Broadband Capping - Why?

LegacyUser

There is no point in getting angry over rumored prices and capping. This is still being decided by Eircom at present. Getting angry only irritates others and drives them away. Nobody will be forced to purchase Eircom's ADSL afterall.

LegacyUser

ba i just worried about this pay as you use ****, will just mean a convertion over to a system like the per minute one we have except per mb, were telecos get charged a % on every mb downloaded then pass it one,

And of course lads with will lead to on and off peak, bandwidh is more expenisve on peak so the per mb charge is higher on peak

I sya stop this now, one you say some charge on a bandwidth basic is ok, then you open a flood gate

sceptre

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:


Its is a total disgrace, at 70 pounds a month they are lining their pockets, you would want to be be some heavy heavy user with some HUGE hard drive space to actually coast them money,
maybe .5% of users,
</font>

Often that .5% (or whatever) is effectively contributing to the profit in any case by recommending the service on. I always knew that I was costing Esat money but got them about 30 extra customers through direct referrals

Any cap of less than 10gigs or over won't get me on the service, if someone came out with a 24/7 unmetered 56k option, 10 gigs could be exceeded on that anyway. Economic sense from the POV of Seamus Ryan, consumer would indicate that.

sceptre

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Skeptic1:


2. By giving users a quota of 'free' megabytes, you are encouraging them to use up this amount at the end of the billing period.
</font>

Agreed - look at all the downloading done via Napster during that 3 day period last year - 71% increase.

(moderately offtopic in an ontopic sort of way
Even with my mobile, i tend to phone people for no reason rather than see the minutes go away (then again, I'm odd in that regard - if they gave me unlimited minutes, I'd probably use it less than I do now). the girlfriend is the opposite - last we checked she had 920 offpeak minutes available to her - for some reason the "Phone a friend" minutes are converting into real minutes at the end of every billing period - unlimited minutes and she'd never be off the damn phone.

LegacyUser

i totaly agree sceptre, you see thios is were 24/7 interent was a great for broadband, because they knew with a cap it wouldnt fly

LegacyUser

"In the US its around $10 per 5GB."

I've co-located servers in the US, where I pay $0.57 per GB for 175GB of monthly traffic.

If Eircom charges a small fee such us £2 per additional GB downloaded, IMHO that would be fair. That said, I think they should take the same route taken by 99% ADSL providers and not charge for bandwidth.

LegacyUser

This is my understanding of things.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Bandwidth increases in quantums of telco installation investment.

Throughput has a hard upper limit imposed by available bandwidth. Once that limit is reached additional users lower each individuals throughput.


Components of cost of DSL:

Installing Quality Local Loop Cable - one off, but probably most expensive part of rural DSL

Maintaining Local Loop Cable - ongoing inflation related cost

Installing intra-exchange bandwidth - one off

Maintaining intra-exchange bandwidth - ongoing inflation related cost

Installing backbone bandwidth - one off

Maintaining backbone bandwidth - ongoing inflation related cost

Each section of the above can be provided by a different telco. In each case they will base their pricing on being able to maintain the existing infrastructure, depreciate the installation costs and make a profit.
AFAIK telcos offer both bandwidth and throughput pricing for exchange and backbone.
I do not know how the DSL LL will be priced.
Presumeably the end user is the customer for the LL.

For the others:
If the customer buys bandwidth they are assured of that bandwidth at all times,
but have an upper limit on data throughput.
Installation investment is triggered by customer demand.

If the customer buys data throughput, they
only pay for what they use but have no guarantees as to the bandwidth they will get.
The telco will usually have internal bandwidth limits that trigger further installation investment to stop the customer moving provider.

An ISP is a customer to these telcos.
It buys exchange bandwidth/throughput and backbone bandwidth/throughput.

It could sell it flat rate as follows:

No guarantees: bandwidth and throughput are entirely dependent on number of customers and level of usage. The bandwidth/throughput the ISP buys is directly related to number of customers, not level of usage. It may attempt some performance balancing by buying more bandwidth from busy exchanges.

Bandwidth guarantees: the ISP guarantees average bandwidth for the rental period.
To ensure this, heavy users pay more.
This could be via grading, premium payments or use restriction/cutoff.

Cost guarantees: The ISP guarantees
a maximum bill for the rental period.
Bigger bills allow greater usage.
To ensure this, use is restricted/cutoff as the limit is reached and overruns are deducted from the following rental periods.

