Best internet options?

jay93

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Wow, You're actually recommending mobile over Metro. Digiweb Metro is better than most dsl.

Mobile wimax (ala Imagine) will have high latency, fixed wimax is a whole different story. Imagine have a fixed receiver install they use for people further from the mast with weaker signals, but this doesn't make it fixed wimax, fixed wimax has fixed installs only.

well when it comes to wimax he would be right in saying 3G and wimax are just as bad as eachother..fixed wimax is alot better than that mobile crap imagine have installed onto their masts..
metro is usually alot better than most DSL lines in the country your right there:) just the cap of 30GB aint all that great but i suppose its there for a good reason to keep heavy downloaders slowing everyone elses connections down

jpl888

And through all of this nobody seems to be able to explain at a technical level why Metro is so much better than other wireless connections.

Perhaps it is only offered in cities, where there is good backhaul and over relatively short distance from mast to user. A lot less to go wrong then?

watty

jpl888 wrote: »

Look you can say what you like.

The NBS subsidises mobile broadband. If they didn't the rollout wouldn't be as far along as it is and they wouldn't bother to do it in areas where it's not economical.

So the market hasn't been left to itself.

On the one hand you appear to be complaining that NBS subsidy has stifled proper broadband but on the other that the market has been left to itself. Which is it?

Compare cost of NBS area sub and regular Sub. They are the same.

Compare cost of a 3G mast and how many 3 had to roll out ANYWAY. With the amount of money they get from NBS per mast.

3 can afford in the end to ignore mast locations they will never make money from. Most of those masts had to be installed anyway. ALL of them are for selling phone calls.

Some EU and Government money was wasted on a very small subsidy of a Mobile phone system. Check the figures and facts. There will be political fall out. I can't say more. But do some research rather than repeating NBS propaganda. Why are IRISH RURAL LINK and many independent Telecoms experts and Ireland OffLine slating it if it's so good? Did you read the documents in the earlier links? The NBS money would have achieved far more with regional WISPs.

Actually 3 are are already got a problem as their costing assumed very cheap satellite from Avanti, which is not yet launched!

3 Ireland are actually adding less masts than they said they would several years before the NBS actually was even discussed.

But the NBS is chicken feed. A tiny fraction of the Anglo Irish Bailout would give Fibre to the home for everyone. Including every Rural person. The Metro North scheme is nearly 4x as much as would give Universal Broadband.

The fact is that the Government likes to make cheap gestures (which is what NBS is and what GBS was) and despite talk of Smart, or Knowledge Economies has shown no interest in taking advice of their own Oireacthas Committee or doing anything about Broadband.

http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chapter02.htm

http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chairmans_Preface.htm

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055987828

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055931410

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=60 generally.
many other reports.

3 can't even meet schedules http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055806881

I won't say you You are not a Troll, but you appear to be the only person outside of 3 and The Government supporting throwing supposed "Broadband" funding at a Mobile phone company.

jpl888

watty wrote: »

Compare cost of NBS area sub and regular Sub. They are the same.

Compare cost of a 3G mast and how many 3 had to roll out ANYWAY. With the amount of money they get from NBS per mast.

3 can afford in the end to ignore mast locations they will never make money from. Most of those masts had to be installed anyway. ALL of them are for selling phone calls.

Some EU and Government money was wasted on a very small subsidy of a Mobile phone system. Check the figures and facts. There will be political fall out. I can't say more. But do some research rather than repeating NBS propaganda. Why are IRISH RURAL LINK and many independent Telecoms experts and Ireland OffLine slating it if it's so good? Did you read the documents in the earlier links? The NBS money would have achieved far more with regional WISPs.

Actually 3 are are already got a problem as their costing assumed very cheap satellite from Avanti, which is not yet launched!

3 Ireland are actually adding less masts than they said they would several years before the NBS actually was even discussed.

But the NBS is chicken feed. A tiny fraction of the Anglo Irish Bailout would give Fibre to the home for everyone. Including every Rural person. The Metro North scheme is nearly 4x as much as would give Universal Broadband.

The fact is that the Government likes to make cheap gestures (which is what NBS is and what GBS was) and despite talk of Smart, or Knowledge Economies has shown no interest in taking advice of their own Oireacthas Committee or doing anything about Broadband.

http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chapter02.htm

http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chairmans_Preface.htm

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055987828

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055931410

See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=60 generally.
many other reports.

