[Business post] Eircom asks state to foot €200m bill to fix carriers

Foxwood

wiredup wrote:

With regards Westnet. Why is is taking so long to expand your network and coverage area? You have been in position for a while now to build a massive customer base without competition. Most people around Mayo/Castlebar have never even heard of Westnet.
I contacted you last year asking for some literature that I could display in our village informing people about your services. I bet I could have got 30-50 pre orders. I had no reply.
With the deepest respect, I think your company need to be taking advantage of this unique situation. When the competition arrives and it will arrive, things won't be so easy. At the moment, you can get your potential customers to do most of the work for you.

What do you suggest Westnet should have used to pay for the additional hardware they'd need to purchase, and the people that they'd need to employ to expand their coverage that fast?

Companies can only grow at a certain pace. If you think your village would be a lucrative business opportunity, why didn't you start your own WISP? (That's a rhetorical question - you didn't have the resources to do it either).

Blaster99

oscarBravo wrote:

My argument is that if Eircom refuse to deliver broadband, to pay them to do so is effectively caving in to blackmail.

No, your argument was that if eircom makes broadband available then it entrenches their monopoly (which presumably is a bad thing). The implication of that statement is that it's better for the country if eircom can't deliver broadband.

If eircom signs up to a deal similar to that in the north, €200m sounds pretty cheap. That's the rural broadband issue sorted effectively.

lucernarian

Blaster99 wrote:

No, your argument was that if eircom makes broadband available then it entrenches their monopoly (which presumably is a bad thing). The implication of that statement is that it's better for the country if eircom can't deliver broadband.

If eircom signs up to a deal similar to that in the north, €200m sounds pretty cheap. That's the rural broadband issue sorted effectively.

The issue is not sorted effectively. There is still the issue of long lines. Repeaters would be a good step. I'd dearly love to know how much (or little) they cost. I saw in some report or other that distance affected either 4% or 7% of lines. When more rural exchanges are added, that figure will rise even further.

BT were proactive in solving that problem for their £20 million odd payment. This is speculation but it looks like eircom have washed their hands of the distance problem.

Sponge Bob

To_be_confirmed wrote:

BT were proactive in solving that problem for their £20 million odd payment. This is speculation but it looks like eircom have washed their hands of the distance problem.

and even though BT were proactive and even though BT upgraded every exchange they still tried to cheat by installing some VSAT systems i a few cases.

PixelTrawler

gerryo wrote:

What!, there are pairgains in cities, that's an abomination.

Whatever about rural areas, there was or never will be an acceptable reason to install such devices in towns. It smacks of short sightedness of the highest order & a total lack of forward planning.

Quite a lot of Knocknacarra is pairgained - thats why NTL, when they came to galway first, targeted knocknacarra first.

Theres some colleagues of mine at work that were told by eircom they'd never get BB. They were among the first to get NTL down here.

They're housing estates are in and around the clybaun hotel area

Blaster99

To_be_confirmed wrote:

The issue is not sorted effectively. There is still the issue of long lines. Repeaters would be a good step. I'd dearly love to know how much (or little) they cost. I saw in some report or other that distance affected either 4% or 7% of lines. When more rural exchanges are added, that figure will rise even further.

BT were proactive in solving that problem for their £20 million odd payment. This is speculation but it looks like eircom have washed their hands of the distance problem.

I don't know if it's worth repeating this as I thought it was pretty obvious the first time, but I wrote if the €200m achieves what has been achieved in NI then it's a good thing. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. That obviously includes the distance issue.

jwt

Sponge Bob wrote:

and even though BT were proactive and even though BT upgraded every exchange they still tried to cheat by installing some VSAT systems i a few cases.

Care to expand and/or back that allegation up Muck?

Specifically

they still tried to cheat by installing some VSAT systems

Cheat? As in deceive, defraud, swindle, dupe or con.

John

bealtine

Blaster99 wrote:

I don't know if it's worth repeating this as I thought it was pretty obvious the first time, but I wrote if the €200m achieves what has been achieved in NI then it's a good thing. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. That obviously includes the distance issue.

Which neatly brings us right back to the start....

What Service Levels do we get for this €200m?
If there is no real SLA in place then what is the point?
Can we be guaranteed that this money won't disappear offshore to service debt?

So why not spend the €200m on decent wireless access for rural areas. Perhaps funding a decent Wimax trial instead? Isn't that what the money was originally earmarked for in the first instance?
Cities in the amazonian jungle can manage to fund it and implement Wimax...

