NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

The Cush

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/varadkar-looks-at-plans-b-c-and-d-as-rural-broadband-cost-rockets-38023794.html

The Irish Independent understands there is a possibility the future of the NBP could be considered at a special Cabinet meeting in Cork next month.

The Cush

Good discussion on the Pat Kenny Show yesterday about the NBP etc., Jonathan Healy standing in for Pat. Included is a discussion with Philip Martin, chief executive officer of Cora Systems.

Jonathan says he's an Imagine LTE subscriber, DL speed can vary between 70 Mbps, on a good day but can drop down to a low of 6 or 7 Mbps. Also his neighbour, who is with eir on a 3 Mbps copper line cannot get Imagine LTE because the mast is full.

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/yet-delays-national-broadband-plan

BarryM

As push comes to shove the inevitable reaction - it is too expensive, cut it back......

This morning ISME is out suggesting the 'universality' of the plan should be abandoned.

Various posters on here say €6k per connection is 'too much' What is the cost of an ESB connection to a rural house?

There is NO information on possible tariffs. I doubt that the ESB/CIE/Bus Eireann etc., principles of pricing will be applied to NBP.

BTW = what is FTT(P|H??

Gary kk

1800 euro for the ESB for single phase connection

tototoe

BarryM wrote: »

As push comes to shove the inevitable reaction - it is too expensive, cut it back......

This morning ISME is out suggesting the 'universality' of the plan should be abandoned.

Various posters on here say €6k per connection is 'too much' What is the cost of an ESB connection to a rural house?

There is NO information on possible tariffs. I doubt that the ESB/CIE/Bus Eireann etc., principles of pricing will be applied to NBP.

BTW = what is FTT(P|H??

Who pays the cost of an ESB connection to a rural house?

There might be value in spending 6 k per house if they even retained ownership of the infrastructure. As it stands GMC etc get the network.

Ftth is fibre to the home
Ftto is fibre to the premises I think

The Cush

the cost, including VAT, contingencies and so on could be in the region of €3 billion, spread over 25 years.

This is the cost of the fixed subsidy to run fibre past/to every property in the intervention area and connect every property in the intervention area, spread over a 25 year period.

From the committee discussion with the Dept of Communications officials a few weeks ago the subsidy will be paid in two parts, when a property is passed and when a property is connected. Also from the committee discussion, fibre will not be run to properties that do not request it.

Open-eir announced it is going to take, maybe, up to a further 80,000 semi-urban premises out of the intervention area, in addition to the 35,000 it has already connected or will connect above the committed 300k.

As I see it the overall cost over the 25 years could be lower that that headline figure and the state also recoups some of that cost through VAT returns.

user1842

We have been down this road before.....

The M50 toll bridge.

If we pay in full for the infrastructure, we need to fully own it, period.

KOR101

Okay, it is I, not Varadkar who am wrong.

Over 1,000 rural towns and villages have already been identified as target areas for the fibre-based connections, and once they are in place the plan is to allow private operators offer multiple services off the networks.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/technology/up-to-500m-broadband-investment-for-rural-ireland-1.1774036

clohamon

The Cush wrote: »

The original plan from 2014, discussed at committee recently, was different to the one tendered

The original plan was the almost all wireless LTE delusion from 2012.

The 2014 plan (Fibre-to-the-village) was announced in the run-up to the local elections of that year. It lasted about as long as the election campaign.

The hiring of heavy-weight consultants; PWC, KPMG, Analysys Mason didn't start until August 2014.

ArrBee

Is the government allowed to commission a private company to provide an asset without having a public tendering process?

I see a lot of comments about public tender being required when gov subsidies are used, but is it a subsidy if the full cost is paid by the government?

I'm guess I know the answer to that, but it's a shame that they can't commission the likes of ESB to build it while the public retains control.

The Cush

ArrBee wrote: »

Is the government allowed to commission a private company to provide an asset without having a public tendering process?

I see a lot of comments about public tender being required when gov subsidies are used, but is it a subsidy if the full cost is paid by the government?

