Labour's Broadband plan

smellslikeshoes

up them Schteps wrote: »

That is absolute rubbish! The government have no obligation to provide a service like broadband as it is not a right. Water, health etc. are necessities..... broadband is not!

I bet there was people saying things like this during the rural electrification scheme in the 60s and 70s. Sure what do them country folk need electricity for? It's not a necessity sure they have been doing fine with candles and oil lamps up to now.

This is the 21st century, people need broadband for work/business/education no matter where they are. Broadband is already on the level of being a necessity but a lot of people in Ireland don't realise it because we are so far behind.

dubhthach

Folks can we keep the discussion focus around Broadband infrastructure and not about other posters perceived sense of "entitlement"

During the 1980's the Goverenment invested about €10billion (in todays money) in Telecom Éireann, this investment in core infrastructure was then privatised by Fianna Fáil. What is been proposed at the moment is that the state uses the money left in the National Pension Fund (after bailout etc.) to invest in Infrastructure that will give a return. There's about €5billion left, if the state was to contribute €1billion and private investors the other €1billion we would end up with a baseline speed of 100Mb/s for 90%+ of the population (no matter if they are urban or rural).

I would think such a project could be cordinated with the following:

• Water pipe replacement/water metering
• Smart Metering of Electricity

The investment would provide considerable more return then what we are getting out of NAMA for one. Even on a basic setup, if the "NetCO" was to charge €10 euro line rental to every connected premise a month:

• €10 x 1,000,000 premises x 12months = €120million per anum

With such a "line rental" charge the state investment in infrastructure would be covered in 8years. Operating costs (Opex) are considerably lower for a Fibre infrastructure compared to copper. In general you need less staff for maintenance and it uses 25 times less power.

Sponge Bob

Let me be quite clear.There is No Way the State can justify a Universal Fibre to the Premises project.

The National Broadband scheme, inadequate crapheap that it is, covers the 10% of the population that are spread across the LEAST populated 33% of the state. The 'densest' 10% of the population occupy around 1% of the state.

The cost difference is pretty much linear. Reaching the most dispersed 10% with fibre would cost 33x reaching the least dispersed 10%.

It is imperative that we decouple the areas where this is a good investment from the areas where it is a crap idea. An urban/rural split is guaranteed. I do not rule out the possibility of rural people getting out there and installing the network themselves but the taxpayer will not do it. Maybe a smart metering 'incentive' could be introduced tied to a reduced standing charge .....country people pay for their electricity meters you see. Hoever smart metering is a standards free zone and is therefore pie in the sky right now

Neither Labour nor FG propose to go beyond around 1m premises and there are just over 2m homes and businesses in the state.

Instructively UPC cable covers around 850k premises OF WHICH 650k can get some class of Broadband and that 12 years after they started to upgrade their cable. UPC will be very slow to reach the other 200k premises they pass. They have not built any new network in years, much of Dublin City centre has no cable BB.

Johnboy1951

dubhthach wrote: »

Folks can we keep the discussion focus around Broadband infrastructure and not about other posters perceived sense of "entitlement" .

The required infrastructure is surely dependent on the level of service it is supposed to deliver, and where.

Just as the RTE digital TV service found a solution of using a satellite service (yet to be proved of course) in conjunction with terrestrial transmission to solve the problem of supplying that service to areas which are incapable of receiving the terrestrially transmitted signal ...... and most importantly without any reduction in supplied service level with the alternative method .... so too it is not unreasonable to expect a similar level of service, over whatever infrastructure might be suitable, for the provision of broadband services to the whole country.

If that service is fibre with power lines to local areas, and 'last mile' by fixed wireless, then fine ..... or any other suitable distribution method, maybe even satellite; presumably the most cost effective in the long term should be used.

The level of service and where it is to be delivered will determine to a large extent what means/infrastructure will be required.

regards.

dubhthach

John well for the 10% of population that wouldn't be covered by FTTC/FTTH what would be provided is access via LTE (Upgrade path in Mobiles). At the moment the "National Broadband scheme" is based around using the Mobile phone infrastructure to provide "Midband" services to underserved areas.

LTE is a "pre-4G" tech. The specification provides downlink peak rates of at least 100 Mbps, an uplink of at least 50 Mbps and RAN round-trip times of less than 10 ms. The upgrade path which is fully 4G is "LTE Advanced" with peakspeeds of 1Gbs downlink/ 500Mbs uplink (Ratification of standard this year)

To provide for this sort of bandwidth Mobile phone base stations are going to need high quality Fibre links to network backbone. Even if you get a 20 to 1 contention rate on an LTE "dongle" that's potentially 5Mbs/2.5Mbs service.