Sponge Bob

jwt wrote:

Care to expand and/or back that allegation up

there was a petition online about it during the summer

read it yourself

http://www.gopetition.com/online/9274.html

Update: August 18, 2006

This petition is now closed. BT are attempting to improve my system by changing my method of communication to cabled, the proposals seem good, thanks to all that signed this.

August 4, 2006

In 2003 BT secured a contract to supply Broadband to 100% of homes in Northern Ireland.

Now in 2006 when they have "completed this objective" they are downgrading all customers on Radio Broadband to Satellite broadband which gives a fraction of the benefits and even the chief executive of BT Wholesale Paul Reynolds admits :
"It is not true broadband, but it will give much faster internet access to many people who could otherwise be denied".

BT has spent part of a £10 Million European Grant putting in place Radio transmitters for radio broadband and this service is now to be axed, BT must not be allowed to get away with this.

jwt wrote:

Cheat? As in deceive, defraud, swindle, dupe or con.

ALL of those actually but "cheat" was quite enough jwt , you did not have to labour the point so.

They contracted to supply everone in NI with DSL or failing that with Wireless. Then they decided to supply grotty ****ty satellite instead of wireless. Then they got caught doing it Once the petition went up they backed down fairly sharpish in that case but I am not certain that there may not be others who have been downgraded to VSAT . Their wireless gear (where deployed) was unlicenced .

On balance BT NI are a professional caring and upstanding company and generally behave in an honourable and socially respobsible way . I was surprised at them if I may I say that around here ????

damien

There an Ofcom ruling or a DETI NI ruling on this? If not, I suggest you stop libeling BT on this forum.

Sponge Bob

damien.m wrote:

There an Ofcom ruling or a DETI NI ruling on this? If not, I suggest you stop libeling BT on this forum.

Look , if BT NI got a derogation of some sort from the original contract which allows them to downgrade wireless to VSAT then they did not cheat the DETI in NI but varied their contract by agreement . Their wireless customers may not consider this to be an upgrade and may still feel cheated even if the contract is fulfilled.

I have never ever heard of an "upgrade" from wireless BB to satellite BB in my life, naturally I am intrigued by this .

Finally the fraction of BT customer in NI who are potentially affected by this "upgrade" from wireless to satellite is about 0.5% of NI or less . 99.5% can get DSL up there unlike down here where its max 70% on a dry day with a gentle breeze blowing .

I am specifically unaware of this derogation or of the 'why' of the downgrade for their wireless customers so linkees please , otherwise my 'cheat' comment stands albeit based on the contents of the online petition only I will add .

jwt

Some quicky research on this.

The contract stipulated that radio BB was (note OCR'd so spelling etc may be flaky)

Based on point to multipoint radio technology using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex (OFDM) technology.

OFDM technology uses multiple frequencylphase radio paths to provided excellent tolerance to multi-path prorogation, reflections and interference. It also provides non-line of site capability.

Customers Subscriber Unit (SU) communicates back to a central Access Unit (AU) The BT Radio broadband offering will provide coverage for the remainder of the Service Area that is unable to avail of fixed line ADSL services from BT exchanges. The Radio broadband service will be provided from a network of sites throughout Northern Ireland and will provide, by 31'' December 2005, the remaining coverage of the Service Area of Northern Ireland that is not possible to cover using fixed line ADSL technology. The Radio broadband network topology will be resilient and consist of a backhaul network based on full SDH resilience. All backhanl will be provided using existing BT Fibre. There is no requirement for line of sight. The radio broadband network shall be deployed in such a way as to minimise the need for new masts.

Wholesale compatible. Leading technology. Operating in the recently opened 5.8Ghz Band C spectrum offering licensed access to radio broadband

The only mention of VSAT is

Radio Broadband services:

Anew set of installation and in-life support processes will be delivered to support Business and Consumer customers ("retail customers") who take a Radio Broadband service from BT. These processes will draw upon processes that exist for Satellite Broadband and Fixed Line Broadband.

A new set of installation and in-life support processes for ISP customers ("wholesale customers") will be delivered

Which I am taking as meaning that BT have to adhere to whatever support and processes there were in place for existing VSAT customers i.e. you cant suddenly give them Wireless and completely change their existing support, billing, etc.

However, nowhere in any documentation I can find does it state that BT were under an obligation to keep wireless BB users on wireless.

I take your point about the "upgrade" but it is within the letter of the law. Hence calling BT cheats is untrue in a legal sense.

Do I think they are pulling a fast one?

On the basis of one incident, no. Especially as we have no sight of the surrounding circumstances.

