestment by successive governments and a corrosively dominant telco monopoly, these places were damaged far more than any part of Dublin. These investments are intended to restore balance. Internet access is not yet a right (though it should be). However much you may like to represent Dublin as being the cornerstone of the Irish economy, this is a democracy and in a democracy, each citizen and business should have an equal right to the best and most efficient internet access. (I'd better get a cup of coffee now before I start quoting Thomas Paine. )

Regards...jmcc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by jmcc
Just explain again what the Dublin Media Lab and the Dublin Digital Hub are again. (Apart from an obvious waste of money intended to please the happy-clappy clueless in the Irish Times and the SBP ) Then explain about all the grants those now dormant datacentres got to establish in Dublin.

Are you using these as an example of how Internet access is much better in Dublin? None of these affect the reality for the bulk of home users or very small businesses in Dublin which is metered 56k or metered ISDN.

Don't get me wrong, though. At the level of larger businesses, there is a major advantage to operating in Dublin. There's a far more competitive leased-line market there. If these regional broadband projects address this imbalance then that's a good thing, IMO.

yellum

Another thread turned into a whine about how poor old Dublin is being discriminated against. Remind again where all the Eircom DSL trials are and where Eircom will be rolling out first. Isn't eap.ie rolling out in Dublin first ? Isn't NTL doing cable modems in Dublin and no limits during the weekend in Dublin ?

Why don't you all just start a fresh thread about Dublin Discrimination and keep the whining to that thread besides polluting every other thread in this forum.