Fine Gael: we promise 100 MB/s available to 90% of the population by 2013

zod

Taken from their rebuilding Ireland policy if they get in :

The investment programme will also help to drag Ireland’s economy out of recession
by creating 100,000 extra jobs by 2013 in areas such as construction, maintenance,
engineering, research, software, timber processing and forestry.
Examples of the type of the investments that will be delivered include:

• “Next generation” broadband to every home and business in Ireland by 2013, with

speeds of up to 100 Megabytes per Second available to 90% of the population;

:eek:

Random

They could at least pretend they're going to sort out our Broadband in this country by giving us something believeable.

EKRIUQ

Most Fine Gael TD's don't even know what a MB is and alot of the country would just be happy to have broadband not some mobile crap and even alot of the country can't even get that!

DeepBlue

From further down the document you linked:

Unlike investments financed by the tax-payer, the NewERA investments will not count as Government expenditure, as they will be financial investments seeking a commercial rate of return, and repaid through charges on consumers and businesses for the use of new technologies and network infrastructures.

One wonders how much a consumer would be charged for such a service and whether the consumer would be willing to pay it.
This doesn't sound like a runner.

Marlow

zod wrote: »

speeds of up to 100 Megabytes per Second available to 90% of the population;

Note ... "Up to" ... 1 mbit/s is also "up to 100 mbit/s".

/M

watty

However that could be done for under 2Billion.

How much is the metro link rail thing from airport to city?

How much money has been collected via the great M50 Troll scam?

About 3billion increase in eircom's debt since privatisation was padding pockets of "investors" AKA leveraged buyouts / asset strips.

Anglo Irish Bank is costing the Tax payers "How Much"? This is not a bank thataffects the public directly. How many branches has it got?

How much taxpayers money is going to feeding the Develpers,, golden investors etc or helping the average business / consumer on the Anglo Irish Bank bail out.

Universal REAL Broadband is possible today for less than the cost of 3's rollout. Minimum 20Mbps and up to 100Mbps for about 95% population may even be possible under 2 billion.

It's only a matter of priorities, not money or technology. The Government is wasting 39M of direct money and 40M of EU money (all funded ultimately by tax payers) on the useless NBS which delivers no broadband at all. The ASAI should ban the current newspaper adverts. About 1/6th page "Broadband is coming" big 3 / NBS etc advert in local Limerick paper full of lies.

jor el

zod wrote: »

100 Megabytes per Second available to 90% of the population

Someone could have told them the difference between bits and bytes. 100MBytes per sec is 800Mbps, which I doubt is what they wanted to say.

watty

I'd assumed that.

You'd be amazed how many people don't understand the difference. Or indeed why properly MBytes of Files or Mbits of speed is 1000 x 1000
Strictly only RAM /ROM should be counted in x1024s (10 binary address bits = 1024, unlike files and speed, Memory is only in powers of two. You either have another address bit or not, so G of bits or bytes of RAM is 1024x1024x1024. G and M of EVERYTHING else ought to be 1000x1000x1000 and 1000x1000)

Sponge Bob

and the bloke who thought it up is no longer working for FG or heading some committee.

he is gone and Brian Hayes and Paul Connaughton are left to implement all of this .

Chris_533976

This is absolute unmitigated electioneering crap and I will eat a plate of grass if this actually happens.

Capt'n Midnight

How will they be able to do this without upsetting the ISP's some of who have been gouging us for years ?

The €27m plan to provide free city wide wifi in Dublin was shelved as it was unfair to the private operators. And €27 million is peanuts compared to the other infrastructure costs in Dublin.

The nice thing about a nation wide broadband rollout is it would benefit those on the wrong side of the digital divide.

FTTH could provide that much bandwidth

But it's nothing we haven't heard before, be nice if happens.


I'll say it again 2Bn on providing telecommuting facilities might just be cost effective when you take into account that you will need slightly less roads and lower fuel imports never mind attracting foreign investment.

CamperMan

I can't see it EVER happening, the time to roll out broadband was in the boom years, that's over... how is anyone going to fund such a project now?

watty

The 27M plan for City wide free WIFI was "really" ditched because it would have provided sub dialup speed.