3 can't even meet schedules http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055806881

I won't say you are a Troll, but you appear to be the only person outside of 3 and The Government supporting throwing supposed "Broadband" funding at a Mobile phone company.

I think you are totally misunderstanding me. I am not advocating subsidising 3 or any other mobile operator.

You are the one that said that the market has been left to itself and it hasn't.

All I was saying is that mobile broadband is the best option currently available for a lot of rural people.

I don't see why such a big fuss is being made.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted".

Look I'm not saying you are calling me a troll but to even put the word in there is a bit strong. We seem to be having a discussion about internet connection, albeit ye trying to beat me into submission. I don't really see how any of it was off topic and/or trying to provoke.

watty

jpl888 wrote: »

And through all of this nobody seems to be able to explain at a technical level why Metro is so much better than other wireless connections.

Perhaps it is only offered in cities, where there is good backhaul and over relatively short distance from mast to user. A lot less to go wrong then?

Metro uses Cable Broadband protocol. It's about 10% more efficient than Fixed WiMax at it's best. There are other equally good Wireless systems. But Irish Broadband was more interested in customer numbers than Infrastructure.

Metro can use up to 28MHz of spectrum per radio. A radio can be made for ANY band from 450MHz to 200,000,000MHz. All Digiweb Metro is at 10.5GHz line of site. It's been tested to 25miles / 40km. The technical limit with a larger dish is basically L.O.S. maybe 50 miles / 80km with height. The standard outdoor radio is designed to be 100% reliable in poor weather at 10km (original Comreg limit). But some exceeding this with sufficient rain margin out to the current Comreg range limit.

Digiweb has deployed leased dark fibre, bought fibre and high capacity point to point Microwave links to build the biggest infrastructure nationwide used by an ISP outside eircom. ALL NGN, unlike eircom, much of which is ATM / ISDN etc.

There are many excellent Breeze and Fixed Wimax just as reliable and good as Metro where the base station mast is connected via ESB or BT/CIE fibre. There are some excellent Regional Fixed Wireless ISP (WISP) such as WestNet.

Fixed Wimax and Metro (Euro channel DOCSIS over Wireless) both can exceed DSL if the base has good infrastructure and not oversubscribed.

Digiweb don't oversubscribe Metro. They don't pretend there is no cap or have one that's too high. The 30G byte rolling cap ensures there is not congestion. If Comreg licensed twice the spectrum, then 60Gbyte would be achievable.

For same congestion ratio the Cap on Mobile should be 2Gbyte.

Inherently a real Fixed WiMax or Metro system gives x8 the capacity in the same spectrum as LTE or Mobile WiMax (or Nomadic systems) and up to x16 capacity in same spectrum as CDMA Mobile (3G/HSPA).

Actual total continuous throughput on a 3 x sector 21Mbps 3G/HSPA mast is less than 10Mbps, assuming 2km radius. A Metro mast could have 480Mbps if all licensed channels available and 10km to 15km radius typically.

Latency of Fixed WiMax and Metro is about 4x better than best HSPA+/iHSPA on 3G and x20 better than typical 3G. In theory Metro is maybe able to be twice as good as Fixed WiMax on Latency, but in practice is about 20ms as this is more stable.

Metro has zero packet loss normally and extremely low jitter making it as good as Cable for gaming, VOIP and even Fax is possible. (Because it's really Wireless cable).

Most of the good Fixed Wireless in Ireland that isn't Fixed WiMax (Imagine's WiMax is largely Mobile WiMax with mix of Fixed, Nomadic indoor and Mobile radio, not Fixed WiMax) or DOCSIS (Metro) is similar to Fixed WiMax and was Proprietary systems on the development to WiMax (such as basic Breeze). Current BreezeMax is Fixed WiMax.

The biggest issue for outside of UPC, eircom, Digiweb and to an extent magnet is access to Infrastructure. No matter how good your wireless gear is, it's not nice to backhaul via two way satellite. eNet MANs are only rings around towns. The most important 3rd party backhaul is BT-Cie fibre BT got buying ESAT and ESB fibre. There is also Global Crossing (same owner as eircom now has).

watty

jpl888 wrote: »

I
You are the one that said that the market has been left to itself and it hasn't.

