Can I believe this?

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Another effect of the DCMNR grant was to make the market for the provision of broadband in rural areas extremely lopsided. How (or why) can a commercial broadband provider with no grant compete with a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer? This makes no sense in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized telecommunications market.

I disagree. In Kinnegad, our GBS went live on 1st June 2005. 6 months later eircom decided to upgrade the exchange even though broadband was available to consumers through "a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer". Likewise, all ISPs involved in a GBS should have a business plan that incorporates entry by a competitor into their market otherwise they'll see their business disappear very quickly.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

In my area, the taxpayer-funded Group Broadband Scheme has been extremely slow to get broadband rolled out to the dispersersed rural communities - over 17 months now since the Call For Proposals - but their presence has probably had the effect of dissuading potential competitors from entering the area.

In my experience in Kinnegad, we also had terrible problems in getting the service rolled out. However this was due to, in my opinion, the County Council's slowness to grant permission for the base station to be installed on the water tower (only available high site in Kinnegad) and then their refusal to allow an existing power point to be used to draw the 50W needed to power the base station.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

It is interesting to note that the Athenry group scheme has over 25% of its customers in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell - to the detriment of the potential customers living outside the DSL range of these towns - and completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the DCMNR grant scheme. So it's not just Eircom who "cherry pick" the easy customers and ignore the ones living 3 km or more from the exchanges.

In theory, if potential customers are living outside of a DSL area then they can form their own community group and go the GBS route for their own particular area(s). So in fairness to the scheme, it doesn't exclude communities that are not served by broadband. The problem is invaribly due to a lack of someone to get off their backsides and contact their Reg. Co-ord to get the ball rolling.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

So please, DCMNR - no more "grants", no more "free" money. Just step aside and let the market sort it out without your "help".

The market was failing, the gov. stepped in and did "something". That "something", while not perfect, was better than nothing and there are communities that now have broadband as a result who would never had received it otherwise.

I do agree though that the fact that the numbers are not available is worrying as that could indicate a less than impressive rollout/takeup.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

As a matter of fact, one of the smaller service providers recently collapsed *because of* the group scheme.

Who was it?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

I disagree. In Kinnegad, our GBS went live on 1st June 2005. 6 months later eircom decided to upgrade the exchange even though broadband was available to consumers through "a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer". Likewise, all ISPs involved in a GBS should have a business plan that incorporates entry by a competitor into their market otherwise they'll see their business disappear very quickly.

Hi Viking,

Thanks for the reply. You make some very good points. One of the difficulties that I have had in this debate is getting numbers, facts and figures from the various Government/State bodies, particularly the Department of Communications and the Western Regional Assembly, for both the Group Broadband Scheme and the Schools Broadband Scheme. I have also tried to make contact with other GBS schemes to see if there is/was any commonality in their dealings with the DCMNR, with limited success (actually, no success at all!). In my opinion, the DCMNR and the Regional Broadband Co-Ordinators were unwilling to facilitate any such contact, possibly because they did not want the possibility of a large number of community groups forming a pressure group.

Regarding your scheme in Kinnegad, was this a "late" starter from the 1st round or an "early" starter from the second round? It seems unlikely to be an early starter from the second round, as the deadline for proposals was the end of April 2005, and as far as I know, all schemes in the second round were announced in August 2005. The letter of offer was dated July 14th 2005 and expenditure before 14 July 2005 or after 14 July 2006 was not eligible for grant funding.

