Eircom running out of money?

probe

If you had a single, nationwide, FTTH/B fibre network, it could be open to every service provider to use it. There is nothing to stop Digiweb, IBB or anyone else migrating their customer base to a 100 Mbits/sec open shared fibre infrastructure.

The state has invested a fortune in metrpolitan area networks (MANs) - the missing link is the "last mile" - that requires FTTH/B. Otherwise its capacity is largely going to go to waste.

While UPC has done a half-baked DOCSIS2 network modernisation, their "last mile" isn't fibre either.

The common missing link is the "last mile" of connectivity. There is absolutely no point in duplicating this. All that is required is a mechanism to roll it out in an open and competitive manner.

.probe

Wcool

paulm17781 wrote: »

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.

I get your point and of course it is valid, but why is the cost so high?
In other countries many more providers lay down their own cables. Of course it is not always a fair comparison as the Netherlands has a high population density and afaik in Sweden there is mainly Fibre to Home in Stockholm (high density). But, it seems most ISP's abroad think they will get a return on investment.

Could it be that most ISP's are actually happy with the status quo (except UPC who can smell the triple play (phone, bb and tv) is within reach?

Yes, they all make a small buck, but who cares, you don't have to do anything for it

Wcool

probe wrote: »

The common missing link is the "last mile" of connectivity. There is absolutely no point in duplicating this. All that is required is a mechanism to roll it out in an open and competitive manner.

.probe

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

paulm17781

Wcool wrote: »

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

That's what the bulk do albeit wireless. MANs and ESB fibre are a huge amount of our broadband. Building the last mile and necessary exchanges etc. is hugely expensive, Ireland is too small a market to bother.

While I hate Eircom as much as any of you. If you had any idea what it's like in there you'd understand. Imagine being a company in a competitive environment with far more staff than you need who own ~35% of the company and are resistant to change. B&B would love to innovate more but innovation can mean jobs in the telecoms industry.

It's absolutely not worth anyone's time rolling 100Mbps fibre to one remote house in the country and I don't see it happening this century. Anyone who thinks Eircom should do this should set up their own telecoms company and see what it'll cost and what the ROI on it is. Then maybe you'd see why they don't do this.

Hank Scorpio

if its solely cost why do most other european countries have it, or at least a much stronger infrastructure!

Theres underlying reasons and 1 company to blame

we got Rate adaptive DSL on old worn out copper wires lol

Mantel

Wcool wrote: »

I get your point and of course it is valid, but why is the cost so high?
In other countries many more providers lay down their own cables. Of course it is not always a fair comparison as the Netherlands has a high population density and afaik in Sweden there is mainly Fibre to Home in Stockholm (high density). But, it seems most ISP's abroad think they will get a return on investment.

Could it be that most ISP's are actually happy with the status quo (except UPC who can smell the triple play (phone, bb and tv) is within reach?

Yes, they all make a small buck, but who cares, you don't have to do anything for it

It's not just cost of the fiber, it's the cost of digging up the streets. None of the existing companies really want to plough that much cash in to something that could make them go bust and end up like NTL, they got cut off the body like an infected limb for UPC to pick up.

Magnet seem to be the only ones taking advantage of new develotments where fiber has been rolled out and planned for in the construction phase. Wether it's them paying for the fiber or developers laying it down themselves and renting it to them I don't know.

In Sweden alot of the cities own the FTTH and allow ISP's to used it and then the Government invenst and encourage investment in infrastructre - http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/070308-war-brewing-over-swedish-broadband.html

It does help when you have a government body actively helping the broadband situation along....

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

if its solely cost why do most other european countries have it, or at least a much stronger infrastructure!

Theres underlying reasons and 1 company to blame

we got Rate adaptive DSL on old worn out copper wires lol

Bad planning and low density (politicians).
Lack of motivation (government).
Lack of competition (Cable co.s).
Low return on investment due to low spread out densities. (Government).

We do have a lot of fibre, I believe most of it is dark at the minute. There are load of reasons to this and Eircon are a small part. I stress I hate them but people seem to quick to blame them without understanding any of it.

crawler

stuff like this leads to uncertainty - uncertainty leads to non investment.

Very hard to make a business case fly when you don't know what your underlying costs will be.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0862.pdf

Hank Scorpio

paulm17781 wrote: »

Bad planning and low density (politicians).
Lack of motivation (government).
Lack of competition (Cable co.s).
Low return on investment due to low spread out densities. (Government).

