Is IOL Broadband actually available?

Ronin

Those using netsource for its no cap will most likely be all those who want to leave it on 24/7 downloading "sutff". This will mean that you'll have everyone competing for their allocation at the same time, which will mean the service will seem crap. Please note I'm not saying its a crap service, plus it hasn't even been rolled out yet. Just that because those using it will most likely be using up all the bandwidth available to them 90% of the time that there'll be sfa bandwidth for the average user to use at any given time.

This is the main reason that caps are put in place. To give everyone a fair chance at using it. The average user, not the average boards users mind, but the average user will use boardband for say surfing the web, not very bandwidth intensive and checking their mail, again not very bandwidth intensive. What happens is you end up with 5% of users using 95% of the bandwidth. But if all those 5% are in turn 95% of netsources users u end up with all the available bandwidth being used up.

These products are all designed for home users who aren't very bandwidth intensive, or at least shouldn't be since most ppl have no idea where to download / even know what "stuff" is..

Boardband for the masses is totally different to boardband for the people who want to download 24/7.

Surfing the web, downloading mail and playing games aren't likely to use up too much bandwidth a month, I've never done the maths so i'm not 100% sure on its exact amount. Downloading "stuff" is.

by Stuff i'm refering to what was also know as "linux iso's" at various lan events.

The only way anyone will know which of the radsl products is any good is to wait for the testing to be over an the prodcuts are rolled out and people who are actually using the services comment. And even then it'll take a while before the full impact is know. You might be doing great and then some downloader of "stuff" comes along an starts eating up bandwidth, this is more likely to happen on netsource then anyone else though, due to no caps.

Ronin

SkepticOne,

Eircom sell a product. If your resale of this product doesn't fit the model that the product is designed for , is it eircom's fault or yours?

Ro

MadsL

ahh FFS!!!!!

Uncapped affordable access is what we have all been waiting for!

No caps seem to frighten you all into thinking that you will have you + 47 warez phreaks on the same DSLAM. If line speeds start dropping as a result of *use (not misuse - we have had this discussion to death) then they will have to feed more bandwidth into the product. Don't forget that resellers have the option to connect to the enduser over IP - connection to the punter via the regional ADSL access point .

How about campaigning to eircom and esat that these caps are unfair and not flat rate as advertised* and should be done away with or at the very least increased to workable limits. I'm shocked to see some of you supporting these telcos attempts to *charge at a minimum of 3c PER MB for you for going over some made-up number...1GB extra a month = 30 euro!!! I'm more concerned about that than contention.


*surf as long as you like for a fixed monthly rate - me hole!!!

SkepticOne

Originally posted by MadsL
ahh FFS!!!!!

Uncapped affordable access is what we have all been waiting for!

No caps seem to frighten you all into thinking that you will have you + 47 warez phreaks on the same DSLAM. If line speeds start dropping as a result of *use (not misuse - we have had this discussion to death) then they will have to feed more bandwidth into the product.

Yes, but this is impossible under Eircom's current wholesale product. You can only feed in 512k/sec max for every 48 users. This is what I was trying to explain above.

eth0_

Madsl would you ever calm down.
Personally, i'm going to wait and see what the netsource service is like for other people and then decide whether to go with them or esat. Listen to Ronin and Muck, they know what they're talking about.

quaalude

Originally posted by Ronin

These products are all designed for home users who aren't very bandwidth intensive...

Netsource say their product is a Business Broadband Solution, though.

flav0rflav

Ah crap, now I'm gonna have to do some work, as the discussion is eventually getting interesting.

So where is the contention point, with ratio 48:1?
It's assumed to be at the back of the DSLAM. That'll be a problem. But it's an ATM link and the bandwidth can be easily increased. Nobody said it would be. Nobody even says it has to be. A cap means an upper limit, not a lower limit. You are guaranteed nothing except 24/7 access and .. well they hardly even garantee what trained speed the modem will reach, never mind the bandwidth to the DSLAM, or further.


A bad situation I can see developing, is that in the initial phases of this new age of broadband, due to price and early adopter scenario, ALL users will be heavy users. This will impact the service badly and what then? Well if the price keeps moving down and the service keeps running, eventually the regular internet user, as mentioned by somone, will become the average, and the statistics that contention ratios are based on will come true.

I'm off to check the bitstream whole sale service details as provided by eircom, and documented at Comreg, to look at the contention ratios and back haul situation.