If the government is going to pay a percentage of the overall rollout cost at €3bn and all the criticism that surround that, there is no chance they could/will pay for the complete rollout cost

From a Dáil debate as recent as yesterday

Deputy Seán Canney (Minister of State at the Department of Communications): … A question was asked on whether the ESB could roll out national broadband. The European Commission and the Attorney General have made it clear that it would not be possible to provide a subsidy to a commercial semi-State body such as the ESB to roll out the national broadband plan without a new public procurement process. We are where we are. The Attorney General has advised that there are significant legal risks around procurement law and state-aid law if the State was to mandate a fund directly outside a procurement process and economic undertaking, including a commercial semi-State owned entity such as the ESB, to carry out the national broadband plan.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-16/2/

ArrBee

The Cush wrote: »

If the government is going to pay a percentage of the overall rollout cost at €3bn and all the criticism that surround that, there is no chance they could/will pay for the complete rollout cost

Assuming that the final tender actually costs a portion of the full cost, which surely has to be called into question at this stage?
I'd love to know what estimate Eir and SIRO would put on completing the project.

A question to ask would be, "if the final tender involves the gov paying a percentage of the total cost, could a full build be completed by a competitor for the same cost?"

Yes, yes I know this is essentially going back to square one but as others have said.... This looks less like a gov subsidy with eventual private ownership and more like gifting of a public asset.

ArrBee

The Cush wrote: »

From a Dáil debate as recent as yesterday:

Deputy Seán Canney (Minister of State at the Department of Communications): … A question was asked on whether the ESB could roll out national broadband. The European Commission and the Attorney General have made it clear that it would not be possible to provide a subsidy to a commercial semi-State body such as the ESB to roll out the national broadband plan without a new public procurement process. We are where we are. The Attorney General has advised that there are significant legal risks around procurement law and state-aid law if the State was to mandate a fund directly outside a procurement process and economic undertaking, including a commercial semi-State owned entity such as the ESB, to carry out the national broadband plan.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates.../2019-04-16/2/

I'm not sure if it makes a difference to rules or not but my angle was:
if the money was not a subsidy to a private (or semi private) entity, but a purchase order.... could the gov spend 3bn in public money on an asset without breaking rules?
Assuming there was a company willing to supply a built out network for that cost, of course.
Then, you are not subsidizing a private company, but instead commissioning the supply of an asset.

Again, not sure if there is a difference in the eyes of EU (or even Irish) laws.

The Cush

ArrBee wrote: »

Assuming that the final tender actually costs a portion of the full cost, which surely has to be called into question at this stage?
I'd love to know what estimate Eir and SIRO would put on completing the project.

A question to ask would be, "if the final tender involves the gov paying a percentage of the total cost, could a full build be completed by a competitor for the same cost?"

The subsidy is €3bn to cover the entire intervention area as indicated in the Dáil yesterday, so we can assume the total rollout cost is in excess of that, even with a subsidy neither SIRO or eir considered it financially viable to be involved.

The Cush

ArrBee wrote: »

I'm not sure if it makes a difference to rules or not but my angle was:
if the money was not a subsidy to a private (or semi private) entity, but a purchase order.... could the gov spend 3bn in public money on an asset without breaking rules?
Assuming there was a company willing to supply a built out network for that cost, of course.
Then, you are not subsidizing a private company, but instead commissioning the supply of an asset.

This current process has to end by either awarding the contract to the current bidder or to cancel the process due to the costs involved, before a Plan B could be considered otherwise this will end up in court.

But as already said the others aren't interested, even with a subsidy.

user1842

The Cush wrote: »

This current process has to end by either awarding the contract to the current bidder or to cancel the process due to the costs involved, before a Plan B could be considered otherwise this will end up in court.

But as already said the others aren't interested, even with a subsidy.

If EIR realised they would get 3 billion, they would have stayed in the process.

If 3 billion is only for part of the cost then the project needs to be stopped immediately.

I calculate that rural electrification cost about €5 billion.

ArrBee

The Cush wrote: »

The subsidy is €3bn to cover the entire intervention area as indicated in the Dáil yesterday, so we can assume the total rollout cost is in excess of that, even with a subsidy neither SIRO or eir considered it financially viable to be involved.

