Do you feel sorry for people living in the sticks..

thebman

Blaster99 wrote: »

I know that I'm subsidising rural Ireland. Very few counties in Ireland contribute more in taxation than they cost to run. Eircom's universal service obligation is much the same. My line rental is subsidising the many less efficient rural installations out there so those complaining about paying line rental while not receiving broadband, are probably not getting such a rough deal after all.

In the meantime, eircom is under increasing competitive pressure from competitors that can cherry pick the most lucrative and always urban areas. It seems quite reasonable that eircom should in term target those same lucrative areas and not worry about the wireless bit players that fight for the odd rural customer.

and those workers in rural Ireland provide a lot of the services you take for granted.

Also they pay about 30 euro a month on top of the highest line rental in the world for flat rate 56K access so no your not subsidizing them. They have done more than pay for the price of a crappy 56K line in the time they've been stuck on dial up in many cases.

rav1410

Lads, The chap in an a$$hole,

He's only doing it to get a rise out of you, I wouldn't waste the energy of replying back to him

Fighting Irish

brim4brim wrote: »

I like how you how replied to this but ignored all the posts absolutely slamming your idiotic point of view.

Classic troll behaviour

You don't see old school trolling like this very much. Most people have moved on from it.

I didn't reply to all the replies because most were bashing me for stuff i didn't even say :rolleyes:

OK let me give you an example of what i'm talking about:
My friend moved from carlow town to the outskirts(the country) of wexford.
He use to get 3mb for €40 and now all he can get is 1mb for €40 and its up and down the whole time. He complains about how the whole country can't get a good 3mb for €40ish.
All i'm saying is what does he expect. It should be but its not.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it!
Lot of pussyhurt people around here.

jor el

Blaster99 wrote: »

I know that I'm subsidising rural Ireland. My line rental is subsidising the many less efficient rural installations out there so those complaining about paying line rental while not receiving broadband, are probably not getting such a rough deal after all.

What about all the people paying line rental for a line that does not and never will be able to support broadband? Why should they subsidise you who can receive a wider range of services on your line when they never will? Also, who's fault is it that some exchanges (on which it's thought the DSL failure rate could be 50% or more) are less efficient than others? Is it mine, yours, country dwellers, or eircom's?

jor el

Fighting Irish wrote: »

All i'm saying is what does he expect.

So you're saying he can't expect to have the same broadband he had before, because he's moved out of town, OK.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

It should be but its not.

Now you're saying he should expect it.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it!

You don't seem to have a clue what you are saying. You're either a bad troll or a idiot.

paulm17781

jor el wrote: »

What about all the people paying line rental for a line that does not and never will be able to support broadband? Why should they subsidise you who can receive a wider range of services on your line when they never will? Also, who's fault is it that some exchanges (on which it's thought the DSL failure rate could be 50% or more) are less efficient than others? Is it mine, yours, country dwellers, or eircom's?

What % of these would be in one off houses? How much did it cost to extend the phone line down to that one house?

Fighting Irish

jor el wrote: »

So you're saying he can't expect to have the same broadband he had before, because he's moved out of town, OK.

He knew what he was getting himself into, and knew that for the foreseeable future it would be the same.


Now you're saying he should expect it.

I'm saying in a perfect country everyone should have the quickest internet possible, but we live in reality



You don't seem to have a clue what you are saying. You're either a bad troll or a idiot.

All i'm trying to get across is i'm not saying "fook all boggers"

.

Blaster99

jor el wrote: »

What about all the people paying line rental for a line that does not and never will be able to support broadband? Why should they subsidise you who can receive a wider range of services on your line when they never will? Also, who's fault is it that some exchanges (on which it's thought the DSL failure rate could be 50% or more) are less efficient than others? Is it mine, yours, country dwellers, or eircom's?

In what way are people who largely live far from an exchange in a rural area subsidising my phone line which is in an estate in an urban area? Trust me, if the line rental wasn't part of the USO, the former would be paying multiples of what I'm paying.

"Fault" implies that there's some God given right that a phone line should support DSL. There's not. Eircom inherited a poor network and has made the commercial decision not to fix it in many cases. Obviously because it's not economically viable to do so. This tells you something about how expensive it is to fix it, as eircom's broadband products aren't exactly cheap and diminishing numbers of people bother with a phone line if they can't get broadband on it.

Eventually eircom will run out of low hanging fruit and will start to fix lines, and perhaps that day is coming.

But never expect to get the same service or product offering as that available in urban areas. Rural areas will always lag behind. That's just the nature of the beast. Much like living in Ireland means that we'll always lag behind other countries as it appears to be extremely difficult to deliver world class infrastructure in Ireland.

jor el

paulm17781 wrote: »

What % of these would be in one off houses? How much did it cost to extend the phone line down to that one house?