In the mean time, prepare yourselves for a bumpy broadband start.

ps. loved the maths from Muck showing combination of 512k and 48 users. I had assumed that 512k was sufficient that even 48:1 would not bump into 5-6 GB cap. Looks like Netsource know how to work the figures, at least for contention ratios. 2 seperate DSLAMs, I doubt it. Seperate backhaul ATMC VCs probably.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
So where is the contention point, with ratio 48:1?
It's assumed to be at the back of the DSLAM. That'll be a problem. But it's an ATM link and the bandwidth can be easily increased. Nobody said it would be. Nobody even says it has to be. A cap means an upper limit, not a lower limit. You are guaranteed nothing except 24/7 access and .. well they hardly even garantee what trained speed the modem will reach, never mind the bandwidth to the DSLAM, or further.

The contention point is at the DSLAM, afaik. Eircom also provide transport back to a number of handover points around the country, each serving a given set of exchanges. This transport is tied into the contention ratio. If Eircom were to increase the contention ratio on the DSLAM, the bottleneck would simply shift up to the link between the handover points and the exchanges. The ISP or telco cannot provide its own connection directly to the exchange, it must be done to the handover point.

A 24:1 contention ratio should not cost the ISP 40% more than a 48:1 ratio. Much of the cost is the same for both.

Ronin has said:

Eircom sell a product. If your resale of this product doesn't fit the model that the product is designed for , is it eircom's fault or yours?

Well this is fine, if you accept Eircom's wholesale product. Once again, though, the consumer suffers because Eircom get to decide for the whole market what can and can't be done by ISPs.

shinzon

Originally posted by SkepticOne
They have DSLAMs in about 40 exchanges, however they only offer business priced DSL out of these. Furthermore, they only operate standard DSL (not RADSL) so the proportion of lines that can avail of the service is likely to be even less than Eircom's RADSL.

So there just going to be using eircoms dslams to deliver iol broadband, ah well im ****ed so, thats all 3 BB companies that have ****ed me over, shame they dont offer the residential package through there own dslams, tycor and central waterford are esats own exchanges in waterford

Oh well theres always hi-speed

SHIN

MadsL

The ISP or telco cannot provide its own connection directly to the exchange, it must be done to the handover point.

So therefore, and this sounds about right looking at this doc outlining the wholesale product, there is nothing that means eircom will HAVE to provide DSLAMs for each reseller, in fact they are unlikely to do so which means there will be a mix of eircom, Esat and Netsource (and maybe Joe Bloggs.com) on any given 48:1 contended DSLAM.

All of which is to underline the two points I have been making on the boards recently...

1. It's all eircom resold.
2. Download Caps are NOT your friend.

Of course now someone will moan 'why should my bandwidth be shared with Netsource/esat/eircom' etc etc...

If I seem enervated eth0_, it's because the goal of *unmetered internet access seems to be being diluted by all this d/l 24/7 warez penguins talk. And if I'm not enraged my sig looks cr*p

SkepticOne

Originally posted by MadsL

2. Download Caps are NOT your friend.

If what Muck is saying is correct, i.e., that Esat and Netsource both share the same contention pool then there is no point in going for Esat's capped service since you will be slowed down by Netsource's users downloading 'linux isos'.

If Eircom are not in the same pool, then Esat could argue that the above arrangement is discrimintory since Eircom's retail services are supposed to be operated on the same basis as that which they supply to other operators.

It could also be that all three operators are sharing the same pool. We will find out pretty soon as reports on the speeds of the various operators start coming in.

spongebob

Originally posted by SkepticOne
If what Muck is saying is correct, i.e., that Esat and Netsource both share the same contention pool then there is no point in going for Esat's capped service since you will be slowed down by Netsource's users downloading 'linux isos'.

If Eircom are not in the same pool, then Esat could argue that the above arrangement is discrimintory since Eircom's retail services are supposed to be operated on the same basis as that which they supply to other operators.

It could also be that all three operators are sharing the same pool. We will find out pretty soon as reports on the speeds of the various operators start coming in.

I thought that Esat and Netsource will share the same contention pool. Flavourflav dug up the latest whlesale doc which indicates otherwise, see post below.

Sceptic has suggested a test for later this month which could conclusively prove whether Eircom is discriminating against wholesale customers and contrary to the product description it provided to Comreg.

M

flav0rflav

This document has the backhaul network details, which determines where the contention points are.

http://www.eircom.ie/bveircom/pdf/Bitconnser.pdf

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
This document has the backhaul network details, which determines where the contention points are.

http://www.eircom.ie/bveircom/pdf/Bitconnser.pdf

I got the impression that the bitstream connection service was simply to provide connections from Eircoms handover points back to an ISP' POP where they don't want to provide these links themselves. AFAIK, the ISP does not have to use this, but can connect to what is refferred to as Eircom' DSL regional POPs without using the bitsream connection service. It does not say how the contention pools are shared out once they get down to the DSLAM level.

flav0rflav

My reading would be that the typical (ie.simplest) RADSL product is backhauled from all DSLAMs to one chosen POP, where it is squeezed into a 2M line to the ISP, with up to 192 subscribers per 2M line.