I've been following along for a good while on this thread. It's been a rollercoaster so far.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume anything at this stage.
SIRO and Eir counted themselves out before the inflated figure of 3bn was mentioned and for reasons unknown. Sure we can all make guesses. One possible reason is strategic rather than financial viability.

sure, the tender will have a total cost in excess of 3bn. That's not the point (I am trying to make). As a single bidder they have a lot more freedom to make up whatever numbers they like.

Given what we "know" now. - 1 single bidder is naming their price which requires a 3bn subsidy, could it be fully built by someone else for the same cost, and if so would the gov be allowed to make such a purchase thereby spending the same amount but not giving away the asset at the end of 25yrs.

The Cush

All we know right now is the Dept has all the facts and figures which they will present to cabinet shortly and that the cabinet will make a decision on it in early May, likely at a special cabinet meeting in Cork. It's a waste of time speculating on anything else until we get a decision either way.

Johnboy1951

As far as I am aware, all substantial government purchases much go though a tender process.
So the idea of buying the fitted infrastructure from any entity, regardless 3 bn or other price, is not on.

A new tender process is required if the present one is abandoned.

IMO.

One thing that I have not read discussed in detail is the information that the initial cost estimates were based solely on bringing fibre to small towns and villages (think telephone exchanges for instance) and no further.
The running of fibre from there to the hinterland was not included.

That surely explains the difference in costings between that and the presently proposed scheme of running fibre past every premises in the land.

In fact we now know those local fibre points have been done commercially and fibre has been (or is presently being) rolled out to areas close to the 'exchanges'.

It is now only the areas beyond that which the NBP has to address.

The most obvious choice, from a practical POV [one entity involved], would be to come to some arrangement to subsidise an open-eir extension of the present network to service the lot.

The difficulty lies in how to get permission from the EU to do this.
I would not be surprised to hear (eventually) that such an idea was being discussed with the EU, searching for some way to allow it.

.

user1842

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The most obvious choice, from a practical POV [one entity involved], would be to come to some arrangement to subsidise an open-eir extension of the present network to service the lot.

The difficulty lies in how to get permission from the EU to do this.
I would not be surprised to hear (eventually) that such an idea was being discussed with the EU, searching for some way to allow it.

This is really the only practical and cost effective thing to do at this stage.

Honestly if this means restarting the tender, so be it. A new tender could be done quite quickly, as you would just reuse the old one.

However as the Government are quoting 3 billion, what cost would EIR now come in at.

It is a mess and totally the fault of the department of communication.

ArrBee

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As far as I am aware, all substantial government purchases much go though a tender process.
So the idea of buying the fitted infrastructure from any entity, regardless 3 bn or other price, is not on.

A new tender process is required if the present one is abandoned.

IMO.

I would assume the same.
It's a shame as the rules in place are there to protect the wasting of money and racketeering by awarding gov contracts to "the wrong crowd", yet it could actually provide the opposite result in this case (if they push on).

I wonder if asked to provide a total cost to supply the network to the gov how SIRO and openEir would compare?

The Cush

user1842 wrote: »

However as the Government are quoting 3 billion, what cost would EIR now come in at.

IIRC it was said in the Oireachtas yesterday or recently that the 3 bids were coming in at a similar cost.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

IIRC it was said in the Oireachtas yesterday or recently that the 3 bids were coming in at a similar cost.

I find that very hard to believe, the statement not that you read it btw. How could NBI compete with open eir when NBI have to rent the infrastructure from the latter.

Did SIRO even submit a bid?

user1842

The Cush wrote: »

IIRC it was said in the Oireachtas yesterday or recently that the 3 bids were coming in at a similar cost.

Is this the total cost or the state subsidy?

How in Gods name can it cost 3 Billion?

Rural electrification (an order of magnitude more difficult, as the poles had to be placed too) cost 140 millions pounds. Adjusted for inflation from around 1950 and converted to euro that is around 5 Billion.

is_that_so

user1842 wrote: »

Is this the total cost or the state subsidy?

How in Gods name can it cost 3 Billion?

