IoffL are over-reacting

Capt'n Midnight

rmc wrote:

It is not price.

How much does mobile phone cost a month? - people are cancelling land lines in favor of mobile phones - compare ESB connections with Eircom connections [hint - people are finding line rental too much]
How much does ESB cost a month? - how many people do you know who live without an ESB connection, they charge only 1/3 of what Eircom do to provide copper to your home
How much does Bord Gais cost a month? - you can choose electricty if you want, ADSL means in most cases Eircom get paid no matter who you get it from.
How much does NTL/SKY cost a month? - look at churn rates, I'd love to have NTL for BB and Voice only - I don't need basic TV as I can get most of the rest via Aerial , FTA ( and FTV )
How much does mortgage cost a month? - about the same as RENT, it can't be avoided unless you decide to live somewhere else, like Kiev
How much does life assurance cost a month? - Morgtague means you MUST have this, not optional.
How much does health insurance cost a month? - for those not on medical cards, it's not Voulantary when you consider the state of our health system
How much does car insurance cost a month? - 80% of journies by car because of lack of public transport, and insurance is mandatory.

You have pointed out many expenses that people have and I've pointed out that most are unavoidable without lifestyle changes. You could buy a caravan and live in a field, but first get a job in McDonalds so you can be fired from it to keep your dole entitlement.

Since most expenses are unavoidable you have a lower amount to spend in a discretionary manner. Also there is the network effect. Very roughly a network has value of the square of the number of people who use it. So doubling the numbers of Irish people on BB would make it four times as useful. You don't use email unless most people you know have email and use it on a regular basis. Our e-spending is a lot lower than in the UK for similar reasons apart from ryanair tickets people here don't have a culture where they know others who have use ecommerce a lot.

And it's not like we don't have computers and people who know how to use them. What we don't have are reasons for people to use BB and BB to create the demand for them.

cgarvey

Foxwood wrote:

The NTL charge is a fixed charge - you actually get something useful for your €19.99 basic charge

Much of a muchness.. I don't use my NTL analogue connection at all, so it's of no use to me. Just short of every business in Ireland needs a phone line to receive calls. Most elderly will want a phone line as well. So the point is it's personal preference. My point above was that this preference is swaying.

Your attitude that those in the "sticks" can sing for BB is not in the ethos of an inclusive society. There are reasonable limits, sure, but Paul just did a slam dunk with your point. Sure, let's take away their ESB and postal services too! We're living in an inclusive society (although some may disagree), so we're in it together. National BB rollout is as important, if not more so, as electrification. It should be for all. It's practical/feasible that it is for all, it just needs some joint-thinking, not mega-bucks.

IrelandOffline's modus operandi is "Broadband for All", not just the urban snobs who think they deserve it all, and that anyone outside their urban areas (like, say Lucan 10 years ago) doesn't deserve anything.

lucernarian

OscarBravo wrote:

Personally, I'd rather pay less tax, and let the people who want to live in cities whistle for their trams and metros.

But that's another conversation.

Good point! People forget to mention the diseconomies of scale as well as the economies of scale when talking about the redistribution of wealth between regions.

I fail to see why people would condone eircom's general attitude and behaviour when so little of our line rental goes on reinvestment. I can't remember exactly but I think line rental revenue for eircom is over €1 billion per year. This compares with the €200 million spent on investment.

I do not see the government pursuing pro-broadband policies at many levels. Local planning does not reflect the need for better communcations infrastructure. RTÉ could be more proactive in using the internet as a transmission medium. When do you hear the Govt. promoting teleworking? Why is the Govt. pursuing broadband for schools when there is no curriculum in place to take advantage of it? The government could do a lot more to stimulate demand IMO.

On the note of planning, I pointed out the omission of any land set aside for communications needs (masts etc.) in the Drogheda Northern Environs plan, which is to cater for 7,000 odd houses, to a councillor. His attitude was that the area was already sufficiently served by mobile coverage etc. There is no consideration of building a possible FTTC or FTTH network instead of those next-to-useless MANs in the proposal.

As for NTL, their network is designed so that it is impossible to provide broadband without providing analogue T.V., unless mabye a bandpass filter was used? Eircom could easily provide a broadband service without providing a voice service.

Blaster99

To_be_confirmed wrote:

As for NTL, their network is designed so that it is impossible to provide broadband without providing analogue T.V., unless mabye a bandpass filter was used? Eircom could easily provide a broadband service without providing a voice service.