However if this is happening on a regular basis then yes.

Calling them cheats in this forum when there isn't any direct evidence isn't doing us any favours Muck.

http://www.pgregg.com/images/forums/BT%20Broadband%20Contract%20Redacted%20Version%20-%20IR%20004-ocred/


http://www.pgregg.com/forums/viewforum.php?id=1

EDIT: I wasn't labouring the point so much as making one.

cgarvey

jwt wrote:

Calling them cheats in this forum when there isn't any direct evidence isn't doing us any favours Muck.

Agreed, and this is the last warning to you SB. The often inaccurate sensationalist posting will no longer be tolerated.

So (to all, not just SB), the next mention of BT/VSAT will be deleted (with possible bans). Get back on topic, post elsewhere or don't post. Should eircom be getting €200m is the topic.

.cg

Sponge Bob

cgarvey wrote:

Agreed, and this is the last warning to you SB.

Downgrading an already installed wireless in the 5.8Ghz band ( a wholesale product it is too lest eircom think they can not or need not offer their version wholesale) to a VSAT install is a 'cheat' to some extent and makes a mockery of the Universal Aspect of this project in my opinion.

netwhizkid

cgarvey wrote:

Agreed, and this is the last warning to you SB. The often inaccurate sensationalist posting will no longer be tolerated.

So (to all, not just SB), the next mention of BT/VSAT will be deleted (with possible bans). Get back on topic, post elsewhere or don't post. Should eircom be getting €200m is the topic.

.cg

I see Noel and his Minions are having there way, Civil War in IOFFL?? Divide and Conquer?? SpongeBob is one the biggest contributors and to remove him from the equation will set back this discussion board a huge amount. Who Compiled the FWA List etc?? Eircom should get the €200Million as I stipulated earlier.

Sponge FTW

Sponge Bob

Dude

It was Damien found the map it was you who saved the map before it was snatched away forever and Damien found the list with the locations later on.

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote:

Downgrading an already installed wireless in the 5.8Ghz band ( a wholesale product it is too lest eircom think they can not or need not offer their version wholesale) to a VSAT install is a 'cheat' to some extent and makes a mockery of the Universal Aspect of this project in my opinion.

BT did nothing illegal in this case, right? To say they did is incorrect, and is libellous. I agree with SB's sentiment that it's not right, but that's only according to my own morals, not because of any law or any contract. It's akin to the argument are eircom doing anything wrong by holding back BB rollout? Most here would think they were wrong morally, but can anyone demonstrate something illegal?

Anyway the offending party has been warned. He or anyone else doesn't have to like it. I'm not here to please the posters, I'm here to enforce a charter.

damien

netwhizkid wrote:

I see Noel and his Minions are having there way,

If you believe that then it's pointless visiting this forum anymore. Try the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Civil War in IOFFL??

Hardly.

Who Compiled the FWA List etc??

Me. Glad you mentioned FWA. If I recall I had a journalist willing to do a story on this and you wouldn't go on record to state eircom refused to give FWA to you. Using your logic it seems Noel and His Minions and eircom had their way there.

Sponge Bob

cgarvey wrote:

BT did nothing illegal in this case, right? To say they did is incorrect, and is libellous. I agree with SB's sentiment that it's not right, but that's only according to my own morals, not because of any law or any contract.

Cheat was my word all along about BT installing VSAT in place of an existing wireless install .....but is not the same as illegal and I never said illegal did I cg YOU did .

I'm damned if I know why everybody is so intensely touchy about this and if my use in this context of the word Cheat causes such problems I would rather be banned right now , no warning, than partake any further in this ( or some apparently inevitable) histrionic bout of semantics .

jwt

Sponge Bob wrote:

I would rather be banned right now , no warning, than partake any further in this ( or some apparently inevitable) histrionic bout of semantics .

Pedantic more than histrionic, i'm looking for an example of histrionics but somehow a suitable example just doesn't seem to be at hand

Sponge Bob

Short History Lesson Here.

1. In 2001 BT announce universal BB in NI , the first UK region to get Universal BB form BT . It was VSAT would you believe :eeek:

2. In 2004 The DETI in NI decides that a better Universal system would be DSL and Wireless, BT won the tender to do just that .

3. In 2006 a confused Sponge believes that replacing wireless with VSAT is a 'cheat' in view of all that .

wiredup

Foxwood wrote:

What do you suggest Westnet should have used to pay for the additional hardware they'd need to purchase, and the people that they'd need to employ to expand their coverage that fast?

