Broadband Failure Is A National Embarrassment

Galen

http://corkpolitics.ie/wp/?p=5188

THE Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Fine Gael TD Bernard Allen has described the lack of adequate broadband infrastructure in Ireland as a “national embarrassment”.
Deputy Allen made the comments following a recent international survey which ranked Ireland 41st for download speeds, 61st for upload speeds and 65th for broadband quality.
The Cork North Central TD said, “This is becoming a critical issue for this country. This survey once again shows just how bad our broadband infrastructure is. While ministers Batt O’Keeffe and Eamon Ryan blather on about the so-called smart economy the reality is that our broadband speeds are worse than those in Mongolia.
“That’s without even taking into account the thousands of homes and businesses that cannot even get broadband through a physical line and will never be able to under current government policy.
“Broadband should be regarded as a vital national infrastructure alongside energy, transport and water networks, which I should add all fall below best international standards in this country as well.
“There needs to be a radical change in policy towards broadband. The state must take responsibility for rolling out the infrastructure to make Ireland a world leader in this area. We are a small country, it can be done. Not doing so will leave us at a severe disadvantage and see badly needed jobs going elsewhere instead,” he said.

watty

We are 43rd on this list:
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

I'm personally getting approx 7.72Mbps (8M package)
which bumps me up to about 33rd (UK) Wireless in Co. Limerick. DSL isn't good here.

Galen

I would like to sign up to the 8M package but Eircom says that my exchange isn't capable of anything faster than 3M (Bohola, Co. Mayo) so I'm dreaming of the day that we all have fibre to the door.

Mr_Man

Deputy Allen is making a lot of the same noises that Ryan made before he got into power and we can all see how much Ryan has achieved since then......


M.

watty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10267392.stm

in UK

Jeremy Hunt said that the previous government's commitment to a "paltry 2Mbps" (megabits per second) universal net speed was "pitifullly unambitious".

He added that it was "a scandal" that nearly three million households cannot access even this speed.

The previous Labour Government had however decided that Mobile/3G/HSPA could not deliver Rural Broadband. Unlike our Government.

The article states
The UK is currently ranked 33rd in the world when it comes to broadband speeds, according to the OECD.
Actually that is the Ookla rating, not an OECD rank.
The average household broadband connection speed in the UK is 7.71 Mbps, ranking it 33rd in the world and only marginally above the global average, according to broadband metrics group Ookla.
The UK is 21st out of the 35 OECD members for speed.

We are 43rd on Ookla World rating.
In 2008 we were 27th of 30 in OECD.
In 2009 we fell to 29th in OECD or 33rd out of 35 OECD, depending on which metric you take.
In 2010 the OECD was increased to 35 Countries. We are 35th!

Galen

It's really sickening how people are falling for the mobile broadband bs, it pisses me off no end when people come to me for my opinion on their new mobile broadband with one of the phone companies. The government offering this technology as the national broadband scheme is the biggest insult.

rob808

It going to be funny come 2020 when most EU countries are on super fast broadband like britan.I can imagine we still be on old adsl broadband with max speed being 8mb which most of us wont see of course.I wonder what the other countries they migth say maybe IRELAND a bit slow and wont be able to stop laughting at us and our goverment.

watty

"funny" for them, not for us.

watty

New OECD metrics out.
We don't appear to be at bottom on price, but does this include 3G Mobile (Cheap) and not Line Rental (very expensive)?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/us-broadband-still-expensive-underwhelming.ars


Source
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

Data last updated : 10 June 2010



NEW: OECD telecommunication price baskets available here.



The OECD broadband portal provides access to a range of broadband-related statistics gathered by the OECD. Policy makers must examine a range of indicators which reflect the status of individual broadband markets in the OECD. The OECD has indentified five main categories which are important for assessing broadband markets.

Penetration | Usage | Coverage | Prices | Services and speeds

Subscriber Criteria

1. DSL:
a. Includes all DSL lines offering Internet connectivity which are capable of download speeds of at least 256 kbit/s
b. The DSL line is excluded if it is not used for Internet connectivity (e.g. leased lines)

2. Cable:
a. Includes all cable modem subscribers at download speeds greater than 256 kbit/s

3. Fibre
a. Includes all fibre-to-the-premises (e.g. house, apartment) subscribers at download speeds greater than 256 kbit/s
b. Includes all fibre-to-the-building subscribers (e.g. Apartment LAN) using fibre-to-the-building but Ethernet to end-users. NOTE: This counts only the number of actual subscribers to the provider, not end users.

