NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

rob808

KOR101 wrote: »

Minister White said that the government has yet to decide on the commercial basis of the National Broadband Plan tender contract. He said that it will either be a model that hands over ownership of the network to the operator after teh 25 years are up, or a model that simply ‘leases’ a state-owned network to an operator for 25 years, after which it reverts back as a state asset.

......I thought the plan was supposed to be going out to contract/tender now?

.....First houses connected in 2017, not 2016 as said before.

The tender in March and the contracts award in summer and first houses connected in say September 2016.it look like they go after black spots first.

pegasus1

Good news for the blue lines I gather!!:D

niallb

pegasus1 wrote: »

Good news for the blue lines I gather!!:D

While I hope so personally as I live in an area that never got ADSL - let alone VDSL - the national problem isn't fixed until the whole country is covered.
We've now seen changes in both scope and schedule which make it hard to continue to have faith in this process.

rob808

pegasus1 wrote: »

Good news for the blue lines I gather!!:D

It good news but hope it doesn't mess up NBP for the rest.it funny to see imagine there since there in high debt there not much info on that French telecom company

KOR101

rob808 wrote: »

The tender in March and the contracts award in summer and first houses connected in say September 2016.it look like they go after black spots first.

Not what Adrian Wreckler is saying. Did you get that from the live stream? Do you have a link for the recording?

digiman

rob808 wrote: »

The tender in March and the contracts award in summer and first houses connected in say September 2016.it look like they go after black spots first.

Assuming your mention of September 16 is just a guess, or has it been mentioned somewhere by the NBP? This will never be 100% rolled out by the end of 2020 or have many first homes connected in Sep 16. Also I can't see them going for black spots first, the funding from the government is far to small to allow them to do that.

Will be interesting to see how attractive this actually is for any of the companies to go after. They are basically getting a subsidy of €363/home which is probably like 20% of the actual cost of it for the less rural homes. It sure is a very long term investment for any company going for this.

What is the incentive that the operator would hand the network back to the government after 25 years after the operator has put in the vast majority of the cost?

rob808

digiman wrote: »

Assuming your mention of September 16 is just a guess, or has it been mentioned somewhere by the NBP? This will never be 100% rolled out by the end of 2020 or have many first homes connected in Sep 16. Also I can't see them going for black spots first, the funding from the government is far to small to allow them to do that.

Will be interesting to see how attractive this actually is for any of the companies to go after. They are basically getting a subsidy of €363/home which is probably like 20% of the actual cost of it for the less rural homes. It sure is a very long term investment for any company going for this.

What is the incentive that the operator would hand the network back to the government after 25 years after the operator has put in the vast majority of the cost?

There more funds it just the goverment holding it back so that the ISP does the job right which is smart,we won't know the full money until after tender/contract are awarded.

pegasus1

digiman wrote: »

What is the incentive that the operator would hand the network back to the government after 25 years after the operator has put in the vast majority of the cost?

same as someone building a motorway, that's tolled..it get handed back after so long...the incentive is 25 years of monthly income per house...

BandMember

KOR101 wrote: »

Minister White said that the government has yet to decide on the commercial basis of the National Broadband Plan tender contract. He said that it will either be a model that hands over ownership of the network to the operator after teh 25 years are up, or a model that simply ‘leases’ a state-owned network to an operator for 25 years, after which it reverts back as a state asset.

You would think that the State (i.e. both the politicians and civil servants) would have learned from the mistakes of the past and make the correct decision for the country this time.

Of course, the key words here are "you would think".....

oscarBravo

The responses to the mapping consultation have been published. Imagine are unhappy with the requirement to do 6Mb/s upload; BT want functional separation of eir; eir want access to ESB's poles.

MajesticDonkey

Whatever about the question of WISPs being able to provide the required speed, I really can't see how any WISP can cost-effectively, provide:

1. Latency (one-way) – no more than 25 milliseconds
2. Jitter – no more than 25 milliseconds
3. Packet loss – not more than 0.1%

I hadn't realised that these were requirements in the NBP until reading this.

pegasus1

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Whatever about the question of WISPs being able to provide the required speed, I really can't see how any WISP can cost-effectively, provide:

1. Latency (one-way) – no more than 25 milliseconds
2. Jitter – no more than 25 milliseconds
3. Packet loss – not more than 0.1%

I hadn't realised that these were requirements in the NBP until reading this.