All I was saying is that mobile broadband is the best option currently available for a lot of rural people.

If you look at figures, the NBS isn't relevant. The market has been left to itself to be dominated by eircom (worlds highest line rental) and Mobile.
Mobile isn't Broadband.

jpl888

watty wrote: »

Metro uses Cable Broadband protocol. It's about 10% more efficient than Fixed WiMax at it's best. There are other equally good Wireless systems. But Irish Broadband was more interested in customer numbers than Infrastructure.

Metro can use up to 28MHz of spectrum per radio. A radio can be made for ANY band from 450MHz to 200,000,000MHz. All Digiweb Metro is at 10.5GHz line of site. It's been tested to 25miles / 40km. The technical limit with a larger dish is basically L.O.S. maybe 50 miles / 80km with height. The standard outdoor radio is designed to be 100% reliable in poor weather at 10km (original Comreg limit). But some exceeding this with sufficient rain margin out to the current Comreg range limit.

Digiweb has deployed leased dark fibre, bought fibre and high capacity point to point Microwave links to build the biggest infrastructure nationwide used by an ISP outside eircom. ALL NGN, unlike eircom, much of which is ATM / ISDN etc.

There are many excellent Breeze and Fixed Wimax just as reliable and good as Metro where the base station mast is connected via ESB or BT/CIE fibre. There are some excellent Regional Fixed Wireless ISP (WISP) such as WestNet.

Fixed Wimax and Metro (Euro channel DOCSIS over Wireless) both can exceed DSL if the base has good infrastructure and not oversubscribed.

Digiweb don't oversubscribe Metro. They don't pretend there is no cap or have one that's too high. The 30G byte rolling cap ensures there is not congestion. If Comreg licensed twice the spectrum, then 60Gbyte would be achievable.

For same congestion ratio the Cap on Mobile should be 2Gbyte.

Inherently a real Fixed WiMax or Metro system gives x8 the capacity in the same spectrum as LTE or Mobile WiMax (or Nomadic systems) and up to x16 capacity in same spectrum as CDMA Mobile (3G/HSPA).

Actual total continuous throughput on a 3 x sector 21Mbps 3G/HSPA mast is less than 10Mbps, assuming 2km radius. A Metro mast could have 480Mbps if all licensed channels available and 10km to 15km radius typically.

Latency of Fixed WiMax and Metro is about 4x better than best HSPA+/iHSPA on 3G and x20 better than typical 3G. In theory Metro is maybe able to be twice as good as Fixed WiMax on Latency, but in practice is about 20ms as this is more stable.

Metro has zero packet loss normally and extremely low jitter making it as good as Cable for gaming, VOIP and even Fax is possible. (Because it's really Wireless cable).

Most of the good Fixed Wireless in Ireland that isn't Fixed WiMax (Imagine's WiMax is largely Mobile WiMax with mix of Fixed, Nomadic indoor and Mobile radio, not Fixed WiMax) or DOCSIS (Metro) is similar to Fixed WiMax and was Proprietary systems on the development to WiMax (such as basic Breeze). Current BreezeMax is Fixed WiMax.

The biggest issue for outside of UPC, eircom, Digiweb and to an extent magnet is access to Infrastructure. No matter how good your wireless gear is, it's not nice to backhaul via two way satellite. eNet MANs are only rings around towns. The most important 3rd party backhaul is BT-Cie fibre BT got buying ESAT and ESB fibre. There is also Global Crossing (same owner as eircom now has).

So basically you are saying the equipment and infrastructure is good, it will only fall down if Digiweb are tempted to oversubscribe, which I suppose is a danger with any provider?

jpl888

watty wrote: »

If you look at figures, the NBS isn't relevant. The market has been left to itself to be dominated by eircom (worlds highest line rental) and Mobile.
Mobile isn't Broadband.

So you are telling me this is another "where's the money gone or been spent" situation and it was just paying lip-service to supporting broadband rather than doing anything meaningful?

Obviously I think it would be fantastic if you could get fibre up into the mountains, etc. for everyone but it sounds expensive at a time when we can't afford it. But then I suppose we can't afford not to have decent broadband either. Twould be interesting to see if Fine Gael have any decent proposals to sort the situation out.