I am not sure if DSL supports restriction mechanisms.
If not cutoff, cost and deduction penalties would have to suffice.

The no guarantees model is usually rejected because of customer complaints.

Can anyone suggest another model that allows the ISP to make a profit and allow for changing use patterns?

LegacyUser

Hope this helps

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">


1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?</font>

Bitstream unbundling is where eircom still own and physically manage the line. eircom then stream off agreed bandwidth eg 2Mb to the OLO's equipment co-located at the exchange. eircom therefore have the ability to constrain the bandwidth to the access seeker.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
2. Will Eircom be the sole provider of bandwidth to the exchanges?</font>

Any operator can supply bandwidth to the access seekers equipment in the exchange. or eircom can agree to backhaul it to a different point of interconnect.

eircom are the only operator allowed to attatch equipment to and manipulate the subscriber line, so they effectively control what bandwidth can be delivered to the consumer.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3. If 2., will Eircom be free to charge for this bandwidth on whatever basis they choose?</font>

No, rates for bandwidth are published and non-discrinatory (though I doubt they're cost orientated)

LegacyUser

has any1 any idea what the setup charge will be. Im on highspeed at the moment mainly for gaming purposes but will most likely switch to adsl.

Will they accomodate those of use who hav highspeed without making us pay disconnection fees to change back to pstn lines and then adsl installation fee aswell.

Shouldnt those of us who have been giving them the majority of their money (highspeed+isdn users) get some sort of deal to avoid paying the extra costs of going back to pstn

LegacyUser

its £99 to convert from isdn back to normal,
and you have to do this in order to test for adsl, then if your line cant take it, its another £99 to upgrade,

best thing to do is get a new line installed

LegacyUser

Yes I am inclined to agree with you regarding getting an extra line.

I originally had two lines and when I had ISDN installed I kept the remaining analogue line even though Eircom were offering a discount if I surrendered it.

I decided to keep it in case ADSL became available. If the ADSL line is successful (if I ever get one) I can always terminate the ISDN account.

It is interesting to note that if you fill in the application form for ADSL on the ESAT site you are asked if the line being converted is an ordinary Voice Line or an ISDN line.

LegacyUser

hold on were you still paying rental, or was it just sitting there attached,

LegacyUser

If you are not paying rental you do not have a line (ok you may have a length of wire going as far as the street, but that does not guarantee anything). When Eircom install a phone they usually put in extra pairs (in my apartment there were three pairs)

When I first moved into my apartment seven years ago it was close to impossible to get a telephone line in the Dublin 1 area, you had to take your place in a Queue behind Roches, Arnotts, etc.

Due to a fortunate chain of events I had the opportunity to purchase three lines and I did so. A few years later my cousin purchased an apartment next door to mine but as he was unable to have a phone installed within a reasonable amount of time I transferred one of mine but retained two (one for voice and one for data).

If I ceased paying rent on any of these lines it may be impossible to get it re-installed as there may not be sufficient capacity at the exchange.

I believe that Eircom have got around this problem by installing boxes which allow say 20 physical lines at the pavement service 40 lines within a block of apartments (I have not read up on this so my description may be inaccurate but you should get the picture) ... the problem with this has just come to light - if you live in a block or street so wired you cannot be offered ADSL as ADSL requires dedicated copper. So at this stage I believe that paying rent for the remaining analogue line is worthwhile.

LegacyUser

still it seems liek alot of money, at you must be paying close to 75 pounds each bill just in line rental between the isdn and the normal one

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by infomat:

It is interesting to note that if you fill in the application form for ADSL on the ESAT site you are asked if the line being converted is an ordinary Voice Line or an ISDN line.</font>

They're probably asking that so they know whether to bother getting in touch with you at all.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. Is this what is known as 'bitstream' unbundling?

Bitstream unbundling is where eircom still own and physically manage the line. eircom then stream off agreed bandwidth eg 2Mb to the OLO's equipment co-located at the exchange. </font>

This isn't, in fact bitstream unbundling, but it is similar to what bitstream unbundling would have been. Bitstream unbundling, as we all know, died a death (yay!) some months back. This is just a regulated wholesale DSL service.