Rural electrification (an order of magnitude more difficult, as the poles had to be placed too) cost 140 millions pounds. Adjusted for inflation from around 1950 and converted to euro that is around 5 Billion.

Over 25 years apparently - not as an initial outlay.

The Cush

user1842 wrote: »

Is this the total cost or the state subsidy?

How in Gods name can it cost 3 Billion?

The Taoiseach in the Dáil, yesterday, said

the cost, including VAT, contingencies and so on could be in the region of €3 billion, albeit spread over 25 years.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

I find that very hard to believe, the statement not that you read it btw. How could NBI compete with open eir when NBI have to rent the infrastructure from the latter.

Did SIRO even submit a bid?

Potential bidders had taken part in a 2 year dialogue where costs would have been known but only one company sent in a formal bid.

Regarding NBI renting open-eir infrastructure, Carolan Lennon has said many times now one of the reasons they withdrew from the process was that they had to setup a separate wholesale company away from open-eir to operate the NBP, basically duplicating what they already have in open-eir. This separate entity would have to operate in a similar way to NBI. Have a look at her contribution to the PAC last Feb.

This is the quote from the Taoiseach yesterday

The Taoiseach: I thank the Deputy for the question. As I have always said about this and other projects, small and large, one only really knows what the true cost will be when the bids and tenders come in. When it comes to this project, there were three bids.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: We do not have three bids.

The Taoiseach: While it is true that two of those three bidders have since withdrawn, we have three bids and we know what the cost is of the project. All three bids came in at a similar figure.

SIRO pulled out when Eir pulled a masterstroke on Naughty Naughton, and took the 300K houses from the NBP. They were the low hanging fruit that made the NBP a commercial runner.

Now the word is that Eir are only installing the easiest of this rural 300K and can not be compelled to complete the others. They blew the NBP out of the water, managed to prevent a major competitor, and took the rural commercially viable properties in one fell swoop. They ran rings around government.

I, personally, believe that the above Eir move was the absolute death knell of the NBP

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

Potential bidders had taken part in a 2 year dialogue where costs would have been known but only one company sent in a formal bid.

Regarding NBI renting open-eir infrastructure, Carolan Lennon has said many times now one of the reasons they withdrew from the process was that they had to setup a separate wholesale company away from open-eir to operate the NBP, basically duplicating what they already have in open-eir. This separate entity would have to operate in a similar way to NBI. Have a look at her contribution to the PAC last Feb.

This is the quote from the Taoiseach yesterday

I am aware of her PAC contribution. She also claimed there that a further 150000 of the 540000 intervention premises would be commercially viable for eir. It was only capital funding that prevented them from proceeding with those premises. This is a further poisoning of the process planting doubt in the minds of those tasked with making a decision.

Johnboy1951

The Cush wrote: »

IIRC it was said in the Oireachtas yesterday or recently that the 3 bids were coming in at a similar cost.

What was not made clear to me is whether those costings were based on a complete roll out or just the initial phase (effectively fibre to the exchange by openeir) which was estimated at half a billion. I doubt it cost openeir that much!

One assumes the "similar cost" refers to the 3 bn figure ...... but does it?

At this stage I am not inclined to take anything on face value.

tsue921i8wljb3

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What was not made clear to me is whether those costings were based on a complete roll out or just the initial phase (effectively fibre to the exchange by openeir) which was estimated at half a billion. I doubt it cost openeir that much!

One assumes the "similar cost" refers to the 3 bn figure ...... but does it?

At this stage I am not inclined to take anything on face value.

The three companies would have been providing costings on the complete roll out of FTTH, so passing however many premises the Department mandated. Obviously it suits them to say all three bids were similar. Carolan Lennon has stated that it would undoubtedly be cheaper for eir to do the job outside of the NBP process.

The Cush

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What was not made clear to me is whether those costings were based on a complete roll out or just the initial phase (effectively fibre to the exchange by openeir) which was estimated at half a billion. I doubt it cost openeir that much!

One assumes the "similar cost" refers to the 3 bn figure ...... but does it?

It refers to the current plan, the 2014 plan ended in 2014 when the consultants came on board, as posted earlier today.