4. Other
a. Wireless (includes only connections with speeds faster than 256 kbit/s to end users)
i. Includes fixed wireless technologies
1. Satellite
2. LMDS
3. MMDS
4. WiMAX (fixed)
5. Other fixed-wireless transport technologies

ii. Does not include
1. 3G mobile technologies
2. Wi-Fi
3. Exceptions: included in rare case that Wi-Fi/3G is the transport mechanism of a fixed-wireless provider (e.g. in rural UK, CZ, SK)

b. Wired (only connections with speeds faster than 256 kbit/s to end users)
i. BPL: Includes all broadband over powerline subscribers with download speeds greater than 256 kbit/s

ii. Leased lines: Includes only circuits with Internet connectivity

Would Minister Ryan and Comreg note the "Bold" part above? The NBS doesn't qualify as "Fixed" 3G. Nor should Imagine's WiMax be included, because although it may sometimes use Fixed aerials it's a Nomadic/Mobile Service. Comreg has supplied the figures to OECD according to these rules I'm sure.

Sponge Bob

2005 OECD Figures, we were 23rd then and are 22nd now because we managed to catch Portugal over the last 4 years. Whoop de doop.

clohamon

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2005 OECD Figures, we were 23rd then and are 22nd now because we managed to catch Portugal over the last 4 years. Whoop de doop.

But we didn't catch them on speed. No sir.

(see - Average advertised download speeds, by country (Oct. 2009))

ingen

Galen wrote: »

http://corkpolitics.ie/wp/?p=5188

im not surprised realy, its 2010 and the max i can get on a phone line here in a big town is 5mb.

all this ****e about NGB is total B*ll*ck$.


here is my current DSL speed


and here is my vodafone mid band

[URL="[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/854992891.png[/IMG][/URL]"][/url]

PogMoThoin

ingen wrote: »

im not surprised realy, its 2010 and the max i can get on a phone line here in a big town is 5mb.

all this ****e about NGB is total B*ll*ck$.


here is my current DSL speed

You have a connection, and not a bad one by Irish standards at that, there are thousands out there doomed to 3 dongles and satellite would cut their hand off to have what You've got

ingen

PogMoThoin wrote: »

You have a connection, and not a bad one by Irish standards at that, there are thousands out there doomed to 3 dongles and sattelite would cut their hand off to have what You've got

we should not accept such ****e speeds.

what i have is poxy beyond belief. total and utter %hi!e.. my only hope this side of 2020 is a good fixed wireless connection

i am going to cancel if i can all eircom related products in my house!! and ditch the land line! my mother is in a perfect location for metro, and as she is a light user of the internet it will suit her better, and she complains of slow speeds on her eircom NGB enabled dsl connection (4mb) all the time, I am going to switch her over, and she will get faster and better service. ( and that will be another land line subscription gone from eircom ).

Bob the Seducer

watty wrote: »

We are 43rd on this list:
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

I'm personally getting approx 7.72Mbps (8M package)
which bumps me up to about 33rd (UK) Wireless in Co. Limerick. DSL isn't good here.

Took a look at that site again today, we're 48th for downloads, 65th for uploads and 61st for quality overall.

I'm going to hate leaving university accommodation in a month or two...

YourNameForMe

You think your badly off, In Kerry the County Council passed some stupid law years ago preventing cellular phone masts from being erected within 1 KM of any household. This means that mobile broadband sucks even more. You could probably get 300Mbps on top of mount Brandon but you wont get anything in a small village. *sigh*

clohamon

YourNameForMe wrote: »

You think your badly off, In Kerry the County Council passed some stupid law years ago preventing cellular phone masts from being erected within 1 KM of any household. This means that mobile broadband sucks even more. You could probably get 300Mbps on top of mount Brandon but you wont get anything in a small village. *sigh*

Not as stupid as it looks.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64943063&postcount=4

YourNameForMe

That's interesting if its true, although it still means we will have worse broadband coverage because there will be an extra cost for broadband providers to set up in Kerry. The reason I said it was stupid is because the official reason they give for the "1 km rule" is health concerns over cellular masts. Now there has been no evidence to date to suggest that there are any negative health effects from being located near a cellular mast. Its complete superstition and halts progress which I find pretty annoying.