Verizon has just launched their LTE network in the US so we can expect to start seeing our Mobile phone companies rolling out LTE in the next 18months.

Johnboy1951

Hogzy wrote: »

I never said they should not have access to such services. I said rural dwellers do not have a right to the same level of standard as their urban counterparts.

In this case .... Labour's Next Generation Broadband plan ..... has its stated minimum service as 100Mb/s symmetrical or greater.

One then has to decide whether this service is to be available to all citizens or not.

A lesser service is not Next Generation Broadband as laid out in the document.

Sponge Bob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The level of service and where it is to be delivered will determine to a large extent what means/infrastructure will be required.

Very true. I will list these levels of service for ease of reference. I believe that NOBODY in the STATE should be more than 20km from an open access fibre no matter how rural. The National Fibre Backbone must be built to within that distance of every citizen.

However while that would cost in the low €100s of millions it will be a one off cost.

In the last 20km we decide on service levels and densities depending on population etc. This means we must have a menu of access network topologies for all of these areas and we must select the appropriate ones that we are to build out in those areas...or indeed go wireless.

Here is the menu, everyone lives in an area that is classifiable according to this scheme.


1. FTTP, Fibre to the premises on Exclusive fibre ( called FTP or P2P , eg for an office or workplace), National Backbone to within 2-5km of every premises serves on this topology.

2. FTTP, Fibre to the premises On Shared Fibre , ( called PON , EPON / GPON / GEPON ) . The advantage is that the shared loop can be up to 30km long with the National Backbone built to within 10km of the served premises at most. This option is the MINIMUM spec that will deliver 100mbits Symettrical. None of the following ones will.

3. FTTN, fibre to the node , high density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 1000m/ 1km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting VSDL2 at up to 40mbit speeds ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre) . These areas are also the best candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future. If you went within 500m you could maybe do 100mbits symettrical.

4. FTTN, fibre to the node , low density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 2000m/2km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting ASDL2 at up to 25mbit speeds, possibly VDSL very close to the node ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre). These areas are outlier candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future, many are on URBAN fringes, eg Carnmore and Bushypark near Galway city but have insufficent populations for the high density model.

5. FTTN-SBXS*, fibre to the node somewhat rural density. This would being fibre to within 10km of every citizen in the area but would normally teminate on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter as well as to the local exchange. If a community wants to proceed from there they can dig a PON out from that mast. Population density and line quality probably does not make VDSL or ADSL worthwhile so if you start digging you might as well keep digging

6. FTTN-SBRS%, fibre to the node very rural density. This would being fibre to within 20km of every citizen on the state but would normally teminate that fibre on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter EVEN to the local exchange. It is unlikely that a low density community can afford a PON given the cost of digging per person shared. Furthermore there is a lot more wireless spectrum here because there are so few people. They are welcome to start digging all the same Many of these areas have a lot of holiday homes owned by affluent urbanites who may well contribute cash ...if not labour.

FTTN-SBXS* = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Xtraurban Specification
FTTN-SBRS% = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Rural Specification

Short Tutorial with Colour Pictures

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers%2FGPONvP2P.pdf

user1842

There should be no cost in building this network or maybe im just looking at it wrong.

1. I read it will cost €2000 per home for FTTH so just have line rental cover this. Line rental of €10 per month for 20 years = €2400. Just get a EU infrastructure loan over 20 years paid for by line rental. The extra €400 covers the interest (loan would be a 1% per year interest loan)

2. The the cost to maintain the network is born by the telco's. Just charge them a access fee for the network.

Sorry im obviously looking at this way to simply but what is line rental for then?

Johnboy1951

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Very true. I will list these levels of service for ease of reference. I believe that NOBODY in the STATE should be more than 20km from an open access fibre no matter how rural. The National Fibre Backbone must be built to within that distance of every citizen.

However while that would cost in the low €100s of millions it will be a one off cost.

In the last 20km we decide on service levels and densities depending on population etc. This means we must have a menu of access network topologies for all of these areas and we must select the appropriate ones that we are to build out in those areas...or indeed go wireless.

Here is the menu, everyone lives in an area that is classifiable according to this scheme.


1. FTTP, Fibre to the premises on Exclusive fibre ( called FTP or P2P , eg for an office or workplace), National Backbone to within 2-5km of every premises serves on this topology.

2. FTTP, Fibre to the premises On Shared Fibre , ( called PON , EPON / GPON / GEPON ) . The advantage is that the shared loop can be up to 30km long with the National Backbone built to within 10km of the served premises at most. This option is the MINIMUM spec that will deliver 100mbits Symettrical. None of the following ones will.