Your point about Eircom DSL-enabling the exchange is interesting and I think that it is a pattern that has been repeated time and time again. However, my understanding of the GBS was to facilitate the provision of broadband in areas that the large commercial players had neglected. It doesn't take much imagination to see that sooner or later, Eircom would enable more and more exchanges, so it would make more sense for the GBSs to target areas *outside* the DSL range - the "dispersed rural communities" in the hinterlands of small towns and villages. It was never my understanding that the purpose of the scheme was to somehow compete with Eircom on its own doorstep! Other threads have highlighted the problems associated with this approach - it raises serious questions about fairness and competition in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized market. If you were a bank manager or suchlike, would you provide a loan to a small community group of volunteers that planned to compete with a gigantic predatory telecoms monopoly like Eircom, the former using wireless technology (to be built), the latter using the existing wired infrastructure and DSL (already present), targetting customers within DSL range of the Eircom exchange? If this doesn't make sense to you (it doesn't make any sense to me), then why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?

On the flipside, I think that the effect of the GBS was to "stimulate" Eircom into action, possibly as a spoiler tactic. Well, for whatever reason, Eircom magically DSL-enabled a lot of exchanges, which I think may not have happened without the "notion" of the GBS.

The service provider that collapsed was Ildana.

Niall

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Regarding your scheme in Kinnegad, was this a "late" starter from the 1st round or an "early" starter from the second round?

We were one of the early ones from the 1st round, as mentioned in my post it took a while to get it launched though, lots of red tape and dithering by our County Council.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

However, my understanding of the GBS was to facilitate the provision of broadband in areas that the large commercial players had neglected.

It is to facilitate broadband provision in areas that any commercial player neglected, its not simply a GBS v. Eircom stand off. The scheme is technology neutral, the community group chooses what provider they partner with from the ones that are willing to provide a service to the community.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

It doesn't take much imagination to see that sooner or later, Eircom would enable more and more exchanges, so it would make more sense for the GBSs to target areas *outside* the DSL range - the "dispersed rural communities" in the hinterlands of small towns and villages.

The GBS doesn't "target" anybody specifically, its definitely community-led. If your area is not served by any broadband and broadband is not currently scheduled to be available in the short-term then your community can avail of GBS funding.

Don't forget, when the GBS was first announced, eircom's rollout strategy wasn't clear. AFAIR, it was only announced at the same time that the Dept. announced the GBS project, co-incidence perhaps?

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

If you were a bank manager or suchlike, would you provide a loan to a small community group of volunteers that planned to compete with a gigantic predatory telecoms monopoly like Eircom, the former using wireless technology (to be built), the latter using the existing wired infrastructure and DSL (already present), targetting customers within DSL range of the Eircom exchange? If this doesn't make sense to you (it doesn't make any sense to me), then why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?

If a community group of volunteers had a decent, viable business plan then I think the "loan" would be considered.
If that same community group was in partnership with an existing broadband provider (which is the case in most GBS live areas) and a decent viable, business plan was in place then I reckon the chances of receiving that "loan" would be greatly increased.

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

In my opinion, the reason behind the GBS is social inclusion.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

On the flipside, I think that the effect of the GBS was to "stimulate" Eircom into action, possibly as a spoiler tactic. Well, for whatever reason, Eircom magically DSL-enabled a lot of exchanges, which I think may not have happened without the "notion" of the GBS.

I agree with you on that.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

The service provider that collapsed was Ildana.

Ildana chased nearly every GBS in the country and they were involved in a fair few, presumably to increase business/make profit etc. How would they collapse because of the GBS, surely if the GBS was costing them money then they would not have been involved with the scheme? I thought they collapsed after a failed merger and as a result of large debts?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

Hi Viking,

Thanks for the great posting! I hope you don't mind if I make one or two comments in return.

I think that you misinterpreted my comments about the taxpayer funding the provision of an alternative broadband service provider in areas where such services already exist (with no help/handout from the taxpayer).

The GBS project was supposed to be about bringing broadband to places forgotten or ignored by the Eircoms - rural hinterlands and communities well below the 1500 population threshold. I am all in favour of this. However, I am not in favour of the taxpayer supporting any GBS scheme that wastes time, effort and money in attempting to provide broadband in areas that already have broadband because (1) it is unfair competition for those that provide a service without a handout from the taxpayer (2) it is illegal to claim grants for areas not outlined in the GBS proposal - certainly not the urban centre of a town such as Athenry which is well above the 1500 limit, and (3) it is unfair on those communities living just outside Athenry as they have been effectively robbed of their one option in order to provide an urban dweller with multiple options.

