NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

NewClareman

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's fascinating and all, but you confidently stated "low cost", and "lower cost".

So: how much will it cost?

I can confidently state that it will be far less than the unit cost of the long tails as that is far more than the bigger markets being targeted will bear.

I wouldn’t use the word fascinating, I would say a cause for real concern, given that it is proposed to sign a binding contract, shortly.

Any comment on the technical spec.? :cool:

irishfeen

Just an example of how NBI could start making a dent in the 500k figure relatively quickly if they start with extending out the new efibre network only by a few km. Below you see the efibre in purple ending and 49 premises marked with official Eircodes assigned within 2.8km. In this case the NBI would pass many more premises then Eir actually did. In the previous 2km they only passed 16.

Pique

Over the last week since the announcement, I've noticed there has been at least a dozen posts on the Reddit Ireland page with a lot of posts by a handful of posters spouting utter technical/economic/social BS and spreading negativity about serving rural Ireland with Dublin taxes etc.
Lots of blatant shilling of wireless/5G being the silver bullet.
Even forced-resettlement of people to urban centres has been touted as a valid argument!!

The Cush

On the issue of the cancelling the tender process now and looking at alternatives as demanded by the opposition, two radio programmes today touched on the issue with the following comment from one expert "we are where we are now, the cabinet has decided to award preferential bidder status to this company, if they decided to cancel it tomorrow there could well be very serious legal implications for the state"

Basically he said the cabinet, when it made it decision last Tuesday, was in full possession of all the facts that have come to light since and causing much debate in opposition to the current plan, There would have to be some serious new material coming out that would cause them to cancel the project now and from the preferred bidder's point of view the expectation is there now under the public spending code that they have the right to negotiate for the contract as the last bidder standing and to get the contract following successful negotiation otherwise their only recourse would be to the courts. The preferred bidder would have no other option.

oscarBravo

NewClareman wrote: »

I can confidently state that it will be far less than the unit cost of the long tails as that is far more than the bigger markets being targeted will bear.

You can confidently state whatever the hell you want, but unless you back it up with an actual link to something, somewhere that indicates what it will actually cost, your confidence is built on sand.

Any comment on the technical spec.? :cool:

It looks impressive, as does 5G - on paper.

Any comment on Elon Musk's strong hints that it won't be using IP as a transport protocol? Still think the government should hold off on building a fibre network on the basis of "simpler than IPv6" vagueness and hype?

Anything at all to justify your apparently unsupported belief that a constellation consisting of thousands of satellites - which, being in an extremely low orbit, will have to be refreshed roughly on a five-year cycle - will be low-cost? Any actual details on how a satellite platform that doesn't use the Internet Protocol can, y'know, carry Internet traffic?

oscarBravo

Pique wrote: »

Even forced-resettlement of people to urban centres has been touted as a valid argument!!

On one level I have a degree of grudging respect for people who are willing to admit that that is their aim.

I mean, given the housing crisis we're currently facing, it's a bug-eyed raving insane aim, but at least they're honest.

The people who annoy me are the ones who advocate creating a hostile environment to force people off the land and into the cities, while vehemently insisting that that's not at all what they're trying to achieve.

The Cush

Back in 2010 when the country was beginning the transition from analogue to digital TV transmission, a discussion in the Communications Committee asked why we could not use satellite transmission instead of a terrestrial mast network across the country

This was the reply

The satellite option does everything mentioned by Mr. Hayes, namely, extending coverage and providing a back-up, but one could not dispense with DTT by virtue of the availability of satellite because, in the last analysis, the satellite option is not within the control of the State.

During the week in one of the many radio discussions the same issue was raised but someone mentioned that if the USA decided for some security reason to temporarily switch off a particular satellite network we would lose access.

NewClareman

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can confidently state whatever the hell you want, but unless you back it up with an actual link to something, somewhere that indicates what it will actually cost, your confidence is built on sand. It looks impressive, as does 5G - on paper.

Any comment on Elon Musk's strong hints that it won't be using IP as a transport protocol? Still think the government should hold off on building a fibre network on the basis of "simpler than IPv6" vagueness and hype?

And this from a supporter of a Business Case that only shows a return on a 25 year cycle. Nothing but a con job. No sane business would touch it.

Space X currently has a market valuation of more than $30billion, which is a reasonable measure of credibility. It has also been given a limited window by the fcc to get its satellites launched.