Sorry I'm just using the term "mobile broadband" to be less ambiguous.

watty

It's been done and costed.
Hardly anyone actually lives in a real mountain here compared to Switzerland.

It's easier to run fibre than ESB. Just as easy to run a fibre as a phone wire.
You can run multiple fibre content cable from pole to pole.
You can do 1km a day trenched fibre with small team and machine.

It's very cheap to do urban and suburban fibre, so that can subsidize the rural customer if there is an USO.

If there is really some place that fibre can't get to, you can give them a real actual minimum 10Mbps or 20Mbps real fixed wireless with low contention (not a down to 0.05Mbps up to 7Mbps mobile). But how did they get ESB?

It's under €2B to give EVERYONE fibre. If you spent €1B and used a mix of Fixed Wireless, VDSL from fibre cabinet and only Fibre to home in city, the slowest user would still be about 5x faster than today's average Irish speed.

Then Mobile would on average be about x5 faster as it would only have mobile and no fixed customers and real Mobile users have short sessions unless it's a long journey.

BEASTERLY

watty wrote: »

It's been done and costed.
Hardly anyone actually lives in a real mountain here compared to Switzerland.

It's easier to run fibre than ESB. Just as easy to run a fibre as a phone wire.
You can run multiple fibre content cable from pole to pole.
You can do 1km a day trenched fibre with small team and machine.

It's very cheap to do urban and suburban fibre, so that can subsidize the rural customer if there is an USO.

If there is really some place that fibre can't get to, you can give them a real actual minimum 10Mbps or 20Mbps real fixed wireless with low contention (not a down to 0.05Mbps up to 7Mbps mobile). But how did they get ESB?

It's under €2B to give EVERYONE fibre. If you spent €1B and used a mix of Fixed Wireless, VDSL from fibre cabinet and only Fibre to home in city, the slowest user would still be about 5x faster than today's average Irish speed.

Then Mobile would on average be about x5 faster as it would only have mobile and no fixed customers and real Mobile users have short sessions unless it's a long journey.

Well if you think about it the esb had no problem getting power cables up to the top of mount leinster at 800m, they had to go underground but it's still possible. Fibre shouldn't be a problem.

I hear there is fibre links already up there for relays for such as shannon atc and garda digital communications, i may be wrong though.

I was tyold by an eircom sales guy last week that my line would be upgraded from a carrier to DSL by the end of the year, the upgrades on the access cables begin?

That exchange has been enabled for 2 years so why upgrade the cables now?

watty

All the main RTE sites and a lot of minor ones now either have fibre (preference) or very very good digital microwave links.

How else do you deliver over 100Mbps of digital video to the transmitters?

All the housing built over last 10 years? Almost all copper pairs installed and almost no fibre, even though marginal extra cost on new houses.

Carrier neutral ducts? A type of pigeon as far as Government regulations. Recommended as mandatory years ago.

BEASTERLY

watty wrote: »

All the main RTE sites and a lot of minor ones now either have fibre (preference) or very very good digital microwave links.

How else do you deliver over 100Mbps of digital video to the transmitters?

All the housing built over last 10 years? Almost all copper pairs installed and almost no fibre, even though marginal extra cost on new houses.

Carrier neutral ducts? A type of pigeon as far as Government regulations. Recommended as mandatory years ago.

Hmmm... How could I get one of these microwave links to my house, brilliant line of sight to mount leinster and all!:D lol

So do you think the sales guy was lying to me or is it resonable to think that eircom are actively going around removing carrier lines? I was put on a very official sounding ''expression of interest list'' and i will be contacted a soon as the upgrades take place.

jpl888

watty wrote: »

It's been done and costed.
Hardly anyone actually lives in a real mountain here compared to Switzerland.

It's easier to run fibre than ESB. Just as easy to run a fibre as a phone wire.
You can run multiple fibre content cable from pole to pole.
You can do 1km a day trenched fibre with small team and machine.

It's very cheap to do urban and suburban fibre, so that can subsidize the rural customer if there is an USO.

If there is really some place that fibre can't get to, you can give them a real actual minimum 10Mbps or 20Mbps real fixed wireless with low contention (not a down to 0.05Mbps up to 7Mbps mobile). But how did they get ESB?

It's under €2B to give EVERYONE fibre. If you spent €1B and used a mix of Fixed Wireless, VDSL from fibre cabinet and only Fibre to home in city, the slowest user would still be about 5x faster than today's average Irish speed.