You say that you are turning my argument around "somewhat", but I have to say that I have some difficulty in recognizing what you have thrown back to me! Of course I support youthreach, social housing, childcare facilities and so on - whether they are in Athenry, Galway or in Dublin or at the top of Ben Bulbin - and regardless of whether they impact me or not.

viking wrote:

Ildana chased nearly every GBS in the country and they were involved in a fair few, presumably to increase business/make profit etc. How would they collapse because of the GBS, surely if the GBS was costing them money then they would not have been involved with the scheme? I thought they collapsed after a failed merger and as a result of large debts?

Well, are you asking me or telling me? I know the Ildana story quite well and have close contacts "on the inside". The failed merger happened after the collpase, not the other way around. The large debts were as a result of a number of things, but mostly the lengthy delays in getting schemes up and running, cashflow resulting from bureaucracy, delays, obstruction and red tape dealing with the DCMNR and the GBS. Your own experience in Kinnegad and dealing with Last Mile, the DCMNR and the County Council / Regional Broadband Co-Ordinator suggests that a waiting period of 12-24 months from project submission to fund drawdown is not unusual. In business, delays cost money - unless you have some way of cryogenically freezing your salaried staff and thawing them out when the DCMNR cheque comes in the door. Add in the costs of obtaining a commercial ComReg license, office rental, equipment, purchasing/renting mast sites, obtaining backhaul and a million other items that cost money. All these costs had to be "carried" by Ildana for an inordinate period of time, meanwhile they have little or no income until they actually connect customers to their network.

Niall

Blaster99

viking wrote:

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

In my opinion, the reason behind the GBS is social inclusion.

Because if eircom is going to enable an exchange six months later, the broadband rollout would have cost the taxpayer zip. Hence GBS funding in such a scenario is probably a waste of money. Nobody is going to build social housing unless the Government does it, so it's not a valid comparison.

Having said that, GBS is a completely open funding process and eircom could have bid for it in nearly every case instead of competing with it later. Sounds like major mismanagement on eircom's part, if you ask me. While I'm not really a fan of GBS you can't really fault its transparency in this way. It requires no central strategy, it's up to each community to make the case.

It's not terribly surprising that most GBS schemes targetted areas that subsequently got some other form of commercial broadband. A GBS needs customers much like eircom/IBB/Digiweb/whoever and the successful ones are of course those where there are a lot of people who want broadband and can't get it.

It would seem to me that the MAN approach is better and if coupled with mast infrastructure it would potentially be excellent. With carrier-neutral infrastructure you make sure it's feasible for many companies to provide a service, possibly even including eircom, as you take a lot of pain out of the equation.

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

The GBS doesn't "target" anybody specifically, its definitely community-led. If your area is not served by any broadband and broadband is not currently scheduled to be available in the short-term then your community can avail of GBS funding.

Hi Viking,

Just another point. I live about 10 km outside Athenry, so DSL isn't available for me. There *is* a taxpayer-funded GBS in the area which was approved in the 2nd round. However, for reasons that I am unable to figure out (and it's not for the lack of asking), they decided to put access points in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell and one quarter of their customers are in these areas - all within DSL range of the exchange and some even have both. This was never part of the submitted ACGBS plan and it unclear why this is being funded by the DCMNR. What *is* clear is that there are still many potential customers in my area - some of whom even funded the setting up of the ACGBS Co-Op - and who still cannot get broadband or cannot get an indication as to when it might be available, now over 18 months after the public meetings.