As for simpler than ipv6, I’ve been part of heated debates on protocol use, in a different, extremely high performance environment. Given the level of detail published, I’m confident that they will select an appropriate mechanism. Or are you seriously suggesting that only an ipv6 network can carry internet traffic. Cmon...

I bet people on this thread want fibre, and they want it NOW. That is not a sufficient rationale to bring fibre down every Noreen in the country. Not, that is, unless it can be done far more cheaply.

The Cush

NewClareman wrote: »

I bet people on this thread want fibre, and they want it NOW. That is not a sufficient rationale to bring fibre down every Noreen in the country.

Noreen on my road has it, I want it too.

NewClareman

The Cush wrote: »

Back in 2010 when the country was beginning the transition from analogue to digital TV transmission, a discussion in the Communications Committee asked why we could not use satellite transmission instead of a terrestrial mast network across the country

This was the reply


During the week in one of the many radio discussions the same issue was raised but someone mentioned that if the USA decided for some security reason to temporarily switch off a particular satellite network we would lose access.

I agree that communications security is the biggest concern in the digital age. But it is far greater than using satellite broadband. Eir use Huawei equipment in at least some of their network, which I would worry about more.

NewClareman

The Cush wrote: »

Noreen on my road has it, I want it too.

Indeed

The Cush

3pm this afternoon - Richard Bruton, Minister for Communications, meeting with the Joint Committee on Communications in CR2 discussing the National Broadband Plan

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr2-live/

tsue921i8wljb3

NewClareman wrote: »

Indeed

Have you read the cost benefit analysis produced for DCCAE by PWC? Do you disagree with it's findings?

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/govieassets/8527/a8f88041f1f44255b0716f38e17b9448.pdf

BarryM

Marlow wrote: »

But that's again, what I'm pointing out. They aren't all doing that. They weren't even consulted. You don't even know, if they are selling stale bread at this point, because you haven't even checked. Just because you checked a shop in Cork, doesn't mean, that it's the same in Galway or Mayo.

/M

Finally! some rational information.

My local (in Ireland) supplier is a case in point. He wasn't/isn't consulted.

As it happens, almost accidently, there is sufficient backhaul (fibre based) capacity, but supplied to a specific application in the area.The former monopoly supplier wants serious money for access to this fibre.

NewClareman

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Have you read the cost benefit analysis produced for DCCAE by PWC? Do you disagree with it's findings?

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/govieassets/8527/a8f88041f1f44255b0716f38e17b9448.pdf

Yes I have read it, cover to cover and yes, I disagree with it’s findings. Magically, they found “time saving benefits” for residential consumers to help plug the gap. Even in commercial environments such benefits are looked on carefully as, in most cases time benefits, even if they are actually realized, do not create additional economic value. (They look good in the aggregate, but are simply too small at individual level to make a difference. An exception are environments such as call centers, where they do matter.)
Benefits have been identified based on the assumption that residents and enterprises will have access to 4G broadband services. Yet, they assign value to “the full realisation of the benefits of better purchase value and time savings while online shopping.“

I could go on...

This business case was created to support the desired outcome, nothing else.

Of course the savings from bundled services are real. So, taxpayers paying for rural Netflix, despite what some ministers are saying.

NewClareman

The Cush wrote: »

3pm this afternoon - Richard Bruton, Minister for Communications, meeting with the Joint Committee on Communications in CR2 discussing the National Broadband Plan

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr2-live/

Thanks, I’m traveling, but I’ll record it.

Gary kk

NewClareman wrote: »

Yes I have read it, cover to cover and yes, I disagree with it’s findings. Magically, they found “time saving benefits” for residential consumers to help plug the gap. Even in commercial environments such benefits are looked on carefully as, in most cases time benefits, even if they are actually realized, do not create additional economic value. (They look good in the aggregate, but are simply too small at individual level to make a difference. An exception are environments such as call centers, where they do matter.)

Benefits have been identified based on the assumption that residents and enterprises will have access to 4G broadband services. Yet, they assign value to “the full realisation of the benefits of better purchase value and time savings while online shopping.“

I could go on...

This business case was created to support the desired outcome, nothing else.

Of course the savings from bundled services are real. So, taxpayers paying for rural Netflix, despite what some ministers are saying.