Then Mobile would on average be about x5 faster as it would only have mobile and no fixed customers and real Mobile users have short sessions unless it's a long journey.

I agree with you 100% on that. It should all be fibre except for perhaps last mile access and they should stop fannying around with other technologies that aren't going to do the job properly.

watty

BEASTERLY wrote: »

resonable to think that eircom are actively going around removing carrier lines? I was put on a very official sounding ''expression of interest list'' and i will be contacted a soon as the upgrades take place.

With phone users dropping from 82% to less than 66%?
There are lots of pair gains they don't need

BEASTERLY

watty wrote: »

With phone users dropping from 82% to less than 66%?
There are lots of pair gains they don't need

I think I''l ring eircom and dangle my custom in front of them and say i'll give it to them if they remove the carrier line!

Quick question , I have two carrier lines in the house already one ending in 70 and the other in 71, 71 is not used anymore so is their anyway of making them into one line for broadband?

watty

If they are on same pair gain, then you need to give up both.
Replace one with VOIP when you get Broadband. Who knows, maybe you are the sole reason you are on a pairgain. Very likely if you are some distance from road, cabinet or roadside multi-pair cable.

BEASTERLY

watty wrote: »

If they are on same pair gain, then you need to give up both.
Replace one with VOIP when you get Broadband. Who knows, maybe you are the sole reason you are on a pairgain. Very likely if you are some distance from road, cabinet or roadside multi-pair cable.

Cheers Watty, really appreciate the info!

I'm on the side of the road, but in a rural area, i presume a cabinet is like a green box on the side of the road, if so there is none around here. My next door neighbour got IDSN about 7 years ago, i don't know if that pair is still available as when new people moved in eircom cut them off about 2 years ago.

I'm about 3.5km from exchange, is that too far? I would be very happy with a reliable 3mb connection with low latency, i.e good for voip and gaming

jpl888

@watty I've been doing some thinking and a little research.

I understand that the best case scenario for internet access in Ireland is to have fibre at least up to the last mile, but I can't see the government putting in the money and effort if there is an easier option which will work.

My previous suggestion regarding the best wireless possible using old TV analog frequencies (when analog is switched off) would seem to fit that bill, although I still understand it has its' problems to overcome, particularly identifying and avoiding other devices using the same frequencies.

Given that even a 2.4Ghz signal can be made go 50 odd miles with the right equipment and the analog TV frequencies should be able to go 3 to 4 times that, it should, at least in theory, be possible to have reliable long range wireless giving 15-20 Meg.

I understand that it's difficult for you to comment on something which is in development but I would be interested in your views as to whether this would be an acceptable solution to Ireland being offline?

watty

CAPACITY...

To Get capacity with BIG mast coverage you need massive spectrum. Number of people is SQUARE of range.

To get capacity with less spectrum you need small range, i.e. lots of masts.

If the signals are very high frequency (2.1GHz and higher) you can reuse with N=3 pattern, so 1/3rd of spectrum per area. If Signals are at low frequency they "accidently" go further even when you don't want. So you need N=9, each sector of mast gets 1/9th of the frequency.

The 21Mbps peak of HSPA+ or LTE in 5MHz, or 100Mbps peak of LTE in 20MHz is the capacity with PERFECT signal, close to mast, before you share it. So in reality the average sustained sector throughput (shared between all users) is about 1/5th of the peak speed.

Then that speed is divided between the number of users.

Efficient communication needs Duplex, transmit and receive at same or almost the same time. The most efficient way is separate downlink (downstream or download) and uplink (upstream or upload). On TCP/IP every packet needs an acknowledgement in the other direction.
So if we had 20MHz LTE channels that an AVERAGE SUSTAINED throughput of 100/5 = 20Mbps max for entire sector, not the oft quoted 100Mbps which is a peak speed. In theory. In real world with noise and interference and protocol overheads it could be 8Mbps to 10Mbps. With 20:1 contention and 10Mbps packages (a minimum for any new Broadband and tiny compared to fibre) you thus can have only 40 customers. (20Mbps/10Mbps * contention). Realisitically only 20.