Pique

€120m/yr. That's €3bn over 25 years.

For comparison. the govt gave €120m in tax breaks to landlords in the last budget.

user1842

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Obviously it suits them to say all three bids were similar.

This has to be BS as it would indicate they knew it would cost 3 billion in January 2018.

As that's when EIR pulled out of the process.

westyIrl

user1842 wrote: »

Is this the total cost or the state subsidy?

How in Gods name can it cost 3 Billion?

Rural electrification (an order of magnitude more difficult, as the poles had to be placed too) cost 140 millions pounds. Adjusted for inflation from around 1950 and converted to euro that is around 5 Billion.

Since then labour rates and red tape have sky rocketed and left inflation rates in the dust.

Jim

tsue921i8wljb3

user1842 wrote: »

This has to be BS as it would indicate they knew it would cost 3 billion in January 2018.

As that's when EIR pulled out of the process.

Good point. The €3bn figure did not appear in the media until October.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-broadband-plan-may-cost-more-than-3-billion-1.3676023

I don't believe there were similar costs involved. SIRO would have had to build a rural access network from scratch while eir were already well advanced in rural areas. I don't know how on top of details Varadkar actually is. He tends to speak off the cuff at times.

Johnboy1951

Ten Pin wrote: »

Newstalk having a discussion now

Be aware Sean Bolger is one of the contributors

Caught the end of it ..... his suggestion seemed reasonable .... no doubt with a view to getting fibre to masts.

westyIrl

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Caught the end of it ..... his suggestion seemed reasonable .... no doubt with a view to getting fibre to masts.

Pretty much. He also regards 150Mbps too low a spec for the 3 billion although he appears to be working the angle that other operators should be allowed supply last mile; so a somewhat self-serving critique. Worth a listen

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/im-tired-politicians-waffle-broadband

Jim

Johnboy1951

westyIrl wrote: »

Pretty much. He also regards 150Mbps too low a spec for the 3 billion although he appears to be working the angle that other operators should be allowed supply last mile; so a somewhat self-serving critique. Worth a listen

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/im-tired-politicians-waffle-broadband

Jim

That 150Mb/s in the contract , referred to by Bolger, seems to be the new minimum, so Bolger is rather misrepresenting the situation because the fibre will be capable of much more.
Makes me think he is using the 150 as a figure he reckons Imagine can compete with so publicising it at every opportunity.

Ten Pin

Early on in the interview Bolger suggested that it was costing 3bn for a headline speed of 150meg which is not giving the full story, fibre will do 1gig (and more) if end users choose to pay for it.

According to him FTTH is not cost effective and yet he still wants fibre to his masts.

Back at the start of this thread, someone made the point that FTTH is cheaper than any other solution.

Govt are spinning the 3bn figure as too expensive, only time will tell why they are doing so. IMO if they spend 3bn, handing it over after 25 years would be a repeat of Telecom Eireann privatisation which is partly the reason that the NBP is required.

The main issue with Bolger getting air time is that his spin goes unchallenged because the interviewers aren't knowledgeable enough to grill him properly.

rob808

Ten Pin wrote: »

Early on in the interview Bolger suggested that it was costing 3bn for a headline speed of 150meg which is not giving the full story, fibre will do 1gig (and more) if end users choose to pay for it.

He seemed to be hinting that 150 was a max speed. If fibre is only good for 150Mbps then it's of no use to a wireless mast where everyone (400 users) is expecting 150Mbps each (Imagines promised speed). So how is he going to turn 150Mbps into, say 10Gbps...who knows...Bolger was last seen at a queue in Aldi with a few loaves & a couple of fishes in a shopping basket.

According to him FTTH is not cost effective and yet he still wants fibre to his masts.

Back at the start of this thread, someone made the point that FTTH is cheaper than any other solution.

Govt are spinning the 3bn figure as too expensive, only time will tell why they are doing so. IMO if they spend 3bn, handing it over after 25 years would be a repeat of Telecom Eireann privatisation which is partly the reason that the NBP is required.

The main issue with Bolger getting air time is that his spin goes unchallenged because the interviewers aren't knowledgeable enough to grill him properly.