Would you leave the taxpayer out of it been through this we could say the same why are my taxes going to the metro for someone in Dublin to get home early to watch Netflix

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

But that's again, what I'm pointing out. They aren't all doing that. They weren't even consulted. You don't even know, if they are selling stale bread at this point, because you haven't even checked. Just because you checked a shop in Cork, doesn't mean, that it's the same in Galway or Mayo.

/M

From personal experience of three different WISP providers, and going by the vast majority of what people on this forum experience, it's 99% stale bread. Anyone that experiences otherwise is in the minority.

And anyway, isn't the min speed specified 150Mbps, rising to 500 over a few years? No way in hell any WISP can realistically provide that. Isn't the point to get this thing done for once and for all, and not have to revisit it in another 5 years time?

Serious case of the haves and have nots on this forum. People in cities are ok with the rest being left in the dark as far as I can see. Not sure why - perhaps it's good old Irish begrudgery that we can have our cake and eat it by living in the countryside and also avail of a service that would normally be the reserve of a city / large town dweller. Happy to take the free water, motorways, public transport, street lighting, etc etc but an investment in rural Ireland is just too much.

"Oh but its a shocking price" you say without providing a costed alternative, "Oh but we won't own the network" - another red herring, "Oh wait here comes Elon Musk with some satellites", anything to try to kill it off.

Lets hope for rural Irelands sake that these contracts get signed before the Ploughing Championships as is being mentioned, and the begrudgers can go and rain on someone elses parade.

The Cush

Govt to ask Granahan McCourt to publish NBP investment details - RTÉ News

Cryptopagan

Gary kk wrote: »

Would you leave the taxpayer out of it been through this we could say the same why are my taxes going to the metro for someone in Dublin to get home early to watch Netflix

We don't embark on a major infrastructure project like a metro for Dublin so people can "get home early to watch Netflix." We know the city is going to grow, we know it's the main economic engine in the country, and we know that its creaking transport infrastructure is struggling to accommodate the volume of traffic already there. There's still a debate about the cost/benefit of building a metro for Dublin, but it's a far more persuasive case than providing high-speed broadband to every last home in rural Ireland, as if Leitrim is going to generate enough economic activity to justify it.

Gonzo

Orebro wrote: »

From personal experience of three different WISP providers, and going by the vast majority of what people on this forum experience, it's 99% stale bread. Anyone that experiences otherwise is in the minority.

I think this is money well spent. Rural Ireland needs FTTH, it's the only technology that works for rural areas. One only has to look at Imagine and see how badly a wireless operator can run things out of pure greed. One can also look at Australia and see what a poor job mixed technologies has done over there. In Australia's case it was all about saving money and rolling out quicker and now they are falling behind more and more, they are far down the league tables compared to us.

I'm sure it's possible to have a decent wireless network but that means far less customers to make the service useable at all times for everyone on the service.

Wireless may still be an option for very isolated places but for 97% of the homes and business in the country, FTTH is the way to go. It needs to be everywhere, both rural and urban.

NewClareman

Gary kk wrote: »

Would you leave the taxpayer out of it been through this we could say the same why are my taxes going to the metro for someone in Dublin to get home early to watch Netflix

Well, it’s ok then, if we leave the taxpayer out of it no Business Case is required.

I think you’ll find that theDublin tax payers are paying for their own infrastructure, and rural Irelands as well.

Many of those same taxpayers are at risk of homelessness, due to a shortage of homes and price gouging by landlords. Some can barely afford to live, let alone worry about bundled services. €3billion, and a decent governance model, would go a long way towards solving this issue.

Theanswers

Cryptopagan wrote: »

We don't embark on a major infrastructure project like a metro for Dublin so people can "get home early to watch Netflix." We know the city is going to grow, we know it's the main economic engine in the country, and we know that its creaking transport infrastructure is struggling to accommodate the volume of traffic already there. There's still a debate about the cost/benefit of building a metro for Dublin, but it's a far more persuasive case than providing high-speed broadband to every last home in rural Ireland, as if Leitrim is going to generate enough economic activity to justify it.

You sir, need to think outside the box. You have a very narrow perspective.

This is 3 billion over years. A drop in the ocean and the benefit will be enormous with many tangible and intangible benefits.

Luckily for us in rural Ireland your NOT making decisions.

Looking forward to Ireland moving forward with this plan.

rodge123

NewClareman wrote: »

Well, it’s ok then, if we leave the taxpayer out of it no Business Case is required.

