Eircom running out of money?

probe

Eircom's heavily indebted parent company Babcock & Brown's share price continues to sink like a stone. Its eircom subsidiary is also heavily indebted.

AFAICS they can't afford to upgrade their broadband infrastructure to give Ireland the speeds we take for granted elsewhere in Europe. With inflation increasing all over, interest rates are likely to increase further - putting a further drain on B&B/eircom.

A phone line + DSL service in Ireland costs about twice the price of a similar service in France. And is typically ten times slower. With an increasing use of the net for multi-media (Youtube and dailymotion.com and vimeo.com etc) Ireland's telecommunications infrastructure is in danger of grinding to a halt. Eircom still controls about 95% of DSL connections, using other telcos to issue invoices with different brand names to give the illusion of competition.

.probe

B&B share price chart: http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/CompanyInfoSearchResults.jsp?searchBy=asxCode&allinfo=&asxCode=bnb

lmimmfn

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

paulm17781

lmimmfn wrote: »

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

Unlikely that we'd see upgrades either way.

mcgovern

Whats stopping BT or any of the other providers from investing in their own network infrastructure?

pippip

mcgovern wrote: »

Whats stopping BT or any of the other providers from investing in their own network infrastructure?

I'm no expert but I'd say if you asked someone in BT that question it would be a long time before they'd stop laughing.

The eircom network is the result of decades of work and investment. There is no way any company could afford to create their own. Every single road in the country would have to be dug up.

I know eircom are a pack of "*&$*ers" but at the end of the day they are the only reason we have broadband in this country.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I know eircom are a pack of "*&$*ers" but at the end of the day they are the only reason we have broadband in this country.

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

They probably are as hated. None the less, we have broadband for a variety of reasons, not because of Eircom.

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

They probably are as hated. None the less, we have broadband for a variety of reasons, not because of Eircom.

I didn't really mean it in that sense. I mean't it more in the way of that those other companies that have entered Ireland probably used the eircom broadband to initially setup. i.e. from researching to general purchasing premises etc. Without Eircom many companies would have never been able to setup in the past (not just telecomm providers, all types of companies).....even if most have switched to cheaper competitors by now.

I really don't mind paying more for broadband than other Eu countries cause I feel every economy is different. I'd say providers in this country pay their staff more than these Eu ones, which means more public spending.

I do however feel that in the last 5yrs the irish broadband network as a whole has fallen behind at an unacceptable level compared to these countries. Which Eircom are just gonna blame on the irish government after they refused to invest in the new fibre optics line that Eircom want to put down.

jimmycrackcorm

who says upc are hated? Eircom are hated for charging for line rental before you even use their service. Every cent you spend with upc gets you something. Also for bb you can thank upc for forcing the other operators to try and keep up with faster bb.

pippip

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

who says upc are hated? Eircom are hated for charging for line rental before you even use their service. Every cent you spend with upc gets you something. Also for bb you can thank upc for forcing the other operators to try and keep up with faster bb.

Price wise and speed, UPC are great and probably the best value for money broadband out there but their customer service has and still is absolutely appalling.

Hank Scorpio

and eircoms isnt?

pippip

nuxxx wrote: »

and eircoms isnt?

Who questioned Eircom's?.....We hate them both.

penexpers

pippip wrote: »

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

Well NTL is a result of Cablelink which was owned by Telecom Eireann.

penexpers

lmimmfn wrote: »

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

I would put good money on BT buying Eircom.

pippip

penexpers wrote: »

Well NTL is a result of Cablelink which was owned by Telecom Eireann.

I know but it still isn't the same as BT suddenly saying lets install our own network throughout the country.

probe

It would be cheaper to build a fibre to the home system providing 100 Mbits/sec internet, telephone and virtually unlimited HDTV on demand and live etc compared with buying / rescuing eircom, given the huge debt burden, obsolete network infrastructure, and the poorly maintained condition of the line plant.

Fibre can supply the most remote farm houses without any degradation of speed or quality, and is very low maintenance. Ideal for a damp climate like Ireland’s which causes lots of problems with copper wire plant. The phone system in the Principality of Andorra is still owned by the state. The state has decided to install a triple play fibre to the home (FTTH/B) system to reach every building in the country. 30% of homes will have it by the end of 2008, 60% by the end of 2009 and all by end 2010.

Everyone will get 100 Mbits/sec internet (up and down), broadcast TV, TV on demand, all channels HD capable, and multiple phone lines – even for people living at over 2000 m altitude, perhaps 15 km from the nearest town. The monthly cost is €49 – or €69 if you want to pig out on the TV selection and other options. Compared with eircom’s charge of about €75 per month for a phone line and an internet connection that typically averages 3 Mbits/sec, with no TV, no hope of HDTV, no video on demand, etc etc. (Andorra switched off analog TV broadcasting in September 2007 (replaced by DTT) – a feat Ireland looks as if it won’t achieve before 2099 at the rate things are not progressing!). The fibre system will be speed upgradable as technologies evolve and user demands change.