I know plus he think FTTH will be outdated in 25 years clearly he doesn't know the technology.

Ultimanemo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That 150Mb/s in the contract , referred to by Bolger,seems to be the new minimum, so Bolger is rather misrepresenting the situation because the fibre will be capable of much more.
Makes me think he is using the 150 as a figure he reckons Imagine can compete with so publicising it at every opportunity.

Minimum at 5 am, at peak



Genuine random test done once only with no Internet activity, hosted by Vodafone

The Cush

The Taoiseach in the Dáil today: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-17/17/


on the 2014 plan

The Taoiseach: … I am happy to confirm and clarify one or two things that were said in the last couple of days. I can confirm that in 2014 the memorandum brought to Cabinet by the Minister at the time, Pat Rabbitte, estimated that the cost of bringing high-speed broadband to 1,100 villages in Ireland would be up to €512 million. That was never the cost for connecting every home, farm and business in the country.

The State subvention was never capped at €500 million. That is not correct either.

the current plan, other bids

The Taoiseach: … In terms of bids, the only bid received is not only from Granahan McCourt. Before others withdrew, they also put in bids and the figures were similar in those bids.

ownership

The Taoiseach: … In terms of the ownership model which the Deputy asked about, under the proposed contract terms, the contract is to build the network, to operate the network, to maintain the network and to manage the network for 25 years, at which point ownership stays with the consortium. However, at that point, Government has the option to buy. As this is not a commercial piece of infrastructure, one would expect that to be a relatively inexpensive proposition. At any point, if the contractor fails to deliver, the Government can step in and take over. Those have been the terms of the proposition since very early on.

next steps, preferred bidder and contract

The Taoiseach: … The next step will be for the Government to make a decision on whether to accept the bid and designate a preferred bidder. That has not yet been done. I anticipate that can be done in the next couple of weeks. It will then take a number of months for contracts to be drawn up and signed. After that, the work will commence in terms of roll-out on the ground.

total cost of network build approx. €3bn, no additional costs to the bidder

Micheál Martin: … there is an onus and an obligation on the Taoiseach to give the full cost. What is the overall cost of the project estimated to be? The subvention from the State will be €3 billion. Are there any additional costs, over and above that, to the bidder?

The Taoiseach: Not to my knowledge, but the decision has yet to be made by Cabinet. The decision that will be made by Cabinet in the next couple of weeks is whether to accept the bid and to designate this bidder as the preferred bidder, at which point contracts will have to be drawn up and signed, and that will take a few more months after that.

the €3bn subvention contract

The Taoiseach: … The contract is not only to build this network; the contract is to build the network, to operate it, to manage it, to maintain it, and also to rent the infrastructure from Eir, which will be necessary to rent for the reasons that people will understand. The cost of building it is only a proportion of the entire cost of a network that has to be built, managed and maintained and, of course, infrastructure rented from the incumbent.

the €3bn subsidy, comparison with other infrastructure investment

The Taoiseach: In terms of investment in infrastructure, we should bear the following in mind: in the past 20 years in Ireland, we have invested €40 billion in our roads connecting our cities by motorways, bypasses, local, regional and national roads all over the country; in the past 20 years in Ireland, we have invested €10 billion in our sewerage and water network - perhaps we should have done more; and in the past 20 years, Government has invested very little in our communications infrastructure. That has all been done by the private sector. We need to see this kind of investment in that context.

This is not a small project.

committee and Dáil scrutiny

The Taoiseach: The Government has not yet made a decision to accept a bid or to appoint a preferred bidder. If and when it comes to the point of being able to do that, there will be several months while contracts are drawn up and, during that period, I have no doubt that the committee and Parliament will want to scrutinise the matter in detail.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: That will be after the event.

due diligence still underway

The Taoiseach: … Obviously, some more work needs to be done. This matter is being analysed by Government, by my own Department, by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and, of course, by the Department of Communications, Energy and Climate Action, which is the lead Department on this issue.

The Taoiseach: … Due diligence has to be undergone, Cabinet Ministers have to be briefed, the Cabinet has to meet, a decision has to be made and a preferred bidder has to be appointed, or not.