I think you’ll find that theDublin tax payers are paying for their own infrastructure, and rural Irelands as well.

Many of those same taxpayers are at risk of homelessness, due to a shortage of homes and price gouging by landlords. Some can barely afford to live, let alone worry about bundled services. €3billion, and a decent governance model, would go a long way towards solving this issue.

I think you’ll find that 540,000 households contribute a lot of taxes to the the exchequer and are entitled to something back from it just like urban dwellers.

3bn over 25 years is a drop in the ocean when you consider inflation and that the social welfare budget is close to 20 billion each year.

A lot of rural houses pay for their own water and waste services unlike urban dwellers.

Never mind the fact the they provide a lot of the raw materials necessary for the cities to consume. Ireland has one of the best horse industries in the world which generates a lot of economic activity too and I’m not talking about the ones roaming around the streets of certain areas in Dublin

They pay extra levies on their electricity.
Speaking of which, where are all the wind turbine and solar farms been built..on rural farmers land to power the cities (and rural houses too)

Basically, rural Ireland contributes a lot to the economy and Irish society and most certainly does deserve the 3 billion.

Orebro

NewClareman wrote: »

Well, it’s ok then, if we leave the taxpayer out of it no Business Case is required.

I think you’ll find that theDublin tax payers are paying for their own infrastructure, and rural Irelands as well.

Many of those same taxpayers are at risk of homelessness, due to a shortage of homes and price gouging by landlords. Some can barely afford to live, let alone worry about bundled services. €3billion, and a decent governance model, would go a long way towards solving this issue.

You really are just looking for a reaction now aren't you. Straight from the Nigel Farage handbook.

ArrBee

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is on the assumption that 100% of homes take up the broadband and pay the €50 a month. There was not much success of getting people to pay for domestic water, so how many of households will take up the broadband? If it is 50% that would be a payback of 37 years, plus interest charges.

Surely, there should be a bit of research as to how many homes are likely to take up broadband FTTH.

Also, would FTTC be possible, and would it save much. Or, could fixed wireless be an alternative for the last 5%.

Will those of us in urban areas not getting FTTH be able to avail of FTTH?

There's a difference between getting someone to pay for what they already have (water) and paying for something that you can't currently get.

Sure, you might have some people not signing up, but it won't be the low connection rates that you keep banging on about.

You have to remember that the NBP is a separate market to all other internet consumers.
It's easy to understand why the connection rate in the commercial market is low (did someone say 20%?). there will be loads of people who don't see the need to upgrade from FTTC or even decent ASDL(2/+) connections today as it meets there current need or are in contract. Give it time and it will increase.
But for the intervention area where there is no alternative I will say the connection rate will be much much higher initially.

ArrBee

gnf_ireland wrote: »

Yes the ESB charge a reasonable fee to connect a house to the network. The allowable fee for broadband/telephony is much lower - about 100-200 euro as far as I know. This restriction applies to eir today, even at a wholesale level

If you had fiber infrastructure in place already, would connecting a new build to fiber really cost any different to copper?

Mortelaro

So Far,the ESB in Siro have been connecting urban homes using urban poles and underground

Switch that to rural and they'd have to negotiate farm by farm for access because of the damage they'd do and wouldn't get access from October to April in a lot of places
So a very very slow process
Decades I'd say

The Cush

Brendan Howlin saying earlier the state should borrow the extra €2.4bn to complete the project on its own. Only last week they were saying the state's investment of up to €3bn was too expensive, so now he wants to add an extra €2.4bn, headless chicken come to mind. Reinforces my decision not to vote Labour in the upcoming elections.

tsue921i8wljb3

Mortelaro wrote: »

So Far,the ESB in Siro have been connecting urban homes using urban poles and underground

Switch that to rural and they'd have to negotiate farm by farm for access because of the damage they'd do and wouldn't get access from October to April in a lot of places
So a very very slow process
Decades I'd say

That's a very good point that I haven't seen mentioned by anyone. ESB infrastructure criss-crosses land in comparison to open eir's which is mainly roadside. Even for faults would the ESB have to request access Mortelaro?

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Even for faults would the ESB have to request access Mortelaro?