They can switch off the analogue service tomorrow if they felt like it. Problem solved. It's just that the analogue service is NTL's version of Eircom's line rental so that's the last thing they would want to do. €20 a month for largely free TV, not a bad little business.

Ireland's approach to living is not sustainable, regardless of broadband. When energy prices really hit the roof, low density rural living will be history. Then everyone will indeed be whistling for the metro.

lucernarian

No, they cannot selectively switch off analogue services. Completely switching off the alalogue service would be stupid as that is their most popular service I would say. Mabye UPC feel it is better to have encrypted TV and this would make a broadband only service possible but this would need some investment and I'm sure customers prefer the simple option of simply plugging their T.V. straight into cable. Not every customer wants NTL Digital.

As for the economies of rural vs. urban living, I would have to ask you why low-density rural living (Is there such a thing as high-density rural living?) is history as history itself tells us that more people lived in rural as opposed to urban areas. We have electricity, and thanks to that, there will always be rural life in Ireland. The use of cars is not always a huge problem and only the most isolated parts of the countryside would have problems, should energy prices soar.

watty

When Civilisation as we know it collapses the ones living in Country will be laughing all the way to the veggie patch. The only significant rural energy cost is transport. Given lack of congestion, a 30km journey in Rural area may use much less than communiting From Asbourne to Bray.

Almost certianly UPC will kill Chorus Analog MMDS, so as to have the full Digital Cable line up.

They are certinally seriously "pushing" analog only Chorus/NTL customers to Digital. They won't consider switching off analog cable untill all customers have Digital (not all can even get it yet) and they have a significant numbert of PVRs out.

bk

Blaster99 wrote:

They can switch off the analogue service tomorrow if they felt like it. Problem solved. It's just that the analogue service is NTL's version of Eircom's line rental so that's the last thing they would want to do. €20 a month for largely free TV, not a bad little business.

I don't think NTL really see analogue in the same way as Eircom see the line rental, after all NTL give analogue free for 12 months when you sign up. Also in Cork Chorus (UPC) allow you to order BB without the TV service, as it is scramled, so I really don't think UPC see it as a big deal.

NTL couldn't switch off analogue tomorrow, about 90% of their customers are on analogue, there not going to switch that off just for the incredibly small minority of BB users who want BB without TV.

And there are not going to spend millions purchasing incredibly crappy scrambler boxes for all their analogue customers, just for a small number of BB users. It wouldn't be a good business decision.

How I see it is that it is a free bonus with my Digital TV service. If NTL turned off the analogue service in the morning, you know that the price of Digital would go up to €30. I see the analogue service as a bonus that I can use in the extra bedrooms.

BrianD

The lack of and price of BB in this country has prevented us reaching a critical mass of users. Therefore there is less of an incentive for web site owners - be they business, media or any one else - to provide the type of content that makes BB attractive and almost necessary. They would argue that the cost of putting rich content web sites and services is not justified by the numbers of people with BB in Ireland. Thus most web activity by Irish companies is dictated by the speed of dial-up modem and not BB. There is no noticable difference in having BB when this is the offering available. And yes I do know its the world wide web but most people will want local and relevant content.

Given the cost of everything else in the country, BB for browsing the web with content designed for dial-up users is just too expensive. Most people would prefer to do it for free and work or college.

If we can reach a critical mass then BB will really take off as in the UK. The poor BB take up here is not just down to price or availability but rather a combination of these factors and others.

watty

I have 3 US hosted shared /virtual servers for an ANNUAL cost of about a 1/4 the Irish MONTHLY cost for just the transfer GBytes cap.

So if I actually had the server(s) here of my own, connection alone would cost nearly 50 times what I get a connection AND a virtual server for in USA. In fact I do have 1 RAID server and 2 "appliance" non-RAID servers, but I only connect to Internet for my own use and my Mail server "pretends" to be a regular email client as normal MX Mail server connection costs a lot extra here (my Email is thus free).

Well I think they are in USA. They could be anywhere "not here" I suppose!

eircomtribunal

Just to come back to the start of this thread:
If IOFFL overreact, then they are at least not alone. In the Irish Examiner article "IDA chief backs sector" about manufacturing prospects in Ireland Jim Powers is quoted with clear words.

08/04/06
IDA chief backs sector
....
Friends First economist Jim Power said high-end manufacturing’s future depends on certain things.

“Our IT infrastructure is abysmal. Eircom has failed to deliver broadband to this country and until that situation is resolved, Ireland can not maintain its status as a high-end manufacturing environment.”

P.