This simple view would suggest all Netsource users would contend with one another, all Esat users would contend with one another etc, from all around the country, but would not contend with other ISPs users.

There is no description of how eircom provisions the RADSL backhaul between POPs, I could guess that the "VP Transport (VT)" which is 1Meg at 24:1 may be used.

spongebob

That document has been modified (again) quite recently, Thanks flavourflav for the link.

Pages 4 and 5 seems to indicate that the contention (for a given ISP) will occur where Virtual Private Circuits are presented at up to 192 per 2Mb port. A 2Mb port can be per region or nationally I think ?

Thats 192 into 2Mb (actually 2048) corresponds to up to 48:1 per 512k on a per Wholesale Customer and then Per Region (or National) level.

The wholesale customer could logically set a different contention ratio themselves by asking for say 128 ports from various dslams in a given region (or nationwide) to be presented to a given 2Mb circuit exclusive to them thereafter ...... 2048/128 = 32:1 contention in my example.

Eircom sets an upper limit and not a lower one for the number of RADSL ports that they will PVC (regionally or nationally) to a single 2Mb link. Once you reach 192 you must get another 2Mb circuit and so on etc.

Thats my reading of it anyway, does anyone agree?

M

melachi

I just got a mail from IOL broadband today as a follow up to my enquiry:

"First of all we will start to process orders for IOL Broadband
before the end of May.


Another piece of news you may find interesting is that we
have now added a Self Install Broadband option at an
unbelievable price of €90! This compliments the Engineer
Install option priced at €190. "

And then there are two links to click for self install / engineer install where you're supposed to enter your eircom account number to see if the phone line is actually compatible.
They said "may" and they seem to be on course.

flav0rflav

Originally posted by Muck
The wholesale customer could logically set a different contention ratio themselves by asking for say 128 ports from various dslams in a given region (or nationwide) to be presented to a given 2Mb circuit exclusive to them thereafter ...... 2048/128 = 32:1 contention in my example.
M [/B]

Yes, I certainly believe there is scope for an ISP to limit the number of ports per 2M link, hence giving a better contention ratio. But as I think about it, the radsl backhaul could be the limiting factor. It's just not detailed in the doc. Do you think the ISPs asked eircom about that part of the network?

Of course the ISPs may also be going the full hog, getting 155 Meg ATM links, with loads of potential for service differentiation. Any chance the ISPs would give details on their backhaul structures? (ha ha)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
Yes, I certainly believe there is scope for an ISP to limit the number of ports per 2M link, hence giving a better contention ratio. But as I think about it, the radsl backhaul could be the limiting factor. It's just not detailed in the doc. Do you think the ISPs asked eircom about that part of the network?

The "bitstream connection service" is the wrong doc, I think. Esat, for example, would most likely use their own infrastructue to connect to connect to Eircom's regional DSL POPs. Netsource would choose from whatever telcos have infrastructure and get the best deal for connecting to the regional POPs or go for Eircoms 'bistream connection service'. I don't know what arrangements either Esat or Netsource have taken, however the fact that the access seeker can connect directly to Eircom's POPs and not take up the 'bitstream connection service' means that conclusions cannot be drawn solely from this connection service.

The doc you want, I believe, is the bitstream service itself:

http://www.eircom.ie/bveircom/pdf/adsl.pdf

although this does not give the required info either.

flav0rflav

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The doc you want, I believe, is the bitstream service itself:

http://www.eircom.ie/bveircom/pdf/adsl.pdf

although this does not give the required info either.

Eh, I'll assume you're just thinking on the fly.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
Eh, I'll assume you're just thinking on the fly.

This is where the information you seek should be, i.e., this is the only place where details of contention is mentioned. The issue of whether one operators contention pool is shared with another should be here, and not with the document referring to another service.

spongebob

The lasty time I saw your doc it was a very early and unclear version.

I too have relied on the regulatory ofering.pdf linked by Sceptic One and not the Regional Architecture and Interconnection.pdf linked by you today.

My thanks goes equally to both of yiz for saving me a root thru that poxy website of Eircoms. The doc linked by Sceptic does not make clear where the contention ocurs while the Flavours does.....amidst the soup of acronyms.

The contention is describeed as up to 192 per 2048kBit pipe (= 48:1 on 512k) but it sez UP TO 192. There is no reason that an ISP could not offer less contention..........except have you ever tried to get Eircom to provision a 2Mb on time.

In another thread, Sloth said he got 24:1 contention on RADSL (albeit at the RA speed poor lad) . I wonder how Netsource can do that maybe they try for 24:1 contention but 'reserve' the right to up it to 48:1 if they are stuck for capacity. Mmmmmmmmm that would be nice of them, now to tell Louise how to answer her PM's

Hmmmm

M

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Muck
The contention is describeed as up to 192 per 2048kBit pipe (= 48:1 on 512k) but it sez UP TO 192. There is no reason that an ISP could not offer less contention..........except have you ever tried to get Eircom to provision a 2Mb on time.