The Cush

rob808 wrote: »

I know plus he think FTTH will be outdated in 25 years clearly he doesn't know the technology.

Paul Davis from the DCU Business School, an expert on Public Procurement but not an expert of fibre technology

we're going to have to spend more at the end of 25 years probably to buy it back … the technology or infrastructure we're buying back at that stage will probably be 20 years old and will probably be out of date … pace of technological change … we'll probably be buying back something that's out of date

Sean Bolger ran rings around clueless Ivan when it came to megabits and gigabits. "what's going to be delivered [under the NBP] is 150 Mbps broadband" :eek: "why are we spending €3bn on 150 Mbps broadband" :eek: when Sean can deliver that for a fraction of the cost, listen back from 4:28 mins - https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/im-tired-politicians-waffle-broadband

tsue921i8wljb3

NBI will also be receiving wholesale income from customers on the network I assume. So €3bn + €X wholesale income over 25 years then they get to keep the network. Lunacy!

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

Paul Davis from the DCU Business School, an expert on Public Procurement but not an expert of fibre technology



Sean Bolger ran rings around clueless Ivan when it came to megabits and gigabits. "what's going to be delivered [under the NBP] is 150 Mbps broadband" :eek: "why are we spending €3bn on 150 Mbps broadband" :eek: when Sean can deliver that for a fraction of the cost, listen back from 4:28 mins - https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/im-tired-politicians-waffle-broadband

Yates has long been a proponent of wireless. Another buffoon.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

NBI will also be receiving wholesale income from customers on the network I assume. So €3bn + €X wholesale income over 25 years then they get to keep the network. Lunacy!

That €3bn assumes every property in the intervention area is passed by them and every property in the intervention area is connected to their network, this isn't going to happen as eir chips away the intervention area. So likely to be less unless there is a clause in the contract to protect the preferred bidder from such income loss.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Yates has long been a proponent of wireless. Another buffoon.

Totally agree with this, watching the Tonight Show regularly, he comes across as very anti-NBP and loves experts like Sean Bolger who support his opinion.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

That €3bn assumes every property in the intervention area is passed by them and every property in the intervention area is connected to their network, this isn't going to happen as eir chips away the intervention area. So likely to be less unless there is a clause in the contract to protect the preferred bidder from such income loss.

They are likely going to have to pass the majority of premises anyway. Just as open eir have done in their 300000 project. You can't really cherry pick premises unless they are extremely remote and they'll likely get wireless. The vast amount of capital investment is required for the passing of premises as groundwork needs to be done to renew access chambers and ducting and poles are replaced.

A thought did strike me that eir may let this work take place, poles and ducting renewed at NBIs (taxpayers) expense then eir rush in to deploy their own cable and distribution points. It could be a race to see who is quickest at splicing!

Gonzo

rob808 wrote: »

I know plus he think FTTH will be outdated in 25 years clearly he doesn't know the technology.

Bolger knows full well what FTTH is capable of and that it's light years ahead of the wireless technology that he is trying to dominate rural Ireland with. He will continue to downplay the benefit of FTTH, putting a spin on things because so many people including journalists and politicians don't know the difference between wireless, copper or glass as it is all labeled as 'fibre'.

As long as he continues to 'promise' speeds of 150 to rural Ireland, flood the media using journalists and influencing poliitians to play his game and make the time vs cost argument, he will continue to do well.

Once he has the customer in contract, their stuck with single digit speeds in the evening. I doubt he's concerned by that because the customer most likely has no other choice other than Imagine, so he's not in a hurry to fix the contention issues. A quick glance at Imagine's facebook is a telling tale.

On one side you have the Imagine social media team posting up photoshop image banners with glowing reports from customers like 'John' and 'Mary' as well as decent speedtests from Imagine taken in the morning. On the other side you have the customers posting shocking speedtests, many below 5meg, these quite often get deleted by Imagine.

It will be a farce if the NBP is abandoned and Imagine continues to dominate with a sub standard service, it's the poor rural customer who is really going to suffer. Our politicians should spend some time going through Imagine's Facebook page to see that their service isn't the holy grail of broadband in Ireland.