Blaster99

To_be_confirmed wrote:

As for the economies of rural vs. urban living, I would have to ask you why low-density rural living (Is there such a thing as high-density rural living?) is history as history itself tells us that more people lived in rural as opposed to urban areas. We have electricity, and thanks to that, there will always be rural life in Ireland. The use of cars is not always a huge problem and only the most isolated parts of the countryside would have problems, should energy prices soar.

It could be a city thing, but my life style expectations are somewhat above those of medieval times when rural living was indeed the way.

I am of the opinion that people who decide to live in the sticks should pay extra for services. This is what the ESB does, for instance. They have urban and rural rates.

oscarBravo

Blaster99 wrote:

I am of the opinion that people who decide to live in the sticks should pay extra for services.

What do you propose? Tiered pricing for broadband based on distance from Dublin city centre? Do you get a concession for living in Cork or Galway? What about Athlone? Manorhamilton? Belmullet?

Or is this yet another "one-off housing" rant? Do you envisage someone in a bungalow on a quarter-acre in Meath having to pay more than someone in a semi-D in Knockcroghery?

I thought Ireland Offline was all about affordable broadband for everyone, not just those with the good taste not to want a garden?

Blaster99 wrote:

This is what the ESB does, for instance. They have urban and rural rates.

I can't find any reference to urban or rural rates on the ESB website, and I haven't noticed the per-unit price being higher here than when I lived in Mullingar or Dun Laoghaire.

Blaster99

With regards to the ESB rates it was news to me until the other day when I got a letter from the ESB stating that my holiday home's ESB rate status had been changed from rural to urban and my rates had dropped, including the supply charge.

With regards to rural pricing from eircom's point of view, I was perhaps envisaging a system where somebody who's far from the exchange may need to pay a bit extra to get broadband. I doubt there's anything stopping eircom from a regulatory point of view to do just that, so I suppose they're not interested for the usual reasons.

oscarBravo

Blaster99 wrote:

With regards to the ESB rates it was news to me until the other day when I got a letter from the ESB stating that my holiday home's ESB rate status had been changed from rural to urban and my rates had dropped, including the supply charge.

Egads, you're right. It's the standing charge that's higher. I guess that translates into a higher "line rental". The per-unit charges are the same.

That leads to an interesting comparison. In my experience, the quality of ESB supply tends (increasingly, in recent years) to be consistent between high-density urban and dispersed rural connections. To draw a dodgy comparison with Eircom lines: if it wasn't possible to boil a kettle - only dimly light a single bulb - in a remote area, then the extra standing charge would be scandalous.

If Eircom guaranteed a minimum standard for their lines, as ESB do, I wouldn't be all that strongly opposed to a rural levy.

paulm17781

Blaster99 wrote:

With regards to rural pricing from eircom's point of view, I was perhaps envisaging a system where somebody who's far from the exchange may need to pay a bit extra to get broadband.

I think higher line rental based on distance from the exchange. I live in an apartment in Dublin CC. I pay the same line rental as a one off house in the middle of no where. This bothers me as a line has to be brought to these houses where as there are many passing me anyway.

oscarBravo

paulm17781 wrote:

This bothers me as a line has to be brought to these houses where as there are many passing me anyway.

Yup, that's right. Every time a house is built outside an apartment complex, there's a whole new copper pair strung for five or six miles from the exchange. That's why there are several hundred wires on every rural telephone pole.

:rolleyes:

bk

Charging different rates for urban/rural would be ok, if the line rental was closer to the EU average (€15) and if it guaranteed a much better service for rural people (actually get BB).

As it stands if this was introduced, Eircom would probably continue charging Urban dwellers €24, rural €30 and not spend a single extra cent on rural users, it would go straight to paying off Eircoms dividends.

paulm17781

oscarBravo wrote:

Yup, that's right. Every time a house is built outside an apartment complex, there's a whole new copper pair strung for five or six miles from the exchange. That's why there are several hundred wires on every rural telephone pole.

:rolleyes:

Right! I can give an example (but I won't as its not my address) where there is one pair for at least a mile. why should people in sustainable developement subsidise this sort of thing?

Sadly I see bk's hypothesis far more likely.

cgarvey

paulm17781 wrote:

I live in an apartment in Dublin CC. I pay the same line rental as a one off house in the middle of no where. This bothers me as a line has to be brought to these houses where as there are many passing me anyway.

The difference is that the one-off house in the middle of nowhere pays more than the standard install charge that you pay (which is more often, than not, free anyway). As with the ESB, the cost of install is dependant on distance from existing network and the number of poles that have to be errected, etc.