Nails in the proverbial coffin

And in that report in Mr. Whites message he says....By the end of 2016, 70% of premises – 1.6 million properties – will have access to quality high speed broadband. This intervention strategy focuses on the remaining 30% of our country

Gonzo

the map doesnt look any different to the one we been looking at all year?
Did they not take Eir's rural blue lines into account?

pegasus1

Gonzo wrote: »

the map doesnt look any different to the one we been looking at all year?
Did they not take Eir's rural blue lines into account?

they need a signed commitment with penalties

Villain

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Whatever about the question of WISPs being able to provide the required speed, I really can't see how any WISP can cost-effectively, provide:

1. Latency (one-way) – no more than 25 milliseconds
2. Jitter – no more than 25 milliseconds
3. Packet loss – not more than 0.1%

I hadn't realised that these were requirements in the NBP until reading this.

You would be surprised what WISPs can provide, 25ms is certainly achievable but issue is there is only so much spectrum!

pegasus1

Villain wrote: »

You would be surprised what WISPs can provide, 25ms is certainly achievable but issue is there is only so much spectrum!

And Contention...

And line of sight to every premises in their allocated area..including no trees

bk

Villain wrote: »

You would be surprised what WISPs can provide, 25ms is certainly achievable but issue is there is only so much spectrum!

25ms with 0.1% packet loss while guaranteeing everyone connected in the area gets a minimum 30Mb/s down and 6Mb/s up. Not a hope in hell the WISPs would be able to deliver on those specs.

Given that 5 of the 6 companies who have shown interest are all talking about FTTH, then the 6th, Imagine doesn't stand a snow balls chance in hell IMO.

Also this is a very important point:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/2015/12/22/broadband-intervention-ireland-procurement

The spokesperson added that the 30Mbps minimum speed is a guide and that decisions will be weighted in favour of bid proposals that can future-proof the network to go beyond this and enable rural communities to march in step with urban communities in terms of speed and broadband quality.

Also the fact that there is only two regions, so two contracts max. I see very little chance that Imagine (or any WISPs) would stand any chance in winning a contract that would cover half the country against, Eir, SIRO and the other potential FTTH operators.

It looks like the department has very carefully crafted a requirements that really can only be delivered by FTTH and only by two big companies, most likely Eir and Siro.

And who can blame them, it is absolutely the right thing to do for the people of rural Ireland and totally understandable given the disaster that the last NBP turned out to be with Three.

ACLFC7

So has the map even been updated since last year?
The percentage premises per county covered by NBP hasn't changed
2015 Map

2014 Map

bk

No the map hasn't changed. Eir or no other company was able to give binding guarantees (with financial penalties) that they could actually deliver what is specified by the NBP project.

shane7218

Let's all hope it doesent end up being National Broadband Scheme 2.0. Still not able to get anything above 2mb/s and we live 10 minutes outside a major town in the Midlands

sennah

Why is 6Mbps upload an issue for the WISP's? Is it something to do with spectrum or does 30Mbps on the download link cripple the upload space?

I would have thought most of the equipment the main WISP's have installed today would easily handle a 6Mbps link from the premises back to the network

bk

sennah wrote: »

Why is 6Mbps upload an issue for the WISP's? Is it something to do with spectrum or does 30Mbps on the download link cripple the upload space?

I would have thought most of the equipment the main WISP's have installed today would easily handle a 6Mbps link from the premises back to the network

I'm not an expert in wireless technology, but I'd imagine that the issue is the size and power output of antennas.

They have big powerful transmitters for the downlink (at the tower), but on the uplink it is powered by the users much smaller and less powerful transmitter, thus far less bandwidth capacity.

It is largely irrelevant anyway. There isn't a hope that any WISP is going to win 50% of the country. Not with big powerful companies like Eir and SIRO in the competition.