Companies can only grow at a certain pace. If you think your village would be a lucrative business opportunity, why didn't you start your own WISP? (That's a rhetorical question - you didn't have the resources to do it either).

I don't have the technical knowledge to set up my own company.

But the fact remains that the two years I have been here Westnet's coverage seems to be spreading at a snails pace. It's a FACT that the market is for the taking but this will not always be the case.
With regards the additional hardware, YES if I can drum up 30-50 customers from one small village imagine what Westnet could do if they got their publicity engine running properly.
Westnet should tell us how many customers it needs in a certain area to make it viable to make coverage possible.
I want Westnet to succeed. I believe there are huge numbers of customers for Westnet but as I have said, most people have not even heard of them.

RangeR

wiredup wrote:

I don't have the technical knowledge to set up my own company.

But the fact remains that the two years I have been here Westnet's coverage seems to be spreading at a snails pace. It's a FACT that the market is for the taking but this will not always be the case.
With regards the additional hardware, YES if I can drum up 30-50 customers from one small village imagine what Westnet could do if they got their publicity engine running properly.
Westnet should tell us how many customers it needs in a certain area to make it viable to make coverage possible.
I want Westnet to succeed. I believe there are huge numbers of customers for Westnet but as I have said, most people have not even heard of them.

This is going waaaay off topic. But probably the problem with WestNet is that in order to sign up customers, they have to supply them with the hardware needed to obtain a signal. Westnet may not have enough cash to purchase that amount of kit. Simple economics if this is the case. Maybe they are building up their cash reserves to spread out? Who knows? ISP's aren't making a mint on their product, especially the smaller ones.

watty

Getting too many customers at once can explode a company.

Money to buy stuff, extra EXPERIENCED staff, planning, project management, maintaing company vision/culture, extra money to pay for extra staff etc, etc. More vans, more premises.. Then when you have expanded to limit of possible customer base making installer redundant etc.


There is a limit to how fast any company can grow.

bealtine

watty wrote:

Money to buy stuff,

Maybe the .gov can give them the €200mill instead?

bminish

We would love to grow faster.
Money would help us grow faster.

With all the market uncertainties that exist due to the current state of communications regulation combined with uncertainty as to what the GOV is going to do next to 'fix the market' It would be difficult to raise large chunks of Capital on favourable terms

It would also be very imprudent to go deep into debit in the unlikely event one could find a banker willing to invest in the Irish telecoms market as it currently stands.

We are growing the company
We are scaling up our growth rate
We are expanding coverage
But we are trying to do it within our means

.brendan

Westnet

lucernarian

Blaster99 wrote:

I don't know if it's worth repeating this as I thought it was pretty obvious the first time, but I wrote if the €200m achieves what has been achieved in NI then it's a good thing. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. That obviously includes the distance issue.

What was achieved in NI was not the total removal of pairgains. To this day I still see BT-DACS boxes in NI, but it seems to be quite uncommon. I understand that the long distance issue was resolved outside of the govt. tender and was a policy enacted over all of the UK.

I suspect that the €200 million will remove ALL pairgains, including the ones on long lines. Why the hell should we pay for eircom to remove pairgains on lines they will fail anyway? I'd much rather see some money spent on the DSL equivalents of pairgains just so that people can at least get a basic "broadband" service.

Those remote DSLAMs are not a long term option anyway, but they will put an end to people paying more for an older technology.

Btw, I was wrong to say that BT removed the line distance problem for £20 million. If I remember right, they did it for free.

Foxwood

To_be_confirmed wrote:

I suspect that the €200 million will remove ALL pairgains, including the ones on long lines.

You want to bet? They'll remove them from the lines of customers who request Broadband. Why bother spending all that money on customers who won't notice the difference, when it could be used to service the debt instead?

Liam Byrne

Hey guys.....sharing a line that you've paid in full for shouldn't be that surprising; after all, that's exactly what you do with eircom's broadband - you and 47 of your neighbours! :rolleyes:

Solair

Perhaps the Govt should do a deal where by they invest the €200m but attach a whole load of conditions to the deal.

e.g. LLU that actually works and is an automated process

or even better again, that the state will get some control over the last mile network again e.g. perhaps taking it into a partly state owned company etc.

The major issue with the state of our lines is that eircom didn't keep up with the massive growth in "teledensity" i.e. the number of telephone lines per capita.

Rural areas in particular saw demand for telephone lines sky rocket in the early 90s and eircom/TE simply whacked in pairgains rather than running real lines.

The majority of the investment in the local loop system in this country happened in the 1980s. It's been creeking through the celtic tiger days.