We do have a lot of fibre, I believe most of it is dark at the minute. There are load of reasons to this and Eircon are a small part. I stress I hate them but people seem to quick to blame them without understanding any of it.

Dude
Eircom own all the copper. If it took them over a year to change my 1mb to 2mb even tho i was pay for it i think thats give a good idea of there company.
They sent out enginners who were unable to find the "enter" key on my keyboard.
They messed up there upgrades big time.
They charge 179euros + for broadband higher than the "new" residental package.
They ignore other resellers problems on there lines in a attempt to make them move back to eircom.
If you do end up moving they will send people out to your doorstep in a bid to get you back and continuously ring your home phone. They promised upgrades in january to get done by JUNE and there still not even finished.
They leave buinesses down without broadband for several days.
They dont employ any irish staff in the technical department.
They overcharged 56K when in the uk it was free, i remember i used to get 200 + irish pounds bills.
I emailed about the upgrades and got a reply 3 weeks later saying "sorry" for the delay.
Please dont defend this company, there a bloody mess and the sole reason were in this pithole

probe

Wcool wrote: »

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

You don't need an "exchange" to provide the "last mile" in an IP based network. An exchange is an antiquated circuit switching entity that is only required at the point of interface to other obsolete circuit switched telecommunications networks.

To provide 100 Mbits/sec internet + say 3 MPEG4 HDTV video streams supporting video on demand or broadcast TV and other gadgets is going to require about 200 Mbits/sec into each household. If you have 100 houses in an urban cluster (ie within radio range) that requires 20,000 Mbits/sec of an air interface to compete. Which will require wireless cellsites on every lamppost and for them to be connected by a fibre backbone. You might as well run the fibre to the house! Far Cheaper and more reliable - less stuff to go wrong / less maintenance costs. No payments to the ESB for "unbundling" their lampposts for mounting transmitters and connecting them with a power supply. Not to mention all the screaming and shouting about radiation from all these cellsites on each lamppost!

Fibre is cheap. The main cost of installing it in an urban area is digging up the streets. There are other ways of stringing fibre around!

Keep it simple. Fibre end to end.

.probe

Wcool

probe wrote: »

....

While UPC has done a half-baked DOCSIS2 network modernisation, their "last mile" isn't fibre either.

....
.probe

Assuming you are correct, why did they not put in the best technology that is available now and make sure they don't have to dig up the cables again in 5-10 years? Or was the upgrade mainly in the exchanges (no digging). Or is fiber cable too expensive? It seems to me, UPC is in the unique position to make Eircon obsolete right now...

Hank Scorpio

eircom announced in June 2007 that from the 30th of July line rental charges would increase by €1.18 bringing line rental charges - already the most expensive in Europe to a total of €25.36 per month for a PSTN analogue line, one source indicated it was the highest line rental charge in the world. Also announced was an increase of between 4.8 and 4.9% on local and national calls.(electricnews.net 15-06-2007 http://www.electricnews.net/article/47455.html. These moves have been criticised as excessive profit-taking and abuse of a dominant position in the market.

source;wikipedia

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

Dude
<snip>
Please dont defend this company, there a bloody mess and the sole reason were in this pithole

Tell me, what do you know about the running of Eircom, the union problems, the high level off staff, the cost of running the company etc.? I'm not defending them, I hate them. You've no idea how long I've hated them for and how happy I was when I got UPC boradband and my Blueface IP line and said good by to Eircom forever.

The thing is, while I hate them, I know quite a bit about them and I realise that there's more to this than "Eircom suck". If you had any idea what's involved in running Eircom you'd know. B&B want to split the company 35% said no (staff) B&B want to update all the exchanges 35% said no. B&B want to start rolling out fibre (by passing the exchanges) 35% said no.

There's a lot more to this than you realise and it's not a case that they're like this because they don't want to innovate, they just hit brick walls every way they go.

Also, I dislike them for the reasons you mentioned too. If B&B could fire ~50% off all staff and buy out that 35%, you'd see a very different company today.

Wcool

probe wrote: »

You don't need an "exchange" to provide the "last mile" in an IP based network. An exchange is an antiquated circuit switching entity that is only required at the point of interface to other obsolete circuit switched telecommunications networks.

To provide 100 Mbits/sec internet + say 3 MPEG4 HDTV video streams supporting video on demand or broadcast TV and other gadgets is going to require about 200 Mbits/sec into each household. If you have 100 houses in an urban cluster (ie within radio range) that requires 20,000 Mbits/sec of an air interface to compete. Which will require wireless cellsites on every lamppost and for them to be connected by a fibre backbone. You might as well run the fibre to the house! Far Cheaper and more reliable - less stuff to go wrong / less maintenance costs. No payments to the ESB for "unbundling" their lampposts for mounting transmitters and connecting them with a power supply. Not to mention all the screaming and shouting about radiation from all these cellsites on each lamppost!

Fibre is cheap. The main cost of installing it in an urban area is digging up the streets. There are other ways of stringing fibre around!

Keep it simple. Fibre end to end.

.probe

Yes that makes sense if you want to transport TV over the web.
But is there no company out there that is willing to sell VOIP and BB only? That way you wouldn't need a lot of infrastructure as the speeds don't have to be 200M per second, etc.
Just leave the telly to the satellite or UPC. Concentrate on BB.

Hank Scorpio

paulm17781 wrote: »

Tell me, what do you know about the running of Eircom, the union problems, the high level off staff, the cost of running the company etc.?

The cost of running any large company is high, think of the cost for BT and other resellers since there actually renting the eircom lines

I'm not defending them, I hate them. You've no idea how long I've hated them for and how happy I was when I got UPC boradband and my Blueface IP line and said good by to Eircom forever.

If i could get UPC i would move too, but i cant

The thing is, while I hate them, I know quite a bit about them and I realise that there's more to this than "Eircom suck". If you had any idea what's involved in running Eircom you'd know. B&B want to split the company 35% said no (staff) B&B want to update all the exchanges 35% said no. B&B want to start rolling out fibre (by passing the exchanges) 35% said no.

i see your point, however how much work in involved in enabling exchanges around the country? Many many people are still without DSL .
The 56k overcharging was ridiculus 2c + a minute on peak times, i mean common.. This was before DSL became common of course.
Finally there line rental is once again astonishing.. the highest in the world? I understand there is problems but they are a private company making there own decisions. They`ve been abusing there stance and ripping off irish consumers for years.

There's a lot more to this than you realise and it's not a case that they're like this because they don't want to innovate, they just hit brick walls every way they go.

It still doesnt give them the right to completly overcharge for a service which is one of the worst in europe.

Also, I dislike them for the reasons you mentioned too. If B&B could fire ~50% off all staff and buy out that 35%, you'd see a very different company today.

They should because from what i seen of there "engineers" and "techs" it has been far from top dollar.

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

It still doesnt give them the right to completly overcharge for a service which is one of the worst in europe.

This is exactly where you're missing the point. They want to change for a good service but hit brick walls. They can't improve.

Their engineers and techs are often awful because they are phone people, not IP people. That and they own 35% of the company so can't be fired.

BT renting lines is cheaper than having to maintain all these lines. High line rental costs have to cover their over staffing levels etc.

I'm going round in circles here so I'm giving up on this thread. The point is that there is much more to Eircom than you realise. While I don't blame you for hating them, there is a certain naive ignorance to what you say. I'm just trying to point out that you don't really know a lot about them and with out knowing the facts your argument becomes very weak.

Hank Scorpio

dude my point is they overcharged and ripped off the republic for years and are still doing it. They abused there dominance in the market.
you cant argue that
and btw im talking about eircom
not 50% this and 35% that , eircom as in the PLC so please , iv seen enuff of them

watty

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!!)

No. Digiweb does Bitstream DSL. But you know who makes the most money out of that. If you could lease / buy C.O. space & lines, then that would break the monopoly. I see Comreg discussions on exchange / plant costs are ongoing, now that a line RENT reduction has been agreed.

Yes lots of Spectrum, but Comreg needs to licence it and someone has to make radios for it. In terms of spectrum & Radios to work it this year, a different story.

GSM actually should simply migrate to EDGE 2.0 and hypothetical EDGE3.0 even EDGE 2.0 can out perform HSDPA loaded with 6 modems per sector and has better efficiency. 3G was a con. Too little, too expensive for licences and possibly too soon (giving too poor a performance 384k).

ASO should not release more than 100MHz (150MHz max) as the TV guys should be able to do HD and compete with Rupert. It's maybe 5 years away here. Of course ideally to provide high speed only one operator should have the physical network (20MHz x 6 for reuse for interference free dense cells)

probe

Wcool wrote: »

Yes that makes sense if you want to transport TV over the web.
But is there no company out there that is willing to sell VOIP and BB only? That way you wouldn't need a lot of infrastructure as the speeds don't have to be 200M per second, etc.
Just leave the telly to the satellite or UPC. Concentrate on BB.

If you leave TV to satellite or UPC, you have to pay two bills - €30 to 80 ish for TV depending on the number of channels + another €40 or so per month for BB. You end up with a sub-optimal infrastructure, duplication of everything.

If you have a motorway between two cities it takes all types of traffic - cars, trucks, buses, oil trucks, motorbikes, etc. There would be no point building separate highways for each type of vehicle. Rational economics and efficiency.

.probe

watty

Even 200Mbps to the home can't compete with Broadcast for TV. Sorry..


But I agree, rather than the NBS and further MANs etc a State funded Fibre to kerb for everywhere is what we should do. Cheap. Then 50Mbps to 200Mbps VDSL and/or 50Mbps to 200MBps DOCSIS3.0 Cable depending on location/topology. That would be very cheap and reduce the digging.

The operators then connect the last 2m to 200m (a rural house could be 200m from road).

Option for IPTV for operators that want to pay the serious cost of true VOD rather than a poor broadcast copy of terrestrial/Sat/Cable. You only need about 50 broadcast channels to do 98% of people's viewing. Use IPTV/Cable/Satellite for the other 2%. Competition.

markpb

Wcool wrote: »

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.

The cheapest way of providing someone with broadband is to re-sell Eircome because everything is already there.

The next cheapest is to build your own network (fibre or whatever) but use Eircoms connection from the exchanges to their homes. If you want to do this, Eircom will charge you x contract fee, x per hour for access to their exchanges (booked in advance, payable by the hour, no changes, no refunds, no staying longer if there's a problem) and lastly they'll charge you x per year for having your stuff in their exchange.

Needless to say, x is a huge number and since Eircom have a virual monopoly on exchange boxes, they make a fortune out of it. It's financially unviable and it's technically challenging to run a network with limited access to your own equipment.

If the government had had their head screwed on, they'd have kept the phone network but privatised the other half that does the customer contracts. Just like they're trying to do with ESB supply and ESB networks.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's absolutely not worth anyone's time rolling 100Mbps fibre to one remote house in the country and I don't see it happening this century. Anyone who thinks Eircom should do this should set up their own telecoms company and see what it'll cost and what the ROI on it is. Then maybe you'd see why they don't do this.

The world is moving on, and FTTH is replacing copper in every progressive country. It offers a compelling high speed service to the consumer with lots of choice – far more speed and choice than can be provided by copper, wireless, co-ax, satellite, or anything else.

Fibre is inexpensive to install in rural areas – it can be wound around the overhead ESB cables leading to every dwelling, using Skywrap type automated installation kit – see this video of it in action:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=machine+installing+fiber+optic+cable+electric+power+line&search_type=&aq=f

Eircom’s copper plant will have to be replaced – it won’t last forever. The speeds it offers is incapable of serving the multi-media needs of the 21st century. A single, open, government mandated, FTTH/B fibre network covering the entire country would provide a level playing field in terms of cost of reaching urban and rural homes – and give everybody a quality of service which is unavailable through alternative solutions. The basic fibre infrastructure for FTTH would cost about €750 million for the 1.5 million households in IRL. Allowing the way Murphy’s law is diligently allowed to apply in the country, let’s say it runs over-budget to €1.5 bn. That’s €1000 per household. That is €8.58 per household per month for the infrastructure, based on a 15 year amortization and a 6% cost of capital. You can play with the numbers any way you like – but the cost of FTTH/B infrastructure is not expensive when you compare the price of loop unbundling or alternative technologies and take into account the massive performance advantage of fibre.

Please also read http://www.citynet.nl/upload/FttX-in-Europe-29june2007.pdf which provides an overview of FTTH/B projects taking place all over the rest of Europe.

Would everyone using boards.ie like internet access at 100 Mbits/sec?

Would everyone like to be able to watch their favourite TV content in HD, when they want to watch it?

Would people like to be able to work from home when it suited them, while retaining the ability to video meet co-workers, clients, suppliers, etc.?

Or must Ireland remain the dysfunctional, infrastructurally disabled country that it is – despite the vast accumulation of wealth over the past decade or so?

.probe

Wcool

markpb wrote: »

The cheapest way of providing someone with broadband is to re-sell Eircome because everything is already there.

The next cheapest is to build your own network (fibre or whatever) but use Eircoms connection from the exchanges to their homes. If you want to do this, Eircom will charge you x contract fee, x per hour for access to their exchanges (booked in advance, payable by the hour, no changes, no refunds, no staying longer if there's a problem) and lastly they'll charge you x per year for having your stuff in their exchange.

Needless to say, x is a huge number and since Eircom have a virual monopoly on exchange boxes, they make a fortune out of it. It's financially unviable and it's technically challenging to run a network with limited access to your own equipment.

If the government had had their head screwed on, they'd have kept the phone network but privatised the other half that does the customer contracts. Just like they're trying to do with ESB supply and ESB networks.

This should be easy to fix by some legislation, hopefully there is some movement towards forcing more open access and reasonable prices in the exchanges?

PogMoThoin

Wcool wrote: »

This should be easy to fix by some legislation, hopefully there is some movement towards forcing more open access and reasonable prices in the exchanges?

But it is enevitable, were going to need FTTH, we need politicians that are going to discuss and push for this, the sooner we get off our asses and get moving on this the better, we're already years behind. Forget Eircom, copper can only deliver so much, might be ok for today or next few years but not for the future. This country needs its own network independant of Eircom. Its time we moved in a different direction, the damage has been done so lets work around it, the right way

towel401

the freaking irish government done a better job at running eircom than these babcock guys

i also find it hard to take someone called 'babcock' seriously

Wcool

PogMoThoin wrote: »

But it is enevitable, were going to need FTTH, we need politicians that are going to discuss and push for this, the sooner we get off our asses and get moving on this the better, we're already years behind. Forget Eircom, copper can only deliver so much, might be ok for today or next few years but not for the future. This country needs its own network independant of Eircom. Its time we moved in a different direction, the damage has been done so lets work around it, the right way

Well, I fully agree with you on the fiber, but I don't think the government is going to make this happen, especially with the current economic climate.

Eircon does not have money, so it seems the only viable option is some sort of consortium of leading ISP's and telco's.

Or maybe a rich foreign telco with an itch.

Let's hope the government will not get in between though...

Sponge Bob

Wcool wrote: »

Well, I fully agree with you on the fiber, but I don't think the government is going to make this happen, especially with the current economic climate.

Nor in any other climate , there is c €60m for the NBS if it is not cut back.

Wcool

It looks like we are screwed so for the long term.
Correct me if am wrong:

- fiber is an expensive investment, nobody seems willing/able to invest in a nationwide network.

- the government will not (partly) subsidise any national next generation network by the looks of it.

- UPC seems to have the most feasible technology at the moment but it will only be available in the cities. How future proof it is has to be proven yet.

- ADSL+ goes only to 24 Mb per sec and seems to be the limit for the foreseeable future for ADSL.

- Wireless technology does not seem to be able to compete with ADSL/Cable at the moment unless it becomes either cheaper and/or faster. But it can reach remote area's.

So does that mean that the only way forward will be in small steps?
As in: some company puts down some cable here and another puts some fibre in there?
I still think that if that is the case the government should make it a lot easier to get into Eircon's exchanges. There is no other way to improve BB for the foreseeable future.

As C3PO would say: "We're doomed!"

watty

Any sort of fast xDSL is only good to a couple of km, beyond that, and you are progressively 4Mbps ... 512k.

bk

Wcool wrote: »

Assuming you are correct, why did they not put in the best technology that is available now and make sure they don't have to dig up the cables again in 5-10 years? Or was the upgrade mainly in the exchanges (no digging). Or is fiber cable too expensive? It seems to me, UPC is in the unique position to make Eircon obsolete right now...

I assume Probe was referring to UPC's use of DOCSIS 2 rather then DOCSIS 3.

DOCSIS 3 is a new and immature standard with expensive equipment, that is why UPC went with DOCSIS 2 IMO. Their new network is still mostly Fibre and when DOCSIS 3 matures, it will be relatively easy to just switch the DOCSIS 2 gear for DOCSIS 3, no digging required. UPC have and are doing the hardes bit, which is laying down the fibre.