The main difference is in the type of restrictions placed on Eircom. With a regulated DSL service Eircom is obliged to offer the OLO's the same services as it offers itself, on the same terms it offers itself.

Bitstream unbundling would have placed additional restrictions on Eircom, which would have reduced their ability to hold the market to ransom, for example, by deciding not to launch a DSL service at all.

So superfically, they look the same, but in reality there is a subtle but significant difference.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
eircom therefore have the ability to constrain the bandwidth to the access seeker.
</font>

This is a little misleading. Eircom don't have the ability to constrain bandwidth to the access seeker, except by choosing to restrict bandwidth to themselves, since they have to offer themselves the same products as they offer the OLOs. In reality, there are plenty of good reasons for restictions of this sort when sharing DSLAMs, and it is regarded as 'best practice' for wholesale DSL services worldwide - (Verizon and BT, to name but two, do the same)

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">eircom are the only operator allowed to attatch equipment to and manipulate the subscriber line, so they effectively control what bandwidth can be delivered to the consumer.</font>

Yes and no. It is a technical reality that shared DSLAMs have to have bandwidth to them carefully divvied up. In effect, it means that the LEC has to set a standard and stick to it. This is not about 'controlling bandwidth' - just good engineering.

However, it does highlight one of the reasons why bitstream unbundling wouldn't have done a whole lot to increase consumer choice.


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 25-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 25-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hudson806:
This is not about 'controlling bandwidth' - just good engineering.
</font>

Agreed...apologies about being misleading with regard to bit stream, it wasn't my intention.

I was attempting to highlight a distinction between full LLU and bitstream......The fact that eircom as the only operator allowed to attach equipment at the exchanges means that they control (as is their right) the realisable bandwidth.

With regard to the current DSL wholesale product...I am aware that as eircom are about to launch their own version they have to accomodate a wholesale offering for OLO's (I don't think they have been forthcoming about the wholesale price yet).

But has bitstream bitten the dust?

I know that only esat were making noises about wanting access but weren't going to proceed under the original prices issued by eircom (which were subsequently revised downward to an EU average by the ODTR), but I wasn't aware that bitstream as a service offering was finished......possibly made redundant by forthcoming wholesale DSL.

dahamsta

eircom as the only operator allowed to attach equipment at the exchanges means that they control (as is their right) the realisable bandwidth.

The equipment itself is an important factor too though, in that Eircom would control the technology available. In other words, Eircom would be able to, for example, supply ADSL but not SDSL, which would allow them to retain some of their medium-sized leased line customers who needed to serve from the office. That's why bitstream was only good as a stopgap, and why the OLO's weren't all that pushed about dropping it - it became obvious that by the time bitstream came in, LLU wouldn't be that far off.

But has bitstream bitten the dust?

Almost, but not quite. Esat are the only OLO not to drop out of the bitstream program, however I gather that they only stayed in to "punish" Eircom, by agreement with the other operators. I doubt there's much testing going on, I think it was really just a token gesture to annoy Eircom and make a point to the ODTR. I can't back that up as fact, but I have it on good authortity.

adam

LegacyUser

could someone please point out the major difference between llu and bitsream,

i know in general, but ive little details,

i thought esat was in llu trials, if no one is in llu then why did the odtr publish prices for llu, and if these prices are in fact for bitsream why call it llu

LegacyUser

The difference between bitstream and LLU relates to the amount of control that passes to the new entrant. Both have differing legal bases for introduction. LLU has been operational in Ireland since January 1st and the ODTR has determined prices and supported the implementation of operational arrangements such as processes etc. Bitstream is under discussion with working groups, and an autumn launch is planned. The ODTR gave the Ireland Offline committee a full rundown on developments at our recent meeting. Should any of the committee require an update, the ODTR will be happy to do so.
Aileen Canning
Project Manager - LLU and Bitstream, ODTR

LegacyUser

The difference between bitstream and LLU relates to the amount of control that passes to the new entrant. Both have differing legal bases for introduction. LLU has been operational in Ireland since January 1st and the ODTR has determined prices and supported the implementation of operational arrangements such as processes etc. Bitstream is under discussion with working groups, and an autumn launch is planned. The ODTR gave the Ireland Offline committee a full rundown on developments at our recent meeting. Should any of the committee require an update, the ODTR will be happy to do so.
Aileen Canning
Project Manager - LLU and Bitstream, ODTR

LegacyUser

"LLU has been operational in Ireland since January 1st"

so how many lines have been unbundled,
lets see how many lines in 6 months, at least 100,000? no, 10,000 then? no 10 then? no, not one line unbundled, yea i dont think the job is finished yet

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:

so how many lines have been unbundled,
lets see how many lines in 6 months, at least 100,000? no, 10,000 then? no 10 then? no, not one line unbundled, yea i dont think the job is finished yet
</font>

You know, Gladiator, you should probably try and be a bit more polite to AC - she's doing her best to keep us all informed (probably not something that's officially in her job description...).