Unlike your scheme in Kinnegad, the ACGBS went down the "Community Owned and Operated" route. However, the Co-Op founders have decided not to bother with all that "legal" stuff, like elections, AGMs, accountability, etc - despite receiving all their funds from the taxpayer and the community. Have a look at the forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=540

especially the thread "Are there not enough frequencies available in Craughwell" for an example for how not to do it!

Niall

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Just another point. I live about 10 km outside Athenry, so DSL isn't available for me. There *is* a taxpayer-funded GBS in the area which was approved in the 2nd round. However, for reasons that I am unable to figure out (and it's not for the lack of asking), they decided to put access points in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell and one quarter of their customers are in these areas - all within DSL range of the exchange and some even have both. This was never part of the submitted ACGBS plan and it unclear why this is being funded by the DCMNR. What *is* clear is that there are still many potential customers in my area - some of whom even funded the setting up of the ACGBS Co-Op - and who still cannot get broadband or cannot get an indication as to when it might be available, now over 18 months after the public meetings.

Thanks for the background information on where you are coming from with your views, I wasn't familiar with the ACGBS setup. I can see now why you're frustrated with the GBS.

The ACGBS setup you described does indeed sound strange. You may have mentioned it already but was DSL enabled prior to the intial GBS application being made by the community group? Sounds like you should FOI the department for information regarding the GBS in your area, email the Minister and let him know about your concerns over where the mast was placed and the lack of coverage the majority of your co-op have.

If DSL existed in an area prior to the initial GBS application then funding should not have been approved. If DSL arrived after funding was approved, it raises some questions:

"should funding be cancelled since the terms of the GBS are now breached?"
or
"should the GBS continue because the application met the initial requirements at the time?".

The former is unfair on the community who put a lot of hard work into the application and unfair on the BB provider who put time/effort/money into it. The latter could be argued (as you have done) is unfair on eircom and other providers since they have not received funding for their service.

I'm of the view that the GBS should continue as initial requirements for funding were met.

Xian

viking wrote:

If DSL existed in an area prior to the initial GBS application then funding should not have been approved.

Less stringent conditions applied to the 2nd round of funding:

"Eligible communities with populations up to 1,500 (based on CSO 2002 Census data) may apply. Communities within this population size may combine to form aggregated proposals. Larger towns may also apply where the projects address the broadband needs of an underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland."

Niall_Stevenson

Xian wrote:

Less stringent conditions applied to the 2nd round of funding:

"Eligible communities with populations up to 1,500 (based on CSO 2002 Census data) may apply. Communities within this population size may combine to form aggregated proposals. Larger towns may also apply where the projects address the broadband needs of an underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland."

Thanks Xian,

Two things. First, the population of Athenry is 2100 (according to CSO 2002, probably more like 3500 now) and is therefore ineligible to receive grant support. Regardless of when the Eircom exchange became DSL-enabled. Period.

Second, the ACGBS proposal made no mention of servicing the urban centre of Athenry or any "underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland". None. Zero. Zilch. In any case, the location of the mast - about 100 mtr from the Eircom exchange (!!) - makes it unsuitable to serve anyone except for those very close to the mast - and also the Eircom exchange - and certainly does nothing for anyone on the outskirts of the town or rural hinterlands whose Eircom line is "unsuitable" for DSL. And if it's not mentioned in the GBS proposal, then it's an open and shut case. If it's not in the proposal then it's not eligible for funding. Period.

Niall

Sponge Bob

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

The large debts were as a result of a number of things, but mostly the lengthy delays in getting schemes up and running, cashflow resulting from bureaucracy, delays, obstruction and red tape dealing with the DCMNR and the GBS.

And thats the only sensible thing you said really.

The GBS scheme was crippled by the DCMNR, they deliberately sought to impede the financing of the schemes and deliberately affected the casflow and ongoing viability of many small competent ISPs nationwide .