Does anyone honestly believe any WISP would be able to deliver 30/6 Mb/s 100% of the time with minimum of latency and packet loss to 100% of the homes in 50% of the country?

Most WISPs in Ireland barely deliver 5Mb/s consistently to relatively small areas of Ireland. They simply don't have the manpower, financing, scale and technology to deliver a project of this scale.

oscarBravo

sennah wrote: »

Why is 6Mbps upload an issue for the WISP's? Is it something to do with spectrum or does 30Mbps on the download link cripple the upload space?

I would have thought most of the equipment the main WISP's have installed today would easily handle a 6Mbps link from the premises back to the network

I think it's down to the use of TD-LTE: LTE using time-division duplexing.

Whereas most mobile spectrum uses frequency-division duplexing, where the downstream and upstream transmissions happen on different (paired) frequency bands, TDD involves using the same radio spectrum for both up- and download, switching the radios at each end between transmission and reception.

If you have to allocate sufficient timeslots to allow for a large upload bandwidth, it eats into the time available for download transmissions, which reduces the headline download speed, or at least the overall download capacity of the cell.

sennah

bk wrote: »

I'm not an expert in wireless technology, but I'd imagine that the issue is the size and power output of antennas.

They have big powerful transmitters for the downlink (at the tower), but on the uplink it is powered by the users much smaller and less powerful transmitter, thus far less bandwidth capacity.

It is largely irrelevant anyway. There isn't a hope that any WISP is going to win 50% of the country. Not with big powerful companies like Eir and SIRO in the competition.

Does anyone honestly believe any WISP would be able to deliver 30/6 Mb/s 100% of the time with minimum of latency and packet loss to 100% of the homes in 50% of the country?

Most WISPs in Ireland barely deliver 5Mb/s consistently to relatively small areas of Ireland. They simply don't have the manpower, financing, scale and technology to deliver a project of this scale.

Thanks BK. I'm not banging the drum for the WISP's, not for one minute! It was just them complaining about the 6Mbps upload requirement that caught my attention. I know some of them are using premises equipment which should hold a 6Mbps link up without much of a problem

I suppose we can look further up the network than the last hop though. Many of the WISP's could probably provide a 50 Mbps uplink from the premises to the base-station if they so wanted but it's what happens after that when it hits a creeking mish-mash of a back-haul network that struggles to provide even 1Mbps to end-users in some cases. The majority of the WISP's have no place in the NBP and rightly so. I just hope the Government aren't blinded by false promises or unrealistic pricing from them. It happened with the NBS

sennah

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's down to the use of TD-LTE: LTE using time-division duplexing.

Whereas most mobile spectrum uses frequency-division duplexing, where the downstream and upstream transmissions happen on different (paired) frequency bands, TDD involves using the same radio spectrum for both up- and download, switching the radios at each end between transmission and reception.

If you have to allocate sufficient timeslots to allow for a large upload bandwidth, it eats into the time available for download transmissions, which reduces the headline download speed, or at least the overall download capacity of the cell.

sennah reads first line

sennah disappears quietly to Wikipedia

ED E

BK not sure if you're on the mark there, a large antenna on the infrastructure side means that it can TX out but also RX back from weak small form clients. Same way the TX power of your handset is tiny but it can reliably reach a tower 4km away.

In any case, there isnt the spectrum for WISPs to do it. COMREG would have to reserve a large chunk for sale to them, and they've never done that cheaply before as there is very finite usable space. The only way to overcome that would be to use 10x the number of masts, which will never happen.


Curious does anyone think BTWS would actually bid for half the country, do they have the capital to put behind it?

rob808

Who btws?It gona be interesting now with eir blue line because the map still open up so let say siro wins.They could do anywhere eir has a blue line, so I say eir gona do it best to win most of NBP.

jasper1

rob808 wrote: »

Who btws?

Is it British Telecom Wholesale

Tommy Lagahan

Villain wrote: »

You would be surprised what WISPs can provide, 25ms is certainly achievable but issue is there is only so much spectrum!