I don't know, and I fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that the poor broadband availability is due to eircom spending all their money on installing lines in one off houses, or that people in these houses shouldn't expect any DSL services since they paid less than the actual cost to have the line installed in the first place?

Praetorian

Regarding dsl

It's understandable lots of people in remote areas have no broadband because the ISP would most likely be majorly subsidising their connection. I think the priority of the country should be to get decent speeds to the masses, and reasonable speeds to as many small exchanges as possible. But if you are on a tiny exchange I can't see how you can ask an ISP to spend 50k + to give maybe 20 or so houses broadband. We should be trying to cover these people with other technologies. The masses have to be the priority again some time soon, I think this years upgrades are at least 2 years late.

paulm17781

jor el wrote: »

I don't know, and I fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that the poor broadband availability is due to eircom spending all their money on installing lines in one off houses, or that people in these houses shouldn't expect any DSL services since they paid less than the actual cost to have the line installed in the first place?

Not at all. I'm saying I have a real problem with one off houses and they should be banned rather than allowing people to build wherever they want and then have companies (at high cost) have to extend all their utilities to one person insists on living in the middle of no where yet feels that while they live in the middle of no where they are entitled to everything that those of us who suffer (to an extent) living in the city get.

I would say those who live in one off houses should get BB very last. Focus on towns, give rural towns twice what Dublin get for all I care but I do not see why people who chose to live like hermits are "entitled" to everything the rest of us get - subsidized by the rest of us.

ardmacha

Oddly enough in the North they've managed to provide broadband for everyone. While places like Finland, with many remote locations, seem to make a much better stab at service than is the case here.

jor el

paulm17781 wrote: »

Not at all. I'm saying I have a real problem with one off houses and they should be banned rather than allowing people to build wherever they want and then have companies (at high cost) have to extend all their utilities to one person insists on living in the middle of no where yet feels that while they live in the middle of no where they are entitled to everything that those of us who suffer (to an extent) living in the city get.

And what about a one of house built across the road from a telephone exchange? Should they also be refused a phone line? Then you have housing estates that are miles from an exchange too, should they be given preference even though they require dozens of lines over a long distance? eircom bought into the USO from when Telecom Eireann was privatised. I don't for one minute believe the situation would be any better than it is currently if one off housing developments were banned.

Blaster99 wrote:

In what way are people who largely live far from an exchange in a rural area subsidising my phone line which is in an estate in an urban area? Trust me, if the line rental wasn't part of the USO, the former would be paying multiples of what I'm paying.

So everyone, or most people, who's line does not support DSL lives far from an exchange do they? If you're exchange has been enabled, at the cost of some €50k, where does that money come from? The line rental of course, and everyone with a line pays this, even those who can't get broadband. Therefore, they're paying €26 a month to part subsidise the cost of enabling an exchange that they're not connected to.

Eircom inherited a poor network

The people who bought eircom bought a network, knowing full well what state it was in, and the company has been sold since to others who know the state it's in.

This has gone off topic enough (if one can even go off topic in a thread that was started as a troll) so I'm not going to say any more on this.

It does cost money to enable an exchange for Broadband, and one company like eircom shouldn't have to burden the cost of upgrading an exchange that is unlikely to cover the cost. This is why the government should be investing in the networks too, and opening them to all telecoms operators.

Fighting Irish wrote:

All i'm trying to get across is i'm not saying "fook all boggers"

What exactly are you saying? To me, it seems like you're saying if you move to an area with no broadband, then when you get there you can't complain about the lack of broadband since you knew beforehand. Is this right?
You also seem to be implying that they should expect/deserve a decent service, so you seem to be contradicting your own statements. And besides which, even if you know there is no broadband in an area you're moving too, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to complain about it when you get there. If no one complains, then nothing is going to change.

Blaster99

You have to appreciate that northern Europe is planned to some extent, not like Ireland. Countries like Finland has a low density of population like Ireland but they don't live all over the place like in Ireland. On top of poor planning, regulation is poor in Ireland also. Perhaps they go hand in hand, come to think of it.

Blaster99

jor el wrote: »

If you're exchange has been enabled, at the cost of some €50k, where does that money come from? The line rental of course, and everyone with a line pays this, even those who can't get broadband. Therefore, they're paying €26 a month to part subsidise the cost of enabling an exchange that they're not connected to.

Oh my God, that has to be the most warped argument I've seen in a long time. Let me see... eh... maybe, just maybe, the broadband subscribers on the exchange pay for the cost of providing the service?

If you think eircom loses money on most broadband connections, which appears to be the implication of your "logic", then why should they provide it to even more loss making areas?

zugvogel

Blaster99 wrote: »

If you think eircom loses money on most broadband connections, which appears to be the implication of your "logic", then why should they provide it to even more loss making areas?