Another example of this can be seen in the US where the up take of life saving vaccinations is actually going down because of similar superstitions. When polio starts killing off their population maybe they'll come to their senses .

watty

If there was any danger (there is no evidence other than very high frequency either heats tissue like Microwave oven, and oven power and concentration* needed, or gives you a cataract, if it's all concentrated into the eye, equivalent to staring direct at noon Sun), then a pico base on every street corner would reduce handset power to less than 1/10th. Making mast 1km away increases the handset power. So more, closer masts for phones would be safer (if there was a risk, which there isn't)

Actually under a mast could be less signal than 1km away, so even if there was risk (there isn't), mounting a mast on a School is less RF for those than don't use phones than 200m away.

Most Primary school kids and nearly all Secondary Kids have mobile phones, which since they are in your hand, have 10,000x more effect than a mast.

So on every level and in every respect the Mast Phobia is stupidity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3302311/Mobile-phone-mast-is-cut-down-in-cancer-alert.html

Cancer cases actually less there.


I blame Nimbys that simply don't like the look of masts for starting scares about masts and Pylons. SCTV has somewhat to answer for also.

(* A microwave oven with missing door is probably safe 100m away!)

cgarvey

watty wrote: »

SCTV has somewhat to answer for also.

Looks like that's already been handled!

orage

YourNameForMe wrote: »

The reason I said it was stupid is because the official reason they give for the "1 km rule" is health concerns over cellular masts. Now there has been no evidence to date to suggest that there are any negative health effects from being located near a cellular mast. Its complete superstition and halts progress which I find pretty annoying.

Kerry County Council are correct in not allowing a cell phone mast to be erected 1 km form any house. We still don’t know the long-term health hazards of cell phone radiation, and living near cell phone towers.
In 1939 the German physician Franz Hermann Muller published the first epidemiological study linking smoking to cancer, and two 1950 articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association linked smoking to cancer, cigarette ads continued for decades. It took thousands of scientific studies until establishments that initially adamantly refuted any links admitted to the potential health dangers.
In the BioInitiative Report (August 2007), an international group of leading scientists found significant evidence of wireless health risks: cancer (including childhood leukemia), nerve and brain damage, DNA damage, increased stress response, and decreased immune response.
It will take time to prove conclusively the effects of mobile phone masts/wimax etc. The recent Interphone study, which got funding from the wireless industry shows one thing for certain: after some time, cellphone usage causes cancer. Further research is essential. In the meantime, I would rather not have a cell phone mast beside my house. Call me “superstitious”!

PogMoThoin

orage wrote: »

Kerry County Council are correct in not allowing a cell phone mast to be erected 1 km form any house. We still don’t know the long-term health hazards of cell phone radiation, and living near cell phone towers.
In 1939 the German physician Franz Hermann Muller published the first epidemiological study linking smoking to cancer, and two 1950 articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association linked smoking to cancer, cigarette ads continued for decades. It took thousands of scientific studies until establishments that initially adamantly refuted any links admitted to the potential health dangers.
In the BioInitiative Report (August 2007), an international group of leading scientists found significant evidence of wireless health risks: cancer (including childhood leukemia), nerve and brain damage, DNA damage, increased stress response, and decreased immune response.
It will take time to prove conclusively the effects of mobile phone masts/wimax etc. The recent Interphone study, which got funding from the wireless industry shows one thing for certain: after some time, cellphone usage causes cancer. Further research is essential. In the meantime, I would rather not have a cell phone mast beside my house. Call me “superstitious”!

Your tinfoil hat is too tight

watty

orage wrote: »

In the BioInitiative Report (August 2007), an international group of leading scientists found significant evidence of wireless health risks: cancer (including childhood leukemia), nerve and brain damage, DNA damage, increased stress response, and decreased immune response.

No, it didn't. The results not statistically significant. They didn't claim what you claim.

orage wrote: »

It will take time to prove conclusively the effects of mobile phone masts/wimax etc.

It takes forever to prove a negative. Your statement presumes there are ill effects. The only proven effects in over 100 years are cataracts from extremely high field strength, high frequency microwave (like peering regularly into a waveguide). Holding a phone to your eye all day won't do it. Or heating, in more or less the same way a light bulb will heat you or a microwave oven will cook. Needs huge power. Heat effect from phones that people feel on ear is mostly either the electronics getting hot or holding insulating plastic against your head. The actual RF heating would not be noticed as it's negligible.

orage wrote: »

The recent Interphone study, which got funding from the wireless industry shows one thing for certain: after some time, cellphone usage causes cancer. Further research is essential. In the meantime, I would rather not have a cell phone mast beside my house. Call me “superstitious”!