There are over 1 million FTTH users in Europe at the moment – mainly in France, Sweden, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iceland as well as Andorra.

Eircom is providing appallingly bad value for money to the Irish consumer, and they still retain about 95% of the DSL internet market in Ireland – by using re-invoicing companies to do a rebranding fiddle on consumers making them think they have competition.

The Irish state could put the installation of a nationwide FTTH network out to public tender, allowing individual service providers to access this nationwide infrastructure to deliver competitive services. Eircom’s poorly maintained, over-priced copper network is not fast enough to meet the multi-media needs of the consumer and business user in the 21 century and beyond. An FTTH system would not require the use of eircom’s expensive “telephone exchange” buildings – any more than a cable TV networks need to use them. This would save money for eircom’s competitors, who have to pay monopoly rents to share and get access to eircom assets.

Arrogant Eircom / Babcock & Brown have bled the Irish consumer with high prices and glacially slow service. Time to put the Irish telecommunications infrastructure on a proper and competitive footing to meet all foreseeable future demands. Of course there would be nothing to stop eircom becoming a service provider on a national FTTH/P network – but one suspects that the average user would opt for anything but eircom, given the choice!

.probe

http://www.sta.ad/ftth/index.html

The FTTH Council of Europe: www.ftthcouncil.eu

watty

Digiweb's independent of eircom DSL network depends on three 3rd party non-eircom fibre, their own fibre and the biggest dedicated to IP backhaul microwave network in the country and the high performance End User links on Proprietary Digiweb only Wireless gear.

eircom has the strangle hold on copper/ducts.

Spectrum is near exhusted without fresh allocations for another party (Smart/BT/UPC) to build a fresh Wireless Network.

UPC will have over 1/2 the houses covered with Broadband when they finish their last 1/3 of cable upgrades. Thus within 20 months the breakdown could be:

UPC 62% of houses passed
eircom 67% of houses served with copper (dropped from 82& at privatisation to 69% last year due to high line rental and mobile phone takeup).
Mobile phone ownership, 120% but about 75% geographic High Speed Coverage, but not true broadband.
Digiweb 80% wireless geographic coverage, 95% Households.

Fibre to home is very low.

pippip

Sounds like probe's solution is the best so far. If BT buy Eircom. we're back to where we were 5 or 10 years ago with a fairly large broadband monopoly and consumer choice out the window nearly. and in a year or so we'll be all giving out about BT.

watty

penexpers wrote: »

I would put good money on BT buying Eircom.

I wouldn't, not with over 1000 euro per person in Ireland debt and the amount of fresh investment in copper/fibre upgrades needed.

I'd guess B&B want to sell eircom retail to someone and Meteor + 3G licence to someone else. Reduce debt a little, take out most of sale profit and then sell the eircom wholesale sometime later when they are sure the Government won't pay for them to roll out fibre to kerb.

The climate has gone bad for selling at the moment though.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I didn't really mean it in that sense. I mean't it more in the way of that those other companies that have entered Ireland probably used the eircom broadband to initially setup. i.e. from researching to general purchasing premises etc. Without Eircom many companies would have never been able to setup in the past (not just telecomm providers, all types of companies).....even if most have switched to cheaper competitors by now.

No no no no no.

Eircom brought broadband to us while most of Europe already had it. IBB were definitely offering it around the time of Eircom's launch and I think parts of Chorus were too. IBB took as long as they did because of when they got their license. Eircom took as long as they did because they dragged their heels.

Eircom did nothing to innovate the broadband market in this country, it was only when competition from non-telephone based companies started they started to pick it up. Other companies had their own independent offering, completely separate of Eircom.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

Rubbish! IBB and Digiweb both use DSL - effectively re-selling eircom's DSL services. While wireless is OK for people on the move, it has scaling problems in terms of population density and speed which make it a non-runner as a long term provider of broadband services to a mass market as speeds that can compete with fibre, particularly in a multi-media environment.

As someone else says, UPC is just as hated as eircom. Cable TV broadband also has scalability problems when everybody in an area uses it at the same time. The speed and capacity available to individual users dries up.

There is nothing to stop UPC becoming another service provider on a national FTTH platform. Then we'd be able to add "anyone but eircom and UPC" to the FTTH "hate list"!

.probe

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

No no no no no.

Eircom brought broadband to us while most of Europe already had it. IBB were definitely offering it around the time of Eircom's launch and I think parts of Chorus were too. IBB took as long as they did because of when they got their license. Eircom took as long as they did because they dragged their heels.

Eircom did nothing to innovate the broadband market in this country, it was only when competition from non-telephone based companies started they started to pick it up. Other companies had their own independent offering, completely separate of Eircom.

They may have been around, still doesn't mean everyone went for Eircom first. I don't know anybody from back when broadband entered households that didn't have Eircom broadband first.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

They may have been around, still doesn't mean everyone went for Eircom first. I don't know anybody from back when broadband entered households that didn't have Eircom broadband first.

You should probably meet more people then. :P

Honestly, you're wrong on this. Eircom did nothing to invigorate the broadband market, they made too much from dial up.