No, health and safety comes first, they may speak to landowner out of courtesy.

oscarBravo

NewClareman wrote: »

And this from a supporter of a Business Case that only shows a return on a 25 year cycle. Nothing but a con job. No sane business would touch it.

Have you somehow managed to miss that the entire point of the NBP is to provide service where it's not commercially viable?

As for simpler than ipv6, I’ve been part of heated debates on protocol use, in a different, extremely high performance environment. Given the level of detail published, I’m confident that they will select an appropriate mechanism. Or are you seriously suggesting that only an ipv6 network can carry internet traffic. Cmon...

The hand-waving is getting seriously tiresome.

Put up or shut up: can you explain how Internet traffic can be carried from a customer's LAN to an Internet server without using the Internet Protocol?

I'm not interested in how "confident" you are. I'm not interested in debates you've had about protocol use in high performance environments. I want to know how my laptop can ping 8.8.8.8 without using the Internet Protocol.

Details, please.

Orebro

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you somehow managed to miss that the entire point of the NBP is to provide service where it's not commercially viable?

The hand-waving is getting seriously tiresome.

Put up or shut up: can you explain how Internet traffic can be carried from a customer's LAN to an Internet server without using the Internet Protocol?

I'm not interested in how "confident" you are. I'm not interested in debates you've had about protocol use in high performance environments. I want to know how my laptop can ping 8.8.8.8 without using the Internet Protocol.

Details, please.

But, but, but Elon said...........

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

No, health and safety comes first, they may speak to landowner out of courtesy (if they can determine to owns the land on a miserable stormy night).

Lets not forget they have wayleave rights to rollout fibre on the electricity network since an Act in 2014.

In the hypothetical situation that ESB were awarded the NBP I'm assuming they could not go destroying fields of crops in order to install fibre without compensating the landowner or waiting until the harvest.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

In the hypothetical situation that ESB were awarded the NBP I'm assuming they could not go destroying fields of crops in order to install fibre without compensating the landowner or waiting until the harvest.

I assume this would be correct, they won't want to fallout with any landowner and would make alternative arrangements in such cases, luckily there isn't a harvestable crop under every rural powerline. In any case most of the fibre will be on eir infrastructure with some of the ESB if the current plan succeeds.

The Cush

The Cush wrote: »

Govt to ask Granahan McCourt to publish NBP investment details - RTÉ News

GMC's initial investment will be €220m according to the Minister on the News at One. To be discussed at Committee from 3pm.

Leaders' questions starting in the Dáil at 2pm.

Gary kk

NewClareman wrote: »

Well, it’s ok then, if we leave the taxpayer out of it no Business Case is required.

I think you’ll find that theDublin tax payers are paying for their own infrastructure, and rural Irelands as well.

Many of those same taxpayers are at risk of homelessness, due to a shortage of homes and price gouging by landlords. Some can barely afford to live, let alone worry about bundled services. €3billion, and a decent governance model, would go a long way towards solving this issue.

Please link the the site that shows that as fact. I understand that rural Ireland is not as efficient as urban areas but I don't it's running at a loss the agri sector was worth 13.9 billion to economy there is also tourism, light manufacturers sure some areas will be even less productive but that happens in all countries

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

I assume this would be correct, they won't want to fallout with any landowner and would make alternative arrangements in such cases, luckily there isn't a harvestable crop under every rural powerline. In any case most of the fibre will be on eir infrastructure with some of the ESB if the current plan succeeds.

I wasn't referring to the current plan which will be 99% open eir infrastructure I'd say. Plenty of people have and still are saying that the ESB should have built the network. It was something I had not seen mentioned as a drawback to that. A hypothetical as I said.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

GMC's initial investment will be €220m according to the Minister on the News at One. To be discussed at Committee from 3pm.

Leaders' questions starting in the Dáil at 2pm.

From the Peter Hendrick interview it seemed to me that a lot of GMCs risk will be around take-up and the subsequent revenue that would accrue if it were better or worse than predicted.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the current plan which will be 99% open eir infrastructure I'd say.

Yes, I was aware of that.

The Cush

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

From the Peter Hendrick interview it seemed to me that a lot of GMCs risk will be around take-up and the subsequent revenue that would accrue if it were better or worse than predicted.

That appears to be the case, on our end of line I could see 6 or 7 of the 8 houses taking up a connection eventually, the 8th has a PtP link to our house. The governments conservative prediction is 80% over 25 years.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

That appears to be the case, on our end of line I could see 6 or 7 of the 8 houses taking up a connection eventually, the 8th has a PtP link to our house. The governments conservative prediction is 80% over 25 years.