Yes, but this may just refer to the link between Eircom's regional POPs to the ISPs POP should they go with the connection service (not necessary if they make their own arrangements). That is what the document refers to after all.

The fact that it says 'maximum' could then be explained by the example of an ISP starting up a service with initially only a few customers, in which case they would not be yet hitting this maximum.

It does not mean that they will configure the actual bitstream service (into which the bitstream connection service feeds) which specifies a ratio of 24:1 and 48:1 depending on whether it's ADSL or RADSL.

Tenshot

Originally posted by Muck
In another thread, Sloth said he got 24:1 contention on RADSL (albeit at the RA speed poor lad) . I wonder how Netsource can do that maybe they try for 24:1 contention but 'reserve' the right to up it to 48:1 if they are stuck for capacity.

Interesting thread this. One thing not obvious to me before is that the 24:1 contention quoted for the full iStream product assumes a 1 MB line rate.

If you're on the iStream solo 512K service, that's equivalent to a 12:1 contention which doesn't seem too bad at all (40 Kb/s worst case vs 10 Kb/s worst case for RADSL). Might persuade people still on iStream solo to hold off switching to the starter pack for a bit until there's some concrete feedback on whether the contention is causing problems.

flav0rflav

The Interconnect doc describes too very different structures.
One for RADSL, with 48:1 contention, 2M IP level connect at any PoP for all PoPs.
The second structure is for ADSL, 1M and 512k services, with 24:1 contention, ATM level connect at each PoP just for that PoP, and other ATM links available to bring them to single ISP location, if they so wish.

The 512k, 1M, 24:1 services being offered by ISPs are obviously in a different category to the cheap and easy RADSL.

In fact RADSL looks so "cheap" and easy, I don't know why there aren't lots of ISPs offering it. Mind you, it isn't going to be the best or cheapest in the world.

spongebob

The map of Eircom regional POPS indicates that ESAT would already have their own fibre running into most of them. They are the same POPS you lease traditional Frame relay lines out of.

Eircom ADSL Regions and Regional POPs
Quaker Rd. Cork
Mervue Galway
Roches St. Limerick
Waterford (not sure which)

ADSL Regional POPs
Churchfield Cork
Summerhill Dublin
Dolphins Barn Dublin
Priory Park Dublin
Portlaoise S Leinster
Rathedmond Sligo NW
Mullingar N Leinster/SE Ulster

One exception (for ESAT) is Priory Park but there are few exceptions as you see from Moriartys List Sligo has me confuzled and Waterford too but I think it different naming conventions.

ESAT would consequently have no interest in Eircom backhaul when their own fibre backhaul is already IN the same building. This would be a reasonable excuse for their delay as they negotiate a rate from Eircom to pick up the 2Mb slots 'at source ' as it were.

If you wish to resell the pure ADSL products you must take a 45 Mbit pipe in the POP but the RADSL reseller need to commit to only 2Mb increments. Thats quite a different market entry level it seems to me.

M

SkepticOne

Interesting how it is done in Britain.

http://www.adslguide.org.uk/howitworks/dslam.asp

Here, it appears that the contention occurs within the PVC leading to the DSLAM. A maximum of 3 ISPs share this PVC. Therefore, in Britain, if an ISP imposes a cap, the users would lose out because the other ISPs sharing the PVC would not be limiting their users.

This sort of detail is not available in Eircom's bitstream document although the 'bitstream connection service' would seem to indicate that an operator availing of this service gets dedicated PVC at least as far as Eircom's regional POP.

jonski

Originally posted by melachi
I just got a mail from IOL broadband today as a follow up to my enquiry:

"First of all we will start to process orders for IOL Broadband
before the end of May.


Another piece of news you may find interesting is that we
have now added a Self Install Broadband option at an
unbelievable price of €90! This compliments the Engineer
Install option priced at €190. "

And then there are two links to click for self install / engineer install where you're supposed to enter your eircom account number to see if the phone line is actually compatible.
They said "may" and they seem to be on course.

Yup , got the same e-mail my self:)

as for the rest of this thread , omg talk about off topic!

flav0rflav

topic? i'll have a mars. from spar.

MadsL

Maybe someone on the committee can get an official statement from eircom on some of the interesting points made in this thread???

To summarize my take on these issues...

If all ISP share contention points then the cap policy is a nonsense (and should be scrapped IMHO)

If eircom have 'ringfenced' their i-starter access away from other ISPs (who are contended against each other?) THEN eircom are surely in breach of the regulations to supply the exact product wholesale.