If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

I very much doubt that either of the above is the intention.

It would be of interest to know how the Labour party thinks the system could be rolled out so that all citizens will have access to NGB.

Hogzy

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

I very much doubt that either of the above is the intention.

It would be of interest to know how the Labour party thinks the system could be rolled out so that all citizens will have access to NGB.

+1
I think that document has added 'sweetner' because there is an election around the corner and there is some serious competition for Labour seats.

I really think labour are trying to appeal to the young voter with their iPhone/android apps and their sexy internet plans. Not that the only people who use the internet are young people. It is obviously a major resource for all things commercial and which tbh we need to update anyway if we hope to quash are unemployment figures in anyway.

Sponge Bob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

If you brought the fibre to within 200m of every premises in my Access Topology Case 3 then you could supply 100mbits symmetrical over VDSL2 "Profile 30a". However this profile intended for the basement of a tower block with 100 apartments stacked above....and as an alternative to fibring the block. Unsurprisingly this ultra short and ultra fast for of DSL is clled Fibre to the basement or FTTB. For practical purposes we should consider a 1km loop and who would benefit.

In most cases where VDSL2 could be deployed at Profile 8 or 12 speeds the customer is maybe 5000m plus from an ADSL or possibly ADSL2 exchange on the edge of an Enfield or Athenry or Mountrath or Loughrea or Tuam and with the single local exchange in the centre of town.

At 5000m plus it does not matter what they do to your exchange because you are too far away to see any improvement. In the case of both Access Topology Case 3 and Access Topology Case 4 the exchange is deliberately brought closer to the end user.

However eircom will never own these new exchanges, not after the last fiasco they caused

dynamick

Tremelo wrote: »

Haven't even read it yet, but it's attached. What think ye?

This plan does not propose fibre for all (some get satellite / wireless:

The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH2, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas. It would replace the aging copper network that is currently in existence

Who will pay?
According to the document the cash will come from private business:

The purpose of NetCo is to engender a private sector solution to the problem.

But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

The document mentions 'market failure' but it doesn't say which of the recognised market failures are taking place: is it externality, public goods, monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly or oligopsony? Or do they just mean that the market has 'failed' in the same way that the market has failed to provide a Porsche dealership in Ballydehob.

The document does refer darkly to eircom as the source of the problem. It doesn't make clear what eircom have done wrong or how a government action will correct this. It says they have been obstructive in LLU but incumbents in every country try to obstruct LLU.

The one thing I can't find in the document is what government action is proposed. If it's a purely private venture then government won't be needed.

Where is the justification that a single private broadband provider would work better than multiple competing broadband providers? Right now I have a choice of BB from 24Mbit dsl to 100Mbit Cable or 10Mbit WiMax all at no cost to the state.

Sponge Bob

dynamick wrote: »

Who will pay? According to the document the cash will come from private business: But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

Depending on what is done exactly a network can be rapidly cash generating, DSL Cabinets in particular.

Another function for a national fibre network is mobile mast backhaul. A spectrum licencing round can take that into account.

Where is the justification that a single private broadband provider would work better than multiple competing broadband providers? Right now I have a choice of BB from 24Mbit dsl to 100Mbit Cable or 10Mbit WiMax all at no cost to the state.

Such a choice is only available to around 500,000 people in the state, mainly in selected suburbs of major towns. What about the other 4m people ? Cable BB is in critically short supply in Central Business Districts of major cities where most SME activity occurs and is simply not available in Business Parks.

Sink the Bananas kindly posted a pair of useful diagrams in another thread, they illustrate some of the technicalities discussed earlier in this thread.

1. Fibre to the (whatever ) or FTTx Options. Illustrated.


AND

2. Cable Broadband Topology. Modern optical nodes ( post 2005) serve fewer premises in my opinion.

Johnboy1951

dynamick wrote: »

This plan does not propose fibre for all (some get satellite / wireless:

No, but it does say that everyone, apparently without exception, will have 100Mb/s (symmetrical) connection available to them.

The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH2, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas. It would replace the aging copper network that is currently in existence.

... and yes ...... who will pay? Those who sign up for the service I would guess, but maybe it is time Labour politicians were asked that question.

But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

I expect the answer would be along the lines of 'it is too much risk to expect any one company to take on their own, but the Labour party in gov will facilitate the sharing of the risk amongst interested parties' ..... and the provision of the ducting etc etc for the fibre most likely.