.cg

watty

I live in the Countryside yet 900m from an Exchange.

I know people "really" in the back of beyond that either got wireless link phone that works about 9600 baud for dialup or charged about 8,000 Euro for phone install.

Mostly anyone not close to existing pairs does pay a fortune already, and often shares existing lines anyway with "pair gains" or gets a terrible service.

My Exchange is 7km from main DELL EMF as crow flies but not BB enabled.

It would cost me about 400,000 Euro extra to move to an Equivalent semi in Dublin and then have to spend 4 times longer commuting and more polluting!

lucernarian

Blaster99 wrote:

t could be a city thing, but my life style expectations are somewhat above those of medieval times when rural living was indeed the way.

My lifestyle expectations also go beyond medieval times. I do believe that more people lived in rural areas than urban areas well into the 20th century. My point is that with electricity in rural areas too, how I live in my home would be little or no different than if I lived in town.

If eircom were so concerned about copper pricing etc for long lines, they could build cabinets along a main road that has fibre along it and instead connect pairs that would be only 2 km long to it. They could do that fairly easily in my case, I'm only 300 metres from ducting that runs straight through from Drogheda to Dunleer.

To get back on topic, I will ask this question: Should IOFFL campaign as much for rural broadband as it does for urban broadband? Should there be any difference in quality, pricing or speed between the two areas? What about the towns in Ireland with 1500 houses, are they to get the same services as the cities?

bk

To_be_confirmed wrote:

To get back on topic, I will ask this question: Should IOFFL campaign as much for rural broadband as it does for urban broadband?

It should and it does.

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Should there be any difference in quality, pricing or speed between the two areas? What about the towns in Ireland with 1500 houses, are they to get the same services as the cities?

It is unrealistic to expect rural areas to have the same speeds as available in urban areas. In urban areas you have NTL and the LLU operators pushing BB speeds up to 10mbps, it is unrealistic to expect the same in rural areas at the same time as urban areas.

I have always said that I believe that IOFFL has reached it's goal when:

1) All urban areas have at least 3 competing BB platforms [1].
2) Everyone in rural areas can get at least basic BB from one provider [2].

[1] I consider bitstream and all the bitstream operators to be just one platform, NTL cable, LLU, FTTH, wireless all represent the other platforms.

[2] Minimum 512k down always on for no more then €40 per month.

I want us to have what NI has gotten. 99.8% of people can get a minimum of 512k BB. That means all exchanges upgraded AND pair gains removed, lines repaired or replaced for people who order BB [3], basically 512k should become part of Eircoms USO and I actually don't mind the government giving Eircom a lot of money to do this as long as it really happens.

[3] I think it is ok that they don't remove all par gains, etc., just that they get rid of the line test and if you order BB, Eircom have to make it work (remove pair gains, swap your line in the exchange etc.) with no excuses or "best effort" bs. Also Eircom could use wireless at affordable prices to meet this goal.

If Eircom did this then I wouldn't really mind if Eircom started rolling out ADSL2+/VDSL in urban areas to supply higher speeds in order to compete better.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

It is unrealistic to expect rural areas to have the same speeds as available in urban areas. In urban areas you have NTL and the LLU operators pushing BB speeds up to 10mbps, it is unrealistic to expect the same in rural areas at the same time as urban areas.

I agree with bk on this even though he is in the town and I am in the country.

Nor is there any point holding back the larger towns ...those with over 5000 population and with 60% or so of the population. Let them meet and burst 10Mbits as a universally available service and keep going to ADSL2 speeds ...max 24mbits ....as soon as possible thereafter . This is the chambers of commerce plan in essence.

IoffL would therefore be arguing for 2 separate parallel Universal Objectives based on typical distances from fibre communications nodes and population densities.

lucernarian

That makes sense I suppose. I think though that upload being at 128 kbps with most 512 kbps products out there is not really good enough for certain individuals and businesses and I would like to see 256 kbps upload as minimum or a symmetrical 512kbps or an asymmetrical service with minimum upload of 512 kbps preferably.

The preferable option is probably asking for too much, so I think 256 kbps upload is a reasonable goal. I know of a professional photographer beyond Clogherhead who got Net1's service, despite the €349 install charge. That was just so he could get 400 kbps upload (now 512). Net1 products are symmetrical.

bk

Sponge Bob wrote:

I agree with bk on this even though he is in the town and I am in the country.