Carolan Lennon said to PAC in February about open eir

It is exactly what we saw in urban areas. We do not have 100% penetration in urban areas; it is about 80%.

so 80% over 25 years is fairly conservative in my view. I guess it will be about making people aware that it's available to them.

Cryptopagan

Theanswers wrote: »

You sir, need to think outside the box. You have a very narrow perspective.

This is 3 billion over years. A drop in the ocean and the benefit will be enormous with many tangible and intangible benefits.

Luckily for us in rural Ireland your NOT making decisions.

Looking forward to Ireland moving forward with this plan.

To put 3bn in context, Ireland has budgeted 7.3bn for capital projects in 2019. 3bn is an enormous amount for an infrastructure project.

Nuphor

Cryptopagan wrote: »

To put 3bn in context, Ireland has budgeted 7.3bn for capital projects in 2019. 3bn is an enormous amount for an infrastructure project.

"In 2019" being the key term - most capital infra projects have cost spread (including the NBP) over years

The high horse brigade

Cryptopagan wrote: »

To put 3bn in context, Ireland has budgeted 7.3bn for capital projects in 2019. 3bn is an enormous amount for an infrastructure project.

To put this 3bn into context the annual taxpayer spending on health and welfare are 20 billion each, neither of which is money well spent. What's your point? 3bn is pennies over 25 years

Cryptopagan

Nuphor wrote: »

"In 2019" being the key term - most capital infra projects have cost spread (including the NBP) over years

I wasn't suggesting it would all come from one year's budget, but it doesn't change the fact the overall cost of the project is equivalent to around 40% of one year's capital budget. It's substantially more than the projected 1.7bn cost of the enormously-controversial-because-so-bloody-expensive National Children's Hospital.

It's 3bn that gets spent on this and not on something else, including on something elses that might actually recoup their budget in the long run.

Cryptopagan

The high horse brigade wrote: »

To put this 3bn into context the annual taxpayer spending on health and welfare are 20 billion each, neither of which is money well spent. What's your point? 3bn is pennies over 25 years

Regardless of your take on the NBP, comparing capital and current budget items is dumb. Current spending is vastly higher than capital.

Pique

Similar to a single year's Child Benefit payments. Or less than a single years EU budget contribution.

Spread over 25 years.

Cryptopagan

Pique wrote: »

Similar to a single year's Child Benefit payments. Or less than a single years EU budget contribution.

Spread over 25 years.

Yeah, it's such a bargain that the Department of Finance practically begged the government not to press ahead with it. What would those guys know about the nation's finances.

knipex

Gary kk wrote: »

Please link the the site that shows that as fact. I understand that rural Ireland is not as efficient as urban areas but I don't it's running at a loss the agri sector was worth 13.9 billion to economy there is also tourism, light manufacturers sure some areas will be even less productive but that happens in all countries

The vast majority of the income generated from agri does not take place on farms. its value add generated in processing.

Urban Ireland has been subsidizing rural Ireland for Decades. Dublin generated well over half of all tax take but received only a portion of that in spending.

Capital expenditure per heard is actually highest in Sligo, Kilkenny and Leitrim and lowest in Carlow and Dublin. https://www.dublinchamber.ie/media/news/february-2018/dublin-ranks-2nd-lowest-for-government-capital-spe

30 seconds on google provides multiple sources

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/a-deepening-rural-v-urban-divide-1.3634760

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/dublin-generates-56-of-irish-tax-but-cant-keep-a-cent-of-it/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/revealed-the-county-that-generates-the-most-revenue-in-the-state-35031768.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/urban-taxpayers-subsidising-rural-homeowners-could-cause-property-tax-backlash-262606.html


Now I am not saying that the state should not incentivise and support rural broadband,

I suspect that providing fibre to rural towns and villages with a population of 200 or more would be relatively cheap and prove a good investment.

Its connecting the house at the end of every Boreen and bog road that's driving up the cost.

The state could then (similar to group water schemes) provide support in terms of grants, expertise and is necessary low cost loans to communities to role out the last mile using fiber, wireless or what ever technology they want and connect to the fiber network as a backbone. The communities can take ownership and would have to demonstrate a real demand to justify the work..