YOu dont' need FTTH. HFC (FTTC + cable) or FTTC (Fibre + VDSL copper) will both do it. HFC will do 225Mbps but the up is limited to maybe 15Mbps

vibe666

if you think about it, they're not actually going to have to do much of anything to keep that promise.

just look at UPC's announcement of 120mbps broadband by the end of 2009.

afaik (brain's a bit rusty, so could be wrong) it was the introduction of UPC's 20mbps broadband that pushed BT into their own 24mbps service and that will (sooner or later) prompt eircom to do the same.

if UPC keep increasing their broadband custom base like they are (up by 9500 in the last quarter) they could be offering quite a significant number of people 120mbps broadband by the end of the year.

it won't take other ISP's long to catch up if they see they are losing customers, so i would imagine that certainly less than 24 months all the other ISPs will need to up their game too.

tbh, i don't really think the amounts of data being downloaded will jump that much when they do, so it's not goign to be that hard to keep up.

i'm a pretty heavy user and i don't think i could physically find enough new crap to download if i wanted to, there just aren't enough hours in the day.

anyways, i don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine that the broadband availability in the country will reach 90% saturation if you compare the current broadband uptake with the UK's broadband history and adding 100mbps to that in the next 3-4 years isn't that pie in the sky.

after all, look how far we've come in the last 3-4 years!

watty

THe 24Mbps DSL is meaningless compared with 10Mbps or 100MBps cable. When Cable is fixed up in an area everyome can get the high speed.

With DSL only about 10% can get 24Mbps. Any higher speeds (VDSL) would be even fewer folks.

AlmightyCushion

As great as it would be, we'd still have to deal with Enda Kenny being in power. Dial up really is the lesser of two evils here.

vibe666

watty wrote: »

THe 24Mbps DSL is meaningless compared with 10Mbps or 100MBps cable. When Cable is fixed up in an area everyome can get the high speed.

With DSL only about 10% can get 24Mbps. Any higher speeds (VDSL) would be even fewer folks.

yeah, but they never said exactly 100mbps
just like they never say exactly 24mbps. it's always that "up to" get out clause. i doubt very much that it would stop them saying they've done it tho.

paddyboy23

what a load of bull 100,000 jobs by 2013 that works out at bout say 5ooo jobs per county in 4years then you have to take the jobs that there cronies get so what im saying is dont be fooled by fg jobs offers

bk

vibe666 wrote: »

just look at UPC's announcement of 120mbps broadband by the end of 2009.

afaik (brain's a bit rusty, so could be wrong) it was the introduction of UPC's 20mbps broadband that pushed BT into their own 24mbps service and that will (sooner or later) prompt eircom to do the same.

it won't take other ISP's long to catch up if they see they are losing customers, so i would imagine that certainly less than 24 months all the other ISPs will need to up their game too.

I'm not so sure about that, I'm not so sure the DSL based ISPs will be able to respond to UPC so quickly.

UPC will be able to offer 120mb/s BB this year based off of building a next generation HFC network over the last three years. No one else, including Eircom, has any infrastructure even close to this.

When UPC rolled out 20mb/s BB, BT, Smart etc. were able to respond so quickly with up to 24mb/s BB, because they were already using ADSL2+ in their LLU exchanges. Even Eircom had ADSL2+ in some of it's exchanges.

However they will have a much harder time competing with UPC at 120mb/s. Eircom might roll out VDSL2+ in their exchanges, which might allow them to advertise "up to" 100mb/s, but you only get that at less then 0.5km from the exchange on an excellent line, at more then 1.6km from the exchange it performs like ADSL2+. The reality is most people won't see anything much faster from DSL then they currently get.

They will only really be able to compete with UPC if they roll out VDSL2+ properly, with Fibre To The Curb and curb side VDSL2+ boxes. Even if they started today, it would probably take at least 2 years. But this sort of investment will require a lot of money and where is Eircom going to find the cash to do this when it is almost going bankrupt?

It seems like an excellent opportunity for UPC to really gain market share. If UPC launch 25mb/s, 60mb/s and 120mb/s products in the next few months, they will really corner the market for the foreseeable future, with no sign of Eircom or anybody else being able to compete for years, they will massively increase their market share. Leaving only rural, non cabled areas to the DSL operators.

Leiva

Are we all forgetting there is local elections on !

They will promise you the world moon and stars for the next couple of weeks.

Forget it ... I will run down Grafton Street in a FG Boxers if they get into power and deliver on this promise .....no worries of me getting pneumonia then

Magzr

bk wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that, I'm not so sure the DSL based ISPs will be able to respond to UPC so quickly.

UPC will be able to offer 120mb/s BB this year based off of building a next generation HFC network over the last three years. No one else, including Eircom, has any infrastructure even close to this.

When UPC rolled out 20mb/s BB, BT, Smart etc. were able to respond so quickly with up to 24mb/s BB, because they were already using ADSL2+ in their LLU exchanges. Even Eircom had ADSL2+ in some of it's exchanges.

However they will have a much harder time competing with UPC at 120mb/s. Eircom might roll out VDSL2+ in their exchanges, which might allow them to advertise "up to" 100mb/s, but you only get that at less then 0.5km from the exchange on an excellent line, at more then 1.6km from the exchange it performs like ADSL2+. The reality is most people won't see anything much faster from DSL then they currently get.