I know of one scheme which

1. is up and running
2. was delayed for approval for months because the DCMNR had given their application a cursory reading and refused to accept its viability simply because it DID NOT MENTION satellite ......they did not use satellite at all.
3. has exceeded its coverage targets and now services over 50% of ALL households in its catchment area meaning 50% penetration.
4. has still not got a penny.

The DCMNR basically did not give a **** and still has not paid a shekel. They are damn lucky they survived . Poor oul Ildana , not uniquely, has been shafted by the DCMNR who have simply refused to honour their committments and put rural Irish projects in grave peril with their iniquitous bureaucracy .

Dempsey has now gotten rid of all the Regional BB Officers listed on his website (try ringing your local one about GBS3 if you wish) so there can be no GBS 3 save on a national basis and by dealing with Dempsey himself and his minions . Having comprehensively shafted all the local and regional players Dempsey is busy rewriting the T&Cs so that ONLY eircom can get GBS3 funding. He may get his wish .

The arrogant sod also refused to answer the 33 questions put to him by his own Dáil committee on the issue (and other issues too ) a few months back.

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote:

The GBS scheme was crippled by the DCMNR, they deliberately sought to impede the financing of the schemes and deliberately affected the casflow and ongoing viability of many small competent ISPs nationwide .

Deliberately? Like the same red tape any public funding has associated with it, or are you suggesting something more sinister? I mean if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive. Sure, in a better world that wouldn't happen, but such is life. However, if you're suggesting that this was above and beyond the norm in a deliberate attempt to achieve something, what did they do, and to achieve what?

Sponge Bob wrote:

Dempsey is busy rewriting the T&Cs so that ONLY eircom can get GBS3 funding.

Have you got ANY source for that, at all? Reading that (both in and out of context) really sounds like childish mud slinging, but then maybe you're right, which is why I'm asking first! That is assuming that GBS3 is even happening, which nobody has confirmed (doesn't stop the speculation, though). So, back that one up SB!

.cg

oscarBravo

cgarvey wrote:

...if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive.

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but one of the promised changes between rounds 1 and 2 was that grants would be paid out promptly.

Sponge Bob

cgarvey wrote:

Deliberately? Like the same red tape any public funding has associated with it, or are you suggesting something more sinister?

Deliberately. They simply refuse to travel out to inspect schemes to verify they are up and running and this refusal goes on for months and months .

cgarvey wrote:

I mean if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive. Sure, in a better world that wouldn't happen, but such is life. However, if you're suggesting that this was above and beyond the norm in a deliberate attempt to achieve something, what did they do, and to achieve what?

No application received by the end of april 2005 in GBS 2 has been funded in full save maybe where the application came from Eircom but I am not sure . They DO NOT travel out to inspect eircom schemes which is pretty cheeky .

Not paying anybody anything for 15 months after receipt of a properly completed application form is beyond the call of duty for any diligent bureaucrat ....surely .

cgarvey wrote:

]Have you got ANY source for that, at all? Reading that (both in and out of context) really sounds like childish mud slinging, but then maybe you're right, which is why I'm asking first! That is assuming that GBS3 is even happening, which nobody has confirmed (doesn't stop the speculation, though). So, back that one up SB!

here is the list of GBS co ordinators, ring them up or email them yourself and find out if they are still GBS co ordinators . They have all been redeployed to other tasks because there will be no regional GB work for them ever again. They have officially had nothing to do about GBS since April 2005 anyway.

GBS3 will really be a national non tender and which is awaiting some clarification or pre clearance from the EU Commission and which will go to eircom. My source is pretty good as always .

It will be called a GBS <maybe> and will use GBS funds from that multi year €25 m budget of Dempseys <definitely absolutely including other peoples allocations > but there will be no local or regional input as contracting partners or SLA setters or as ISPs. The G bit is gone, the BS remains of course

There is an election coming up after all and Dempsey is under quite serious pressure at present to do th'oul rabbit and hat job for his backbenchers. He got awful schtick at a backbenchers conference in leinster house early this month.

jwt

So nothing to do with GBS schemes where the participants have not achieved the required levels and if an audit were done those GBS schemes would be required to hand money back?