All guesswork of course, but the document is very sparse on details

Pete_Cavan

I had a quick flick down through Fine Gael's NewEra and Labour's Plan for Digital Ireland. It seems they have both forgotten which side of the political spectrum they are on.

Fine Gael are proposing Broadband 21 which will invest €1.8bn and "will be paid back by leasing our capacity to telecoms carriers and directly to home and business customers", which seem kind of left wing to me.

Labour want NetCo which will "bring together multiple partners to make this project work, with each owning the percentage of the network that they put in" where "If you fund 20% of the project, you own 20% of the lines". This seems like a right wing approach to me.

Anyway, it seems to me that Labour's plan does not allow for much competition. A small number of companies could each buy big shares and they would control the market. At least with FGs plan you could potentially have an infinite number of providers which would mean lots of competition (ie. good for consumers).

dubhthach

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I had a quick flick down through Fine Gael's NewEra and Labour's Plan for Digital Ireland. It seems they have both forgotten which side of the political spectrum they are on.

Fine Gael are proposing Broadband 21 which will invest €1.8bn and "will be paid back by leasing our capacity to telecoms carriers and directly to home and business customers", which seem kind of left wing to me.

Labour want NetCo which will "bring together multiple partners to make this project work, with each owning the percentage of the network that they put in" where "If you fund 20% of the project, you own 20% of the lines". This seems like a right wing approach to me.

Anyway, it seems to me that Labour's plan does not allow for much competition. A small number of companies could each buy big shares and they would control the market. At least with FGs plan you could potentially have an infinite number of providers which would mean lots of competition (ie. good for consumers).

Indeed, the Fine Gael approach is basically an extension of the MAN's (Metropolitan Area networks) which are owned by the state (via the county councils). Any ISP is allowed offer service over the MAN infrastructure as long as they are willing to pay the relevant charges.

The running of these was awarded via contract for a fix number of years to E-Net. http://www.e-net.ie/

In my opinion there is no reason why these can't form the backbone of any proposed project. They could also use the fibre ducting that the NRA installed along the new motorways.

Pete_Cavan

dubhthach wrote: »

Indeed, the Fine Gael approach is basically an extension of the MAN's (Metropolitan Area networks) which are owned by the state (via the county councils). Any ISP is allowed offer service over the MAN infrastructure as long as they are willing to pay the relevant charges.

The running of these was awarded via contract for a fix number of years to E-Net. http://www.e-net.ie/

In my opinion there is no reason why these can't form the backbone of any proposed project. They could also use the fibre ducting that the NRA installed along the new motorways.

As you say, we have the backbone of the network. Is there any real need to allow private companies to buy into this. I know we will still have to spend a lot of money to get quality broadband but with the money we have already spent, will we be giving up more by allowing private companies to take a share in it. I mean, if they get a share in the entire network, are the private companies also getting ownership of something that the taxpayer has already paid for, ie. they get more than they pay for?

dubhthach

Well I think that's a question we'll need to put to Labour when they come knocking on the door . Personally I believe the actual infrastructure should be state owned (like the electricity distribution system -- Eirgrid).

Given the cost it could be a case of doing a portion of the buildout as a PPP, personally though I think we should use some of money leftover in the Pensions fund. The scheme would easy pay itself back as well as make a profit for the NPF (national pension fund), especially as it would mean nearly all internet connections would be using it (eg. all the isp's would be paying rental for each line etc -- maintenance is considerably lower then existing copper network)

Sponge Bob

Nice Diagram Below of the different FTT(whatever) Topologies that are possible. It is from Xyxel who are trying to sell product but it is still rathe rnice. Yes that is a Broadband Enabled Exchange hanging on a pole in the middle of it

If anybody is confused here is the simple explanation.

The fastest and ONLY futureproof way to BB enable the country is fibre everywhere. This would cost a fortune so fibre is used up to 'a point' and then we REUSE existing phone or tv cable to do the last bit to your house. The last bit would be a mile or two at most not the 5 miles that a telephone line could reach nowadays. The new fibre is called FTTx ...because the x could be inside yoru home or up to a mile or two away.