Take a look through this thread;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056492710

to have an example of why WISPs should not be relied on.

rob808

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

Take a look through this thread;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056492710

to have an example of why WISPs should not be relied on.

I hope wisp don't get any part of NBP.It look like imagine the only one at the moment that might change later there gona use LTE-A while it be able to get 30mb not sure about 6mb up it doesn't do well above those speeds.
I know eir and siro will use LTE-A for hard to reach areas but should be fine since it wouldn't be over subscribe give those people better chance at better speeds in future compared to wisp.I wouldn't like to think if imagine win and use LTE-A for larger parts there be no way in hell they be able to keep 30mb and 6 up at all times and future proof can't see that.

rob808

I just look at silconrepublic article which is same as the independence article but when I look at the bidders interest in NBP.I saw three haha has to be a error and virgin media can't see a cable company going after a NBP contract.

BandMember

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

Take a look through this thread;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056492710

to have an example of why WISPs should not be relied on.

Or this one... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96149306

rob808

BandMember wrote: »

Or this one... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96149306

I can't see wisp winning it but if they do then NBP a failure in my eyes.

BandMember

rob808 wrote: »

I can't see wisp winning it but if they do then NBP a failure in my eyes.

+1.

However, to give credit where it's due, I think the Department have learned from their mistakes and the con job that was the last plan like this and have it worded so that only the likes of Eir and SIRO are the viable options.

For me, the piece about these being the minimum speeds required (they are happy to take higher, if on offer) and future proofing would suggest that the days of WISPS and midband are slowly but surely coming to an end. And not a day too soon!

rob808

This article I found LTE -A vs FTTH http://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/127210-is-telkom-lte-a-as-good-as-fibre-broadband.html

The Cush

Recording of NBP Intervention Strategy Update launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_j1tU58fWc

etenders PQQ - https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=95143&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

ED E

"100% coverage by 2020" - So its clear the minister is talking out his proverbial.

Johnboy1951

With two areas so max two winning bidders, it would be farcical if a group of WISPs won one of the areas and Siro the other.

It could not be allowed to happen IMO.

rob808

Wisp will try say how LTE more cheaper to deploy than FTTH.It say goverment alot of money and they achieve 2017-2020 target.I just hope they don't listen and choose eir& siro or one other company offering FTTH since it future proof and last way pass 25years.

oscarBravo

rob808 wrote: »

I know eir and siro will use LTE-A for hard to reach areas...

This is an idea that has a surprising amount of traction. Where do people get the idea that hard to reach areas are easier to do with wireless than with fibre?

I got a request for a broadband connection a while back from someone who lives in a valley somewhere south of Croagh Patrick. I did some desktop surveys, and not only could he not see any of the high sites on our network (bearing in mind we have over a hundred high sites in Mayo alone) - he couldn't even see a house that could see a high site on our network.

The operating theory seems to be that wireless is the answer for a hard-to-reach customer like this, but the simple fact is that he has electricity, which means that someone has already solved the problem of how to get wires to his house - but he's still waiting for a wireless connection.

He also, as it happens, has no mobile coverage from any of the networks.

It may be tricky, but it's at least possible to achieve 100% coverage with fibre. It's actually a lot harder to achieve with wireless. Compare the percentage of homes without electricity to the percentage of homes without mobile phone coverage.

ED E

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may be tricky, but it's at least possible to achieve 100% coverage with fibre. It's actually a lot harder to achieve with wireless. Compare the percentage of homes without electricity to the percentage of homes without mobile phone coverage.

Sorry thats a load of hat.

Its FAR easier to get 100% mobile coverage, but mobile has never been pushed by the state the ESB was back in the rural electrification days. Apples and oranges.

Sure 95-98% is feasible, but 100% ? Nope. The nation isnt willing to spend that kind of money the way it was for the ESB. 100% will take a lot longer than 2020.

oscarBravo

ED E wrote: »

Sorry thats a load of hat.

Its FAR easier to get 100% mobile coverage, but mobile has never been pushed by the state the ESB was back in the rural electrification days. Apples and oranges.