Something that would be embarrasing to everyone.

And if you don't audit one but audit another then everyone assumes that something hokey is going on?

I have had ongoing conversations this year with Joe Tighe GBS co-ordinator for Meath this year and as recently as three months ago.

John

Sponge Bob

There are non compliant schemes. Of course there are.

There are compliant schemes where the department simply refuses to verify compliance and uses this as an excsue not to disburse.

oscarBravo

jwt wrote:

So nothing to do with GBS schemes where the participants have not achieved the required levels and if an audit were done those GBS schemes would be required to hand money back?

This implies money being paid out without an audit being done. Apart from SB's suggestion that Eircom weren't audited (and nothing would surprise me), I've yet to hear of a scheme being paid for in the absence of an audit.

We've had financial and technical audits, and - believe me - they checked the subscriber numbers. Thoroughly.

Haven't seen a cheque yet.

jwt

Maybe my logic is screwy here so hear me out.

A sizeable amount of money has been paid out from GBS funding.

4 million plus if memory serves?

So some GBS schemes have recieved funding?

And, of these, some will not be compliant?

And if some are non compliant do you just audit ones you "know" are compliant?


Or are you saying that NO money ever was paid out to any GBS anywhere anytime?

If you are making the case that no one has been paid an FOI request will get the results in 6 weeks.

As far as audits I am referring to initial subscriber numbers and subscriber numbers at a later date.

John

viking

oscarBravo wrote:

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but one of the promised changes between rounds 1 and 2 was that grants would be paid out promptly.

This is what I heard too, the grants were also to be "front-loaded" meaning that a bigger percentage would be available at the start of the rollout when it was needed most.

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote:

Deliberately. They simply refuse to travel out to inspect schemes to verify they are up and running and this refusal goes on for months and months.

So if that's the case, surely Ildana would have gone down the road of legal action? 15 months is excessive, agreed.

I don't doubt the coordinators being chopped (and you've offered proof of that)

Sponge Bob wrote:

GBS3 will really be a national non tender and which is awaiting some clarification or pre clearance from the EU Commission and which will go to eircom. My source is pretty good as always .

That's still speculation though, isn't it? I mean GBS3 hasn't been confirmed, let alone the format of it yet, has it?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

This is what I heard too, the grants were also to be "front-loaded" meaning that a bigger percentage would be available at the start of the rollout when it was needed most.

There are (were) three different options for claiming the grant:

Option 1: build the network, launch it and attain the agreed minimum subscriber target number (as stated in the proposal) - then lodge a claim for the grant.

Option 2: build the network and launch it. Then claim 90% of the grant. The remaining 10% can be claimed when the minimum target subscriber number is attained.

Option 3: build the network. Then claim 70% of the grant. Launch the network, then claim another 20%. Then attain the minimum target subscriber number and claim the last 10%.

I think than it all cases - options 1, 2 and 3 - the majority of the costs are incurred in building the network. So the community or BISP has to take a fairly large leap of faith by spending their own money up front before being able to claim back the grant.

An important point to note is that the grant is based on vouched, validated expenditure that was previously approved in the GBS project plan. A number of GBSs misinterpreted the words "70% of the grant", etc to mean that they would receive 70% of the grant amount. This was highly misleading and a point that the DCMNR refused to budge on.

I have heard of substantial GBS grants (EUR 10,000 or more) being held up for weeks or months because of delays in accepting a EUR 10 receipt.

In the case of another GBS that I know of, the first GBS grant payment took about 4 months of constant negotiation, phone calls, emails, etc to secure.

I really pity any GBS or BISP who availed of option 1 above and had to endure months and months and months of delays from the DCMNR.