Nor is there any point holding back the larger towns ...those with over 5000 population and with 60% or so of the population. Let them meet and burst 10Mbits as a universally available service and keep going to ADSL2 speeds ...max 24mbits ....as soon as possible thereafter . This is the chambers of commerce plan in essence.

IoffL would therefore be arguing for 2 separate parallel Universal Objectives based on typical distances from fibre communications nodes and population densities.

That is exactly what my aim would be. I'm not trying to be offensive to people living in rural areas. I actually do care that they get the best quality products and services as quickly as possible, like you said I'm just trying to be realistic.

If the government introduced a law saying that everywhere must have the same speeds, then what would happen is that the entire country would be stuck on the lowest speed possible (512k -1m) and no one would get the higher speeds. But by allowing urban areas to race ahead due to competition it will actually drive the demand for higher speeds in rural areas also and over time they will get those speeds (due to pressure on government/Eircom from rural people seeing what their urban neighbours have and maybe even competitors expanding out of urban areas).

In fact I believe this approach would actually allow rural areas get higher speed BB much faster then if all areas were forced to have the same speeds.

cgarvey

But would 1 USO not solve that?

A USO of with a min of 512K on all lines, or unmetered dialup access for the same amount as the cheapest 512K product where lines are too far, or unsuitable. Let competition deal with higher speeds.

Then, build QoS into the USO. w% of lines within x kilometers of an exchange must be capable of carrying y Kbps by end of year z. Sure, we'd love all lines to be done yesterday, but that's not practical. The key is to strike a balance that is fair and feasible, but aggressive.

That way, USO would solve all (or 99.x% of rural provision), and competition enhances that in more populated area, as it does already.

.cg

lucernarian

bk wrote:

If the government introduced a law saying that everywhere must have the same speeds, then what would happen is that the entire country would be stuck on the lowest speed possible (512k -1m) and no one would get the higher speeds. But by allowing urban areas to race ahead due to competition it will actually drive the demand for higher speeds in rural areas also and over time they will get those speeds (due to pressure on government/Eircom from rural people seeing what their urban neighbours have and maybe even competitors expanding out of urban areas).

That's a very good point. I would say though that there is enough technical expertise out there in the world and even in this country that could push the speeds for rural customers to similar levels as urban areas, by using wireless technologies.

Of course, not every house or business can see masts and whatnot so that is why the option of using ADSL repeaters, economically mind you, should be investigated. But repeaters very likely will never be so economical so as to allow the same speeds in rural and urban areas. That underlines the importance of both platforms in rural broadband provisioning.

I don't think the government would ever pass a law that forced the same speeds in urban areas as rural areas. As Cathal rightly said, a USO still has purpose for improving broadband coverage.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

That is exactly what my aim would be. I'm not trying to be offensive to people living in rural areas. I actually do care that they get the best quality products and services as quickly as possible, like you said I'm just trying to be realistic.

so am I , many of these rural areas only have 12k dialup and Comreg do not require all of these to be upgraded to 28.8k until 2012. Thats far too long. Even if they required something adequate they refuse to enforce their own USO anyway the tossers:(

If the government introduced a law saying that everywhere must have the same speeds, then what would happen is that the entire country would be stuck on the lowest speed possible (512k -1m) and no one would get the higher speeds.

precisely, although IMO the government will introduce no such law and will not even explicitly mandate "Functional Internet Access" (defined as 28.8k here ) even though it is the law and has been since the transposition of an EU directive in July 2003 . Nor is there any indication of a new EU directive mandating Universal BB access for all ...eg at 512/128 ...I suppose because the newer members who joined the EU since that directive could not afford it as things stand.

But by allowing urban areas to race ahead due to competition it will actually drive the demand for higher speeds in rural areas also and over time they will get those speeds (due to pressure on government/Eircom from rural people seeing what their urban neighbours have and maybe even competitors expanding out of urban areas).

Fundamentally yes, our larger employers are also in these urban areas as well.

In fact I believe this approach would actually allow rural areas get higher speed BB much faster then if all areas were forced to have the same speeds.

We all have a better chance if a stonking target is set for all urban areas over 5000 people , why not 50Mbits for all homes and businesses by end 2009 for example.

bk

It is instructive to look at what has been done up in Northern Ireland.

They claim 100% BB availability, but it is interesting to look at how they reach that.

1) 100% of exchanges are BB enabled.
2) 98.5% of lines connected to these BB exchanges can get DSL at a minimum 512k.
3) For the remaining 1.5%, BT are using Alvarion 5.8GHz BreezeACCESS VL kit to deliver BB via wireless.