A significant number of new properties don’t have an enabled land line at all. As mobile costs reduce the need for a land line for basic communications reduces. Eircom want to keep as many customers paying line rental as possible. I did the DSL upgrade calculations for my own small rural exchange based on some figures mentioned in this forum and on the face of it, it didn’t seem viable for Eircom to do the upgrade yet they did it just before Christmas! The only reason is to keep the line rental stream coming in the future. It’s guaranteed income every month regardless of sales/usage. You just can’t beat it, especially when you have more or less total control over the infrastructure and can easily frustrate the competition. In fact the radio add for Blue Face hits the nail on the head, even down to the Aussie accents!

jor el

Blaster99 wrote: »

Oh my God, that has to be the most warped argument I've seen in a long time. Let me see... eh... maybe, just maybe, the broadband subscribers on the exchange pay for the cost of providing the service?

And maybe, just maybe, the people who live "far away" from exchanges pay for the cost of laying cable with their line rental and installation charges. My argument is every bit as warped as your own. And you think they're not pumping line rental charges into the DSL equipment cost?

Sponge Bob

jor el wrote: »

And maybe, just maybe, the people who live "far away" from exchanges pay for the cost of laying cable with their line rental and installation charges.

And maybe if BB was a universal service then the urbanites would get the faster services that the laws of physics would entitle them to .

For now I get the same packages you do out here in sticksville :cool:

Fighting Irish

jor el wrote: »

And what about a one of house built across the road from a telephone exchange? Should they also be refused a phone line? Then you have housing estates that are miles from an exchange too, should they be given preference even though they require dozens of lines over a long distance? eircom bought into the USO from when Telecom Eireann was privatised. I don't for one minute believe the situation would be any better than it is currently if one off housing developments were banned.



So everyone, or most people, who's line does not support DSL lives far from an exchange do they? If you're exchange has been enabled, at the cost of some €50k, where does that money come from? The line rental of course, and everyone with a line pays this, even those who can't get broadband. Therefore, they're paying €26 a month to part subsidise the cost of enabling an exchange that they're not connected to.


The people who bought eircom bought a network, knowing full well what state it was in, and the company has been sold since to others who know the state it's in.

This has gone off topic enough (if one can even go off topic in a thread that was started as a troll) so I'm not going to say any more on this.

It does cost money to enable an exchange for Broadband, and one company like eircom shouldn't have to burden the cost of upgrading an exchange that is unlikely to cover the cost. This is why the government should be investing in the networks too, and opening them to all telecoms operators.


What exactly are you saying? To me, it seems like you're saying if you move to an area with no broadband, then when you get there you can't complain about the lack of broadband since you knew beforehand. Is this right?
You also seem to be implying that they should expect/deserve a decent service, so you seem to be contradicting your own statements. And besides which, even if you know there is no broadband in an area you're moving too, doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to complain about it when you get there. If no one complains, then nothing is going to change.

Here we go again, i'm talking about people who are getting broadband but its crap(or they think its crap) 1mb for 40squids

Firetrap

Ok. So you're saying that people who live out on the sticks and who sign up for broadband services in good faith, only to be ridden sideways by said ISPs have no right to complain because only urbanites are entitled to a decent service.

I bet if your 3meg connection deteriorated and went up and down like a yo-yo, you'd be squealing like a pig.

paulm17781

jor el wrote: »

And maybe, just maybe, the people who live "far away" from exchanges pay for the cost of laying cable with their line rental and installation charges. My argument is every bit as warped as your own. And you think they're not pumping line rental charges into the DSL equipment cost?

But they don't. It's massively subsidized by everyone else. If they paid the entire cost I'd have no issue. That goes for sewage, electricity and water too.

Blaster99 was spot on. We have no coherent planning and the poor BB availability is part of that. If people here didn't think it was their God given right to build anywhere they like, ruining our country side, and actually lived in a town (rural or urban) or city. None of this would be an issue and there would be no need for ludicrously long phone lines, at great expense to everyone except the person getting it.

cornbb

paulm17781 wrote: »

But they don't. It's massively subsidized by everyone else. If they paid the entire cost I'd have no issue. That goes for sewage, electricity and water too.

Blaster99 was spot on. We have no coherent planning and the poor BB availability is part of that. If people here didn't think it was their God given right to build anywhere they like, ruining our country side, and actually lived in a town (rural or urban) or city. None of this would be an issue and there would be no need for ludicrously long phone lines, at great expense to everyone except the person getting it.

You've got to be kidding. A lot of people in rural Ireland are paying to be connected to the private water schemes because they can't get the mains, despite the fact that they're paying the same taxes as you. Same goes for motor tax - thousands of kilometres of rural roads never see a cent of motor tax money yet rural people are obliged to pay money which for the most part funds major or urban road projects anyway.