Niall

Niall_Stevenson

cgarvey wrote:

So if that's the case, surely Ildana would have gone down the road of legal action? 15 months is excessive, agreed.

Imagine that you are a small company like Ildana, trying your best to build a business and suffering long delays in getting the GBS grant for anything up to 24 months. You will probably be running short of cash and will probably be running on reserves - overdrafts, loans, invoice discounting, whatever (all of which is costing you more money) - and you will probably be doing a lot of praying too. In the normal course of events, you might consider a debt collector or legal action. However, legal action costs even more money, and is not very fast either. Experience has shown that trying to sue the State is very tricky and *very* expensive - they will hire the best and most expensive team of barristers in the country, whose tab you will pick up if you lose.

Niall

Niall_Stevenson

jwt wrote:

Maybe my logic is screwy here so hear me out.
A sizeable amount of money has been paid out from GBS funding.
4 million plus if memory serves?

Hi John,

As I said before, it is extremely difficult to get proper facts and figures - especially from the DCMNR. I have asked the questions about how many projects are up and running, how many subscribers are connected, etc, without any luck. The Oireachtas Joint Committee has asked the same questions without any response. IBEC have asked and have obtained no response.

If memory serves me correctly, the EUR 4 million is the amount of money that was *allocated* to part of the Group Broadband Scheme. We must be careful to distinguish between monies allocated and monies actually drawn down.

I would be very interested to see how much of the EUR 25 million allocated to the GBS (phases 1 -3) is actually spent and the number of subscribers actually connected.

Niall

Niall_Stevenson

oscarBravo wrote:

This implies money being paid out without an audit being done. Apart from SB's suggestion that Eircom weren't audited (and nothing would surprise me), I've yet to hear of a scheme being paid for in the absence of an audit.

We've had financial and technical audits, and - believe me - they checked the subscriber numbers. Thoroughly.

Haven't seen a cheque yet.

I have heard of some GBS schemes getting at least part of the grant before an audit, but these have all gone down the "Option 3" route - three calims for 70%, 20% and 10% of the grant.

Perhaps if you go down the Option 1 route - build the network and add in all the subscribers then claim 100% of the grant - then an audit is a prerequisite to getting your grant?

In any case, all GBS projects can be audited at any time. THis is part of the Terms and Conditions of the grant.

I am not aware of Eircom participating in the 2nd round of the GBS.

Niall

jbkenn

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Imagine that you are a small company like Ildana, trying your best to build a business and suffering long delays in getting the GBS grant for anything up to 24 months. You will probably be running short of cash and will probably be running on reserves - overdrafts, loans, invoice discounting, whatever (all of which is costing you more money) - and you will probably be doing a lot of praying too. In the normal course of events, you might consider a debt collector or legal action. However, legal action costs even more money, and is not very fast either. Experience has shown that trying to sue the State is very tricky and *very* expensive - they will hire the best and most expensive team of barristers in the country, whose tab you will pick up if you lose.

Niall

I am sorry Niall, but I for one, who, with others around here had to endure hours of waffle at numerous GBS information evenings from Ildana representatives, about their wonderful "giddyup satellite", hey, I nearly ended up believing it myself, find it very difficult to muster any sympathy for Ildana

At the launch of the second phase GBS, JWT was invited to speak as a representative of a GBS launched under the first phase, after speaking eloquently on the GBS, he then took the opportunity to, as he put it, "wear his Ioffl hat" and stated clearly Ioffl's opposition to the deployment of satellite solutions in rural Ireland "a third world solution to a first world problem", at the subsequent Q&A the "satellite lobby" had no questions on the detail of the scheme, but, instead, felt the need to launch a robust defence of "giddyup satellite" to the point that the Minister quipped "that if we did not know anything about satellite, we did now.

Incidently, at the second phase launch 7 projects were announced, 1 went to a Community wireless project and 6 went to Ildana.