To do that you need N= 9 for network @ 800MHz = 180MHz. x2 as you need to double for both directions. = 360MHz. Add 20MHz gap in middle so Duplex filters are not madly expensive and large = 380MHz. UHF band is 470MHz to 864MHz. = 390MHz. Only 10MHz left for the TV network. That would not allow two PSB mux. In fact not even one without transmitters interferring.

How many Masts? Lets say 3 sectors per mast = 40 x 3 = 120 Customers (generous, really 60).

Lets say we need about 150,000 capacity = 1250 masts (really 2,500 masts or more given terrain etc). (Everyone else mysteriously gets UPC cable! Unlikely!)

Fixed Radio is good for specific small communities. Or sporadic mobile Usage. It's not cost effective for large numbers of users as substitute for fixed fibre/copper/coax Broadband.

Conclusion
If we spent about 0.5 Billion and had over 2,000 mast sites and had NO TV on UHF, we could supply about about 150,000 with up to 10Mbps broadband by LTE.
That's over €3,000 per person.
Mobile Wireless at genuine 10Mbps is twice to four times the cost per person of Fibre.

If there are isolated people or groups more than 4km from anywhere, then Fixed Wireless (not LTE) can deliver 10Mbps to 20Mbps (real not up to) at up to 40km. But not for very many people per mast. However DOCSIS based Fixed Wireless base for UHF is about 1/3rd the price of WiMax or LTE and can give minimum 12Mbps speeds and 25ms latency max, provided the customer numbers are low. Also fixed Wireless can use even N=2 on UHF unlike LTE or WiMax if the subscribers are Exclusively Out door fixed aerials. In the case of Fixed Wireless you can have 2 x 8 MHz channels serving 60 users and a real 10Mbps speed. Install cost is €250 per user higher than WiMax or LTE because it's a fixed system, so only suits small numbers of users.

We need a plan for Fibre To Home and only High capacity Fixed Wireless for perhaps last 10,000 people totally uneconomic. These people could get 10Mbps to 20Mbps at about 10:1 to 20:1 contention depending on circumstances.

What about DSL upgrades?
Even if entire DSL was ADSL2+ 24Mbps or even VDSL2 100MBps, the average DSL speed would be under 8Mbps.
Nearly 40% of people don't have a phone line!
Between 10% to 15% of lines would still fail if all pair-gains/carriers removed.

jpl888

I think it's being talked about as a drop in replacement for 2.4Ghz wireless applications. i.e. the same only better penetration/less interference.

Why couldn't it use existing mobile/wireless masts?

Have you any figures for the % of towns which are broadband enabled now?

I understand that the current broadband penetration rate is about 21% of the population. I was naively thinking that if all the towns and cities are broadband enabled that would cover the majority of the population, but I suppose Ireland is unusual in having a lot of urban sprawl?

bealtine

jpl888 wrote: »

I suppose Ireland is unusual in having a lot of urban sprawl?

Ireland *is* unusual in that it has lots of excuses...

http://irelandoffline.org/2009/08/examining-the-broadband-excuse-machine/

jpl888

Well I think a lot could be learnt from Finland's approach to a lot of things. Particularly fostering Linux.

But are you suggesting we become a high tax economy to fund this kind of stuff, including better social welfare?

Or to put it another way. If it were proposed that 0.x percent be put onto income tax to fund "fiber all/most of the way" do you think people would swallow it?

I have to admit I would be a lot happier paying a broadband tax than those dodgy carbon taxes the Greens keep trying to get through

bealtine

jpl888 wrote: »

But are you suggesting we become a high tax economy to fund this kind of stuff, including better social welfare?


I have to admit I would be a lot happier paying a broadband tax than those dodgy carbon taxes the Greens keep trying to get through

A tiny fraction of the money that was poured into AngloIrish would have done the job nicely...

Green taxes are just a way of raising revenue no matter how you dress them up.


Anyway this is a tad off-topic:)

jpl888

bealtine wrote: »

A tiny fraction of the money that was poured into AngloIrish would have done the job nicely...

Green taxes are just a way of raising revenue no matter how you dress them up.


Anyway this is a tad off-topic:)

I'll take that as a no to becoming a high tax economy. The Anglo money is already spent and it wasn't an expected expense. Significant investment even if it is less than 0.5 billion is going to have to come from somewhere.

Paying for broadband infrastructure is going to be political if it isn't left to the market. Maybe we should start a new topic.

watty

The M9 was €1.9B and no PPP.