No, it didn't. In fact a recent study showed a drop in cancer. The results not statistically significant. They didn't claim what you claim.

Researchers want more money to do more research because they have not found anything and because of Nimbyism they will get the money and have a nice job!

No study has shown any cancer risk. If there is any risk (unlikely in extreme, the cigarettes example isn't relevant) it would not at all be the masts, but phone handsets, which give you 10,000 more RF than a mast (or even more) and 1,000 more RF than a laptop (laptop is about 100x to 1000 more RF than a WiFi base as it's closer and same power). Inverse Square law. 10x distance = 1/100th the power, 100x distance = 10,000th power.

Yes, you are superstitious, no science involved. Do you use Laptop/netbook on Wifi, Bluetooth gadget? cordless mouse, Mobile phone, DECT phone, pmr446 walkie talkie, PS3 cordless remote/controller, car keyfob locker or any other cordless gadget? All more RF on you than a Mast.

Under a mast or within 30m may even be less RF than 500m to 1km as they use directional aerials so as to not waste power into ground or sky.

Sponge Bob

Orage, the Danes studied wireless 'risks' back to around 1980. Read that and show some signs of understanding the Danish findings before you start this uninformed ranting please.

CelticTigress

I love all you people complaining about your broadband speeds. NOT. We have no broadband AT ALL. And not a hope in hell of getting any at this rate. Eircom won't, NBC won't, mobile can't, and satellite is my only hope but haven't met anyone who is happy with it yet.

So love your 3 megs and 4 megs and stop complaining. I'd just about kill for that.

On edit: sorry if that sounded irritable. Well, I am irritated. I've never seen an uninterrupted YouTube clip, can't download music, have to wait hours for emails containing photos that people haven't learned how to shrink, can't do online banking, online shopping is a hit or miss affair.

johndoe99

I'm with UPC and my connection is great:

Capt'n Midnight

orage wrote: »

In 1939 the German physician Franz Hermann Muller published the first epidemiological study linking smoking to cancer, and two 1950 articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association linked smoking to cancer, cigarette ads continued for decades. It took thousands of scientific studies until establishments that initially adamantly refuted any links admitted to the potential health dangers.

Germany 1939 , no danger of people suspecting political bias then

In the meantime, I would rather not have a cell phone mast beside my house. Call me “superstitious”!

Did you ever have a CRT monitor or TV in your house, because they DO emit X-rays which DO cause genetic damage.

Wifi is at higher frequency than mobile phone so worse for you.

A microwave oven is allowed to leak 1Watt, again at a higher frequency than a mobile mast and far, far closer to you.

Do you vent your house for radon ?

Do you eat burnt toast ?

Do you stay indoors on Halloween ?

Oxygen is carcinogenic - life has risks and the trick is to separate the ones that are worth worrying about from the ones where the stress of worrying is more likely to cause harm than the risk itself.

johndoe99

CelticTigress wrote: »

On edit: sorry if that sounded irritable. Well, I am irritated. I've never seen an uninterrupted YouTube clip, can't download music, have to wait hours for emails containing photos that people haven't learned how to shrink, can't do online banking, online shopping is a hit or miss affair.

I know how you feel, i went to stay at my cousins house in co. wexford, for a few days last month and she is in same predicament as you, i got my first taste of dialup, being use to 15mb at home, i had to use 128kb and by was that slow. I had to change an order online at HMV at could not do it.

CelticTigress

Thanks Johndoe. Can just about manage Ticketmaster and some airline bookings, but other than that, anything more complicated than a message board or Facebook is out of the question. I've had to give up on Myspace.

johndoe99

CelticTigress wrote: »

Thanks Johndoe. Can just about manage Ticketmaster and some airline bookings, but other than that, anything more complicated than a message board or Facebook is out of the question. I've had to give up on Myspace.

I usually play the PS3 online every day at home for a few hours and that can't even be played down there. I do know that they tried digiweb, and got a paltry quarter mb :eek: download, but again the upload was almost non-existent.

madonion

... but i can't help it. I pay here in romania about 9 € for this.