Of the 120 projects annouced under phase 1 and 2 Ildana were awarded 31, more than 25% of the projects, all the other companies and communities faced the same issues with the DCMNR as Ildana and seem to have weathered them.

It has long been my contention, that if your business model is financially dependant on State or Semi State grant aid, then, do not proceed,

jbkenn

p.s. If you are still in contact with the remnants of Ildana, would you please get them to turn off the 5 AP's that are cluttering up the sprectrum from Ballyneety Golf and Country Club, thanks.

jbkenn

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

I am not aware of Eircom participating in the 2nd round of the GBS.

Niall

They were awarded 3 under the second phase
Beara Tourism & Development Ltd, Eircom ADSL
Ballinamore Broadband Group, Eircom ADSL
Fethard & Killusty Community Council, Eircom ADSL

jbkenn

Niall_Stevenson

jbkenn wrote:

I am sorry Niall, but I for one, who, with others around here had to endure hours of waffle at numerous GBS information evenings from Ildana representatives, about their wonderful "giddyup satellite", hey, I nearly ended up believing it myself, find it very difficult to muster any sympathy for Ildana

Hi Jbkenn,

Thanks for your contribution to the debate. Please note that I am not here to defend - or attack - Ildana, or any other commercial company.

The biggest amount of waffle that I have endured in this whole debate has been that from DCMNR, particularly their totally misleading explanation of the GBS grant payment mechanism. What was presented as simple and straightforward turned out to be an nightmare exercise in contorted logic and unnecessary bureaucracy.

I agree totally with your comments regarding the deployment of satellite. Again, I am not here to defend or attack a particular technology. Having siad that, I think that one of the primary concerns of the GBS is that the deployment technology should be scalable and reliable. This would make satellite a very poor choice and it indicates (to me) a lack of understanding on the part of DCMNR that such a high percentage of GBS (and Schools) use satellite. This is way way way above the European norm too.

Your comments about other communities and providers "weathering the storm" of DCMNR red tape and obstruction can only be verified when we have all the facts and figures. It says a lot when the very body "managing" the alloaction of European Regional Development Funds consistently refuse to answer questions about the success - or otherwise - of the entire GBS scheme, particularly the amount of money drawn down, the number of projects up and running and the number of customers connected.

You say that "It has long been my contention, that if your business model is financially dependant on State or Semi State grant aid, then, do not proceed". Agreed. Totally. Since I started looking into the broadband problem the last few years, I have come to the conclusion that State subsidies, grants, regulation and intervention rarely achieve a happy outcome for anyone involved - in this sector or any others. What seems to work best is "proper" commercial competition.

One last thing - please stop shooting the messenger! After all - we're all on the same side here. Right?

Niall

Niall_Stevenson

jbkenn wrote:

They were awarded 3 under the second phase
Beara Tourism & Development Ltd, Eircom ADSL
Ballinamore Broadband Group, Eircom ADSL
Fethard & Killusty Community Council, Eircom ADSL

jbkenn

Hi Jbkenn,

Thanks. Point accepted.

Niall

Niall_Stevenson

jbkenn wrote:

p.s. If you are still in contact with the remnants of Ildana, would you please get them to turn off the 5 AP's that are cluttering up the sprectrum from Ballyneety Golf and Country Club, thanks.

Hi Jbkenn,

I have nothing to do and am not in contact with Ildana and have no power to ask anyone to turn off the IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN access points that you mention.

I thought you said that they were using satellite anyway?

Niall

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

I thought you said that they were using satellite anyway?

Satellite as "backhaul" and distributed to customers via wireless AFAIK.

jwt

they were going for the worst of all worlds.

Satellite backhaul and wireless to individual clients.

I think there is some data and information that requires clearing up from DCMNR about the GBS.

Anybody feel like putting together a letter to the DCMNR asking a list of questions on points that require clearing up e.g.

How many GBS schemes have received full funding

How many GBS schemes have received no funding at all

etc etc

John