It's a matter of priorities, not about becoming a higher tax economy.

DSL & Line Rental profit is simply paying off eircom's debt, almost €5B at one stage, artificial debt.

If that money + the 100,000 Mobile users that are really Fixed users was all paying fibre subscriptions, plus the new subscribers, a new fibre network would be in profit long before Anglo Irish or Nama is wound up and very much before the PPP schemes end.

Also there would be all the other benefits to Economy. So the cost isn't the issue.

jpl888

watty wrote: »

The M9 was €1.9B and no PPP.

It's a matter of priorities, not about becoming a higher tax economy.

Forgive my ignorance but what does "no PPP" mean?

As somebody living in the South East I appreciate how much easier the M9 is for those times when you *have to* go to Dublin.

Both are very important pieces of infrastructure. Are you aware that the inter city links have been put on the back burner because of the recession?

If there's no money for roads, there'll be no money for broadband.

So if you are saying that money should be taken from elsewhere to fund this, where do you suggest making the cuts?

Just saw the rest you added. They are looking for another 3 billion in cuts for the next budget, an extra half billion is significant when things have already been cut a lot.

watty

Private Public Partnership as per Limerick Tunnel, N7, M1 (all results in Tolls for a long time and much profit for the Private Company at expense of taxpayer, but lower Capital Expenditure for Government). The illusion of costing Taxpayer less, when it actually costs Taxpayer more. We already pay nearly 75% tax on Petrol and also Tax Disc/Road fund licence. Most of this goes to general Finance. PPP means taxpayer forks out more than twice.

Unlike other expenditure a National Fibre Network makes a Profit to the owner of it. You don't need to "cut" to pay for it. The profit would pay the loan interest and still leave a profit. But eircom can't do this as they are already too much borrowed (money went into purchasers pockets not network) and UPC is already heavily committed in borrowing upgrading their network to Hybrid Fibre Coax with DOCSIS 3.0

Magnet would love to do this but have their own problems at home.
Digiweb & Imagine are not big enough.

There needs to be regulation also to stop voice cross subsidy of Mobile Data packages and mis-selling of it as Broadband. Till that is done, no private company will borrow to invest in nationwide fibre rollout.

Ironically the Mobile Operators would hugely benefit from a nationwide FTTH:
1) Cheap fibre to backhaul masts
2) Sell people Femto cells connected to their home fixed Broadband so that they have 100% voice and real 10Mbps + data due to 50,000 home and business Femto cells.

jpl888

I don't understand why mobile being so cheap is a barrier to other's investment? A soon as ADSL was available I dropped mobile like a hot snot.

Surely if people knew fiber was coming they would be willing to sign on the dotted line, making things a lot less risky for the company.

There would still need to be some government investment otherwise non-profitable connections wouldn't get done. Then gaps would be filled by wireless solutions good or bad as they would be.

There was some Comreg report that said VDSL in some circumstances isn't profitable even in Dublin. Is that just because of planning issues or would FTTH be even more expensive and less profitable?

Aren't the networks already connected using fiber backhaul and a national fiber network of sorts? I though the ESB upgrading the 10k lines and installing fiber at the same time took care of that?

watty

You are educated in Broadband

Others see (missing the part in italics)
Digiweb Metro / UPC cable about €40 (contract only) up to 8Mbps (typically nearly 8Mbps)
eircom or other DSL about €55 to €60 inc line rental (contract only) up to 8Mbps (typically 3Mbps, can be 1Mbps)

O2/3/Meteor/Vodafone Broadband €10 to €20 (PAYG or contract) up to 7.2, 14.4 or even 21Mbps (Typically 0.05Mbps to 3Mbps, with disconnects, massive jitter, high packet loss, refusal to connect, high to very high latency)

It costs Mobile operator 100x to 300x more to provide a €20 Data package than a €20 voice call package. If people use up all their Cap, assuming 15G cap. Proportionately on actually used data.
http://irelandoffline.org/2009/08/is-mobile-midband-in-ireland-destroying-broadband-infrastructure/

jpl888

It's difficult to say without some kind of pole of non-technical users, but my feeling is most people would choose fiber if they had the choice.

I think a lot of non-techies would know someone who is vaguely techy who would know to choose fiber too.