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

Rubbish! IBB and Digiweb both use DSL - effectively re-selling eircom's DSL services. While wireless is OK for people on the move, it has scaling problems in terms of population density and speed which make it a non-runner as a long term provider of broadband services to a mass market as speeds that can compete with fibre, particularly in a multi-media environment.

IBB only started this recently. Digiweb do DSL as one of about 12 products. Both were wireless when they launched. I think wireless is limited but back in the 512k days, they could easily match Eircom on price and availability. There are several others who offer broadband without a phoneline. UPC maybe hated but that's not the point of this thread. They still offer broadband without dependency on Eircom.

crawler

watty wrote: »

Digiweb's independent of eircom DSL network depends on three 3rd party non-eircom fibre, their own fibre and the biggest dedicated to IP backhaul microwave network in the country and the high performance End User links on Proprietary Digiweb only Wireless gear.

eircom has the strangle hold on copper/ducts.

Spectrum is near exhusted without fresh allocations for another party (Smart/BT/UPC) to build a fresh Wireless Network.

UPC will have over 1/2 the houses covered with Broadband when they finish their last 1/3 of cable upgrades. Thus within 20 months the breakdown could be:

UPC 62% of houses passed
eircom 67% of houses served with copper (dropped from 82& at privatisation to 69% last year due to high line rental and mobile phone takeup).
Mobile phone ownership, 120% but about 75% geographic High Speed Coverage, but not true broadband.
Digiweb 80% wireless geographic coverage, 95% Households.

Fibre to home is very low.

So have Digiweb stopped selling bitstream watty?

Also there is NO shortage of spectrum - L-Band, new 3.5Ghz, ASO, GSM refarm - you're talking crazy man....not like you!!!:D

(poster respects Watty greatly - puts it down to SAD - due to weather!!)

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

You should probably meet more people then. :P

Honestly, you're wrong on this. Eircom did nothing to invigorate the broadband market, they made too much from dial up.

I don't deny Eircom's overcharging, but this still lead to money into the infrastructure which as mentioned by everyone else houses most competitors. I just cant see how we would have half the network, however bad, we have now without Eircom. Sure others would have stepped up but again how would they of paid for their network of lines?

PS...I still hate Eircom.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

IBB only started this recently. Digiweb do DSL as one of about 12 products. Both were wireless when they launched. I think wireless is limited but back in the 512k days, they could easily match Eircom on price and availability.

"back in the 512k days" being the operative words!

We have to plan for the future, not the past.

We are quickly moving to an HD video on demand world. Where people watch what they want, when they want it.

Multiple TVs. HD with bigger and bigger flat screens. Music downloads at better quality (anything but i-tunes!). Tele-commuting with video meetings involving lots of people at different locations. etc etc.

Watch this "HD" video (preferably in any browser other than IE), clicking the bottom left and bottom right icons to play in full screen mode. While it has far better quality than youtube stuff - it could be 10 times better with a widescale FTTH/B infrastructure in place...
http://www.vimeo.com/384694

.probe

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

"back in the 512k days" being the operative words!

We have to plan for the future, not the past.

We are quickly moving to an HD video on demand world. Where people watch what they want, when they want it.

Multiple TVs. HD with bigger and bigger flat screens. Music downloads at better quality (anything but i-tunes!). Tele-commuting with video meetings involving lots of people at different locations. etc etc.

Which has nothing to do with "who we wouldn't have broadband without."

Wcool

crawler wrote: »

So have Digiweb stopped selling bitstream watty?

Also there is NO shortage of spectrum - L-Band, new 3.5Ghz, ASO, GSM refarm - you're talking crazy man....not like you!!!:D

(poster respects Watty greatly - puts it down to SAD - due to weather!!)

So what is stopping other ISP's from setting up their own infrastructure?

Is it the law? Maybe the law has led to an anti-competitive market?
Or is wireless technology not cheap enough?
Or is the speed increase you would get with let's say WiMAX not high enough to compete with cable? I don't see any movement on the wireless front, there must be a reason?

But the same applies to your company Crawler: is there a reason why Smart does not go beyond the 'easy' exchanges in high density areas?
I really would like to know the answer.

Does Eircom not allow you into their exchanges? or can they put in the cables from the exchange cheaper than any other? or do they charge a fortune? Or does Smart have no money to make the investment? I mean, surely you must be able to compete easily here.

Why not a step by step approach, slowly (every year x number exchanges more) but I got the impression that enabling new exchanges by competitors has stopped too, unless it's a completely new estate.

But even BT, who has some money or can borrow it, is not moving.

I just can't get my head to it...

paulm17781

Wcool wrote: »

So what is stopping other ISP's from setting up their own infrastructure?

Cost.

Most other companies have their own fibre or deals with providers to use fibre. It's the getting to people's houses is the expensive bit. UPC are spending a fortune upgrading their network and that's part fibre part copper (co-ax) to send fibre to each home would be a very expensive task. Then you have the need for exchanges or similar etc.