AC - welcome to the boards. This is probably the only country I've seen where the Regulator takes the trouble to involve people like this. Much appreciated, hopefully by everyone here (except Gladiator )

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 27-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

shes not a Regulator shes a civil servant,
and sorry i asked what the difference between llu and bitsream was, and what i got was some spin

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
shes not a Regulator shes a civil servant,
and sorry i asked what the difference between llu and bitsream was, and what i got was some spin</font>

What you got was the difference in regulatory terms. Which is precisely the sort of information you should expect to get from the Regulator's office.

Here's the technical difference: With LLU, Eircom gives the OLO the pair of copper wires that terminates in the exchange and basically says, "Hook that up to whatever you want - ADSL, SDSL, whatever, we don't care as long as it doesn't do any damage"

With Bitstream, Eircom takes the copper wire and plugs it into their equipment(DSLAMs etc.). An OLO send their own data over that line, but using Eircom's DSLAM.

And Gladiator, to reiterate: Please stop being obnoxious to people who are trying to be helpful. I get the feeling that I speak for more than a few people on the boards on this issue...

Oh, and in terms of numbers, I think you'll find that OLOs will only unbundle about 5000 lines in the next year or so. (By choice, since Esat is the only company still likely to do it, and a rollout takes a time)


[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 27-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

so with llu what way does bandwidth work, does esat have to connect its own bandwidth to the exchange, llu seems likes it better,
tell me is llu limited to data, because if they have complete access to the line couldnt they provide voice allso

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
so with llu what way does bandwidth work, does esat have to connect its own bandwidth to the exchange, llu seems likes it better,
tell me is llu limited to data, because if they have complete access to the line couldnt they provide voice allso</font>

the OLO has to connect its own bandwidth to the exchange. (Of course, they could just rent backhaul to a central point, and connect there, which may be the way they have to do it)

LLU may be limited to data. I know that line-sharing (where Eircom provide voice calls, and the OLO does what it wants with the remaining spectrum) is mandated, but I don't know if it's compulsory. If it is compulsory, then PSTN voice is out (although VoATM or VoIP is still possible)

I can't see any OLO bothering with providing PSTN voice calls on unbundled lines though, expecially when they could just pay for regular voice interconnect - the investment required is just too great to justify it.

And LLU is not necessarily better. Its a completely different service. For smaller ISPs bitstream makes a lot of sense, since they don't have to morph into being telcos to provide DSL - they can just rent the telco end of things from Eircom.

FOr my money, I think that about 75% of DSL services in the country will eventually be provided over bitstream, with the rest made up of mostly high-margin business DSL service on fully unbundled lines.

Certainly, I think the chances of anybody getting residential DSL over an unbundled (LLU) line are precisely zero.

[This message has been edited by hudson806 (edited 27-07-2001).]

LegacyUser

Certainly, I think the chances of anybody getting residential DSL over an unbundled (LLU) line are precisely zero

why

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:

why
</font>

From the OLO's prespective, residential DSL is a viciously competitive market. Its not worth investing the kind of money required for the large scale rollout that res. DSL needs.

Remember that Eircom already has bandwidth into every exchange in the country, so from their perspective, DSL is about integrating a new service into their existing network.

For OLO's, who have much more limited infrastructure, and no experience in the Edge/Access area, DSL is about creating a whole new network, while trying to learn a whole new set of skills. At the same time, they are trying to do that at a time when the Market is completely unwilling to invest in Telcos that do anything even remotely risky.

Its worth doing on a small scale for High-Margin customers, who will want a fairly customised service, but for Residential users (who don't require customised installation work on the DSLAM) it will always be easier to rent the ports from Eircom.

All, IMHO, of course.

LegacyUser

makes sense