And people cannot build anywhere they like so get your facts right ffs, people are bound by planning laws which, for all their flaws, prohibit the building of a house in a truly remote location. What you refer to as "the sticks" may consist of 20-30 houses on a tiny road a few kilometers long. While you are moaning about terrible infrastructure and housing models take a look at all the suburban housing developments that have sprung up without adequate schools, sewage treatment etc etc. Developers and planners are turning towards the model of the urban village for inspiration on sustainable and quality living.

paulm17781

cornbb wrote: »

What you refer to as "the sticks" may consist of 20-30 houses on a tiny road a few kilometers long. While you are moaning about terrible infrastructure and housing models take a look at all the suburban housing developments that have sprung up without adequate schools, sewage treatment etc etc. Developers and planners are turning towards the model of the urban village for inspiration on sustainable and quality living.

Spot on, that is the sticks, shouldn't be allowed (unless there is a town very near by). I agree with the bad developments, bad planning. One of housing is no better. Tell me, why should a city of 1M people have the same roads as a road with 20 houses. It's no cheaper to build there and far less people will use it. Bad planning to allow houses to have been built there in the first place.

cornbb

paulm17781 wrote: »

Spot on, that is the sticks, shouldn't be allowed (unless there is a town very near by). I agree with the bad developments, bad planning. One of housing is no better. Tell me, why should a city of 1M people have the same roads as a road with 20 houses. It's no cheaper to build there and far less people will use it. Bad planning to allow houses to have been built there in the first place.

Blast, I meant to say "rural village" in my original post.

My point is that rural infrastructure is not necessarily anywhere as near as inefficient or badly planned compared to urban infrastructure as you make it out to be. By "sticks" you were implying that Eircom are in the practice of running lines five miles up a mountainside to a single solitary house. I'm pointing out that its much more common for one-off houses to be built in relatively dense clusters and are relatively close to the nearest village/small town and therefore the nearest eircom exchange.

I agree that bad planning is endemic in rural Ireland, but no more so than it is in central Dublin, suburban Dublin or most other demographic areas.

And of course it costs far to build/maintain roads in cities than it does in the countryside. There is traffic management/disruption/lighting/extra lanes/more expensive land to take into account. I accept that fewer people will use rural roads but that doesn't excuse the fact that thousands of kilometres of roads used by rural people haven't seen a cent of their road tax money in years.

Fallschirmjager

Blaster99 wrote: »

You have to appreciate that northern Europe is planned to some extent, not like Ireland. Countries like Finland has a low density of population like Ireland but they don't live all over the place like in Ireland. On top of poor planning, regulation is poor in Ireland also. Perhaps they go hand in hand, come to think of it.

er, not the places i spent time in...now i admit its Sweden i was in and it wasnt the arsehole of nowhere, but i could see it from there....and considering i drove for 8 or so hours to get to it, planned i can assure you it isnt...

i cannot remember the coverage % of BB in Sweden but its very high...and they have thumping speeds as well. You are right on one thing, the cities have even higher, i seem to recall one guy selling BB in a shopping mall in stockholm, 25mb for 50 euro or something like that...jeasus i was like a friggen stalker as that was as close as i will ever get to 25mb for that price...i am convinced i could hear it hum....hum what? i hear you add...well to the dulcid beats of abba...youre living in the wrong country...geta a telco, geta telco...

graduate

Spot on, that is the sticks, shouldn't be allowed

Put the peasants in the towns, how dare they expect Broadband.

croo

paulm17781 wrote: »

ruining our country side

Don't own any of it myself ... have the deeds do you?

mickzer

Don't think I've heard as much bull**** in one thread in my life . I've lived out "in the sticks" all my life (so far)and I expect--NO I demand the same service as anyone else and I make no excuses for it.....I am entitled to it as much as anyone else.I'm not going to slag off Dubliners,Corkonians or anyone else.......you are entitled to the same service as myself. Sorry for the rant.Hope this make sense.

mickzer.

CuLT

I could pay €350,000 for a one bed apartment in Dublin city centre (that would be a livable middle-class residence). I am not paying for the materials, I am paying for the location; the proximity to a large variety of services. I would be able to walk to work and would be within reasonable walking distance to all forms of public transport.

Or I can pay the same price for a 4 bed detached house in Limerick's suburbs, with stable electricity, water, gas and telephone services. I'd have to drive to work.

Maybe 512k - 1Mbit broadband, maybe none.

Either way, I don't think it's an unreasonable tradeoff.

I think that's probably the core of Fighting Irish's woeful inability to express himself. I'm not cherrypicking these figures either, I'm grabbing these off the first page or two of searches on daft.ie for the respective areas.

I would hope people can see the difference between "boggers deserve crap broadband" and what I have posted. The choices about where you live involve pros and cons. It's unrealistic to complain about The Nanny State in one breath and run crying and screaming to her to make it all better in the next, but it seems to be a very popular position, this "entitlement complex".

mickzer

Sorry.