Sourced From http://www.zyxel.fr/publications/f/GUIDE%20FTTX%202010.pdf

dubhthach

I had forgotten that the Australian goverenment is to spend $43billion AUSD over the next several years making sure 90%+ of population have FTTH (fibre to the home). See here:
Some highlights:

• The NBN will deliver world class broadband infrastructure to all Australians;
• The $43 billion total capital cost of the NBN is a conservative estimate and there are opportunities to significantly reduce the build cost;
• The peak investment required by Government is estimated at $26 billion by the end of year 7, of which $18.3 billion will be required over the next four years;
• Government should retain full ownership of the NBN until the roll out is complete to ensure that its policy objectives are met – including its competition objectives;
• The fibre component of the NBN should be extended from 90 to 93 per cent and cover the 1.3 million new premises expected to be built by 2017-18;
• Entry level wholesale prices on the fibre should be set at around $30-35 per month for basic broadband 20Mbps plus voice service, to drive affordable retail prices and better value for money for consumers compared to what is available today;
• Fibre to the premise is widely accepted as the optimal future proof technology with wireless broadband a complementary rather than a substitute technology;
• Next generation wireless and satellite services will deliver peak speeds of at least 12 Mbps (and much higher for many wireless users). Satellite services will deliver average data rates which are more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today and much higher than average DSL usage today;
• NBN Co can build a strong and financially viable business case with the Study estimating it will be earnings positive by year six and able to pay significant distributions on its equity following completion of the rollout; and
• The Government can expect a return on its equity investment sufficient to fully cover its cost of funds.

Implementation study here:

If there was a wholesale price of €20 per line in Ireland you'd end up with a return of: (20 x 12 x 1million) = €240million a year

Hogzy

dubhthach wrote: »

I had forgotten that the Australian goverenment is to spend $43billion AUSD over the next several years making sure 90%+ of population have FTTH (fibre to the home). See here:
Some highlights:



Implementation study here:

If there was a wholesale price of €20 per line in Ireland you'd end up with a return of: (20 x 12 x 1million) = €240million a year

20eur per month for JUST line rental is a lot!!!!

dubhthach

Hogzy wrote: »

20eur per month for JUST line rental is a lot!!!!

True it's what you pay for at the moment (Eircom line rental). Their figure of $35 dollars wholesale price is for a 20Mbit/s + phone service connection. If you have multiple ISP's reselling that product you might see the cost of product only been about $5-$10 ($40-$45). The fact that there is competition means you'd probably end up with a 100mbit/s symmetrical line for €40/month -- in comparison I pay about €45euro a month for a 30mbit/s non-symmetrical service from UPC.

Sponge Bob

In France €37 gets you 100mbits and TV and unlimited calls, even to Irish landlines.

http://abonnez-vous.orange.fr/residentiel/forfaits/la-fibre.aspx

The only restirction is that you cannot ring more than 500 different numbers a month.

Ireland is sooooo NOWHERE it ain't even funny.

bk

dubhthach wrote: »

The €2,000 connection fee per property is an interesting one. They seem to have gotten that figure from Eircom



I wouldn't be surprised if this is an overestimate, FTTH rollouts costs are generally lower in the US (under $1,000). There is alot of work been done of FTTH in the Netherlands so I think we would probably get best cost breakout if we consult with the Dutch.

Actually, I'm probably partly responsible for that figure. I did some guesstimates on the cost of FTTH a few years ago and posted my results here on boards. Within weeks both ALTO and IBEC seemed to be using my figures and now even Eircom and the government!!!

Hey, where are my consultancy fees!!

I came up with the figure as a rough estimate based on:

1) Verizon in the US rolling FTTH at a cost of €600 per home.
2) A number of EU operators doing it for about €1200 per home.
3) The typical rip off Ireland fudge figure to bring it up to €2000 per home.

Now €2000 per home might seem like a lot, but think about it over the long term. Fibre typically will last 30 years, often up to 50 years or more and has significantly lower opex and power costs then copper.

Take a line rental of €15 per month. That works out €180 per year, you would have the €2000 cost paid off after just 12 years. Now of course you will have interest payments and opex costs, but even including them at €15 per month, you should still be able to pay it off after 20 years. But the fibre should last 30 to 50 years, so after 20 years you should be making a nice profit on it.

This is why this project would be a no brainer for the government, it actually ends up paying for itself and more over the years. Never mind the other inderiect social and economic benefits.

Sponge Bob

The UK figure is instructive BK. However I think BT given its size is only counting Access network upgrades in the number and is separately funding Aggregation and Backbone costs under 21CN.

Anyway BT will upgrade 16m premises to 25% FTTP and 75% FTTC (VDSL Density not ADSL Density)

Total cost £2.5bn or £156 Per Premises. Likely not counting the CPE either

When originally proposed in 2008 they were planning on 8-10m premises for £2.5bn but given economies of scale ...the 'exchanges' are built by the 1000 in Factories and pinged onto a concrete plinth onsite.....they have gotten up to 16m premises at the latest iterations.

Line rental is slightly irrelevant because it is a Sub Loop that is unbundled if anything, not a full local loop.

But you WERE right BK @:D