They will only really be able to compete with UPC if they roll out VDSL2+ properly, with Fibre To The Curb and curb side VDSL2+ boxes. Even if they started today, it would probably take at least 2 years. But this sort of investment will require a lot of money and where is Eircom going to find the cash to do this when it is almost going bankrupt?

It seems like an excellent opportunity for UPC to really gain market share. If UPC launch 25mb/s, 60mb/s and 120mb/s products in the next few months, they will really corner the market for the foreseeable future, with no sign of Eircom or anybody else being able to compete for years, they will massively increase their market share. Leaving only rural, non cabled areas to the DSL operators.

You are being dillusional trying to compare UPC against DSL providers. UPC can only service the high density Metropolitan area's where they already have cable laid in the ground (which they have since abandoned that model and gone microwave). And this is only Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Waterford to my knowledge (I probably have missed a few places).
I know most people on here are from Dublin and consider Dublin to be "the country" and hence keep on rabbiting on compareing UPC against DSL providers.
I hear no one comapreing caseys in Dungarvan against the DSL providers?

Anyway, flame suit on, will wait the backfire.

Cabaal

Magzr wrote: »

You are being dillusional trying to compare UPC against DSL providers. UPC can only service the high density Metropolitan area's where they already have cable laid in the ground (which they have since abandoned that model and gone microwave).

Agreed, however if FG want fast Broadband for 90% of pop its the high density populations that will receive this as the VAST MAJORITY of people live in these areas.

FG's plan (once they learn the difference between bites and bytes) will likely do nothing to help people who had present can;'t get a decent Broadband connection.

Capt'n Midnight

watty wrote: »

The 27M plan for City wide free WIFI was "really" ditched because it would have provided sub dialup speed.

still would have been nice as a fallback or providing Granny email on a hand me down laptop or for tourists.

YOu dont' need FTTH. HFC (FTTC + cable) or FTTC (Fibre + VDSL copper) will both do it. HFC will do 225Mbps but the up is limited to maybe 15Mbps

well they did say 100MB :pac:
Then again UPC already use fibre, so up to 800Mb is doable.

bk

Magzr wrote: »

UPC can only service the high density Metropolitan area's where they already have cable laid in the ground (which they have since abandoned that model and gone microwave).

No they haven't they've just spent hundreds of millions over the last few years, laying fibre all over their cable network and have done a major deal with the MAN's to link all their networks.

Also there is nothing necessarily wrong with Microwave, you can deliver multi gigabit speeds over microwave.

Magzr wrote: »

And this is only Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Waterford to my knowledge (I probably have missed a few places).

Yes, that is right, but then that represents the majority of the Irish population, those areas represent well over half the population of Ireland.

I believe UPC's cable network passes at least one third of the Irish population. That is why I said in my post that UPC will dominate areas that have cable, while DSL operators will only be competitive in non cabled areas. What is incorrect about that statement?

Magzr wrote: »

I know most people on here are from Dublin and consider Dublin to be "the country" and hence keep on rabbiting on compareing UPC against DSL providers.

Actually as you yourself pointed out it isn't a Dublin thing, it is a Metropolitan thing. Don't fool yourself, if Eircom or someone else was to roll out VDSL2+ or FTTH in the morning, they will be focusing on these same high density metropolitan areas. There will always be an unfortunate urban/rural BB divide.

Magzr wrote: »

I hear no one comapreing caseys in Dungarvan against the DSL providers?

Actually many of us regulars have commented on and pointed to Caseys as an excellent provider who showed the potential of cable years ago and which UPC only caught up with in the last year.

I honestly don't know why you suddenly jumped down my throat. I was only commenting on vibe666's post that the DSL providers will be able to quickly compete with new DOCSIS3 services. I just pointed out to vibe666 the technical reasons why it will be much more difficult and unlikely that the DSL providers will be able to compete with DOCSIS 3 then DOCSIS 2.

I never said that cable will bring 100mb/s BB to the whole country, but it will bring it to a significant percentage of the population of Ireland and well before the DSL providers.

So again, what was with the attack?

son-of-plunder

personaly i couldnt care what provider or political party brings proper broadband to rural areas. I live about 0.5 km from getting broadband of eircom but they have so far refused to extend the service that short distance, leaving me stuck with dialup that is costing an arm and a leg to pay for! Surely it wouldnt cost them a whole lot to bring it this far?!

vibe666

Magzr wrote: »

You are being dillusional trying to compare UPC against DSL providers. UPC can only service the high density Metropolitan area's where they already have cable laid in the ground (which they have since abandoned that model and gone microwave). And this is only Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Waterford to my knowledge (I probably have missed a few places).
I know most people on here are from Dublin and consider Dublin to be "the country" and hence keep on rabbiting on compareing UPC against DSL providers.
I hear no one comapreing caseys in Dungarvan against the DSL providers?