The UK government paid £10 million for this setup.

It is interesting to note that 98.5% lines can carry BB, that compares to about 60 - 70% for Eircom, why the difference?

While first of all BT use ADSL technology that can operate at distances greater then 5.5km.

Second BT don't have any line test any more, you just order BB. If the line fails their internal tests, they identify the problem and they:

1) Repair lines
2) Remove pair gains
3) Swap lines in an exchange with someone who hasn't ordered BB.
4) Replace lines.
5) They are also using FTTC with mini dslams in the cabinet to reach people in rural areas.

Therefore they reach 98.5% passed. There is no reason why Eircom couldn't do the same.

If all this fails then they use wireless. I believe this is the same wireless kit that IBB uses, on the frequencies that Digiweb use, but unlike IBB it works well, partly because they don't need to over subscribe it, they only use it as a last option for people who can't get DSL.

If the Irish government give Eircom €60 million, there is absolutely no reason why Eircom can't do the same right now.

If Eircom are given money, it should be on the following conditions:

1) They agree to a USO of 100% of homes connected at a minimum of 512k/128k with latency no higher then 60ms for Ireland (excludes sat).
2) Eircom remove the line test and when someone orders BB, they do whatever it takes to deliver it.
3) Eircom go to the same lengths as BT to make sure most people are on DSL. Lets say 95% of all lines on an exchange can receive DSL.
4) They deliver BB to the remainder via wireless (they have the spectrum), again 512k/128k, with only a reasonable extra cost over DSL.
5) This should take no longer then 18 months to complete. After that there should be no one unable to get BB, no excuses.
6) This doesn't require an increase in the line rental, only a one of payment from the gov/EU funds.
7) Bitstream operators should also be able to use this service (including wireless) and it should be completely transparent to the customer.
8) BB must be delivered within one month of being ordered.
9) The USO needs to be enforced strictly.

There is absolutely no reason why this can't be put in place right now, BT did it in just 12 months with just £10 million. I want nothing less from Eircom.

I agree that we probably don't need a two tier USO, 512k for all would be good enough to start with. Competition will drive speeds much higher in urban areas regardless and a two tier system might just complicate things.

BTW I came across an article from February 2005 that estimated that about 23% of homes in NI have BB, this just goes to show that it is availability and price that drive BB uptake, as there is no other difference with the South.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote:

It is instructive to look at what has been done up in Northern Ireland.

They claim 100% BB availability, but it is interesting to look at how they reach that.

1) 100% of exchanges are BB enabled.
2) 98.5% of lines connected to these BB exchanges can get DSL at a minimum 512k.

99.1% . Less than 1% of lines in NI cannot support ADSL

The UK government paid £10 million for this setup.

Good value for money too.

It is interesting to note that 98.5% lines can carry BB, that compares to about 60 - 70% for Eircom, why the difference?

While first of all BT use ADSL technology that can operate at distances greater then 5.5km.

4.5km down here, 10 km up there.

If Eircom are given money, it should be on the following conditions:

1) They agree to a USO of 100% of homes connected at a minimum of 512k/128k with latency no higher then 60ms for Ireland (excludes sat).
2) Eircom remove the line test and when someone orders BB, they do whatever it takes to deliver it.
3) Eircom go to the same lengths as BT to make sure most people are on DSL. Lets say 95% of all lines on an exchange can receive DSL.
4) They deliver BB to the remainder via wireless (they have the spectrum), again 512k/128k, with only a reasonable extra cost over DSL.
5) This should take no longer then 18 months to complete. After that there should be no one unable to get BB, no excuses.
6) This doesn't require an increase in the line rental, only a one of payment from the gov/EU funds.
7) Bitstream operators should also be able to use this service (including wireless) and it should be completely transparent to the customer.
8) BB must be delivered within one month of being ordered.
9) The USO needs to be enforced strictly.

LOL. They want €60m or is that €70m to supply some homes within 4.5km and with no points 1 2 3 4 5 8 or 9 above either, Universal is not in Eircoms vocab except for the Universal Highest line rental on the planet.

Eircom propose that

450 exchanges have BB
700 have to be done.

No Service Levels Whatsoever, no line rental discount for those beyond 4.5km and no wireless alternatives .

Yet they want over 4 times what BT got to do the North and will deliver maybe 80% pass rates for DSL in the end, as compared to NI with 99.1%

Thats hardly Universal BK is it ?