Anyway, flame suit on, will wait the backfire.

I live in a village outside navan called johnstown and I have UPC 20mbps. they have spent millions rolling it out to as many people as possible.

right now, UPC are (afaik) the 3rd biggest ISP in the country behind eircom and BT with a pretty big customer base (afaik around 20% of the broadband customers in ireland) so regardless of whether or not EVERYONE can get NTL/UPC or not, they are a big enough player that if they go all out on speed upgrades eircom and BT will (imho, sooner or later) be forced into some kind of action.

i'm the firtst to admit i'm not exactly part of the UPC fanclub, but they are doing a lot to push broadband in ireland forward and the other isp's will have to take notice when they make a move.

jor el

Cabaal wrote: »

Agreed, however if FG want fast Broadband for 90% of pop its the high density populations that will receive this as the VAST MAJORITY of people live in these areas.

FG's plan (once they learn the difference between bites and bytes) will likely do nothing to help people who had present can;'t get a decent Broadband connection.

This is the biggest issue that I see with current availability. If FG were to state that they were going to bring actual broadband (not 3G) to 100% of the population, even something between 1Mb and 10Mb, that would be far better than this pipe dream.

Metro type masts covering all rural areas that currently have nothing, and various operators could buy space on these without the need for investment. That would be worth voting for.

Sponge Bob

Cabaal wrote: »

Agreed, however if FG want fast Broadband for 90% of pop its the high density populations that will receive this as the VAST MAJORITY of people live in these areas.

Only 60% of the population live in a town or city . This is defined as an entity with 1500 persons resident or higher.

40% of the population live in areas of lower density and FG allegedly propose to do the towns and cities and 75% of the rest . I would point out that Alan Ryan the Labour candidate in Musnster for the Euros proposes to dos something similar but Alan is a bit more techie and seems to know what he is talking about .

You will also find that many FFers ( at least those with brain) would also support such a scheme .

FG's plan (once they learn the difference between bites and bytes) will likely do nothing to help people who had present can;'t get a decent Broadband connection.

Likely not . FG should start on mid tier towns, eg Tuam

bk

Just to add, technically speaking, there is no reason why cable can't be used in rural areas. In the US cable passes something like 96% of all homes.

In fact cable being a higher quality, thicker, and shielded cable would actually be much better for rural areas then plain old telephone cable.

However cable is mostly only available in urban areas due to it being rolled out by private companies while most telephone services in rural areas were rolled out by Telecom Eireann via government subsidies. We have all seen how little respect Eircom has for rural areas, and are generally leaving them to root. Getting high speed BB to rural areas will require a similar financial assistance from the government, no private company will do this on their own.

Getting back to the OP, the only way it will be possible to achieve this is if the government spend about 2 billion. I'd like to know how FG propose to do this?

Cabaal

jor el wrote: »

This is the biggest issue that I see with current availability. If FG were to state that they were going to bring actual broadband (not 3G) to 100% of the population, even something between 1Mb and 10Mb, that would be far better than this pipe dream.

Metro type masts covering all rural areas that currently have nothing, and various operators could buy space on these without the need for investment. That would be worth voting for.

I'd fully agree, look at the UK for example ADSL availability is available on 99% of BT telephone lines within the UK....this is what we should be aiming for!

In addition to this BT will do alot of work when it comes to providing a stable 512K service to a customer, sure 512K ain't fast but its far better then Midband and dialup for more rural users.

10MB or even 100MB is all well ansd good in Dublin, Kilkenny and Waterford and other citys but these citys already have ADSL, wireless, fibre and/or numerous Midband providers covering these areas!

They're still a massive amount of the country in smaller towns or villages up and down Rep Of Ireland are either limited to ****e Midband coverage or wireless providers that are expensive and unsuitable for many different uses when compared to ADSL Broadband.

Cabaal

bk wrote: »

Getting high speed BB to rural areas will require a similar financial assistance from the government, no private company will do this on their own.

Getting back to the OP, the only way it will be possible to achieve this is if the government spend about 2 billion. I'd like to know how FG propose to do this?

From reading the FG document they want to start a new agency called Broadband 21 who will build and utilize exisiting networks and build new ones, this in my mind means we end up with Eircom 2!

Telecom Eireann was started to roll out PSTN lines in Ireland, now FG want Broadband 21 to roll out cable/fibre and they will control it...

Did we not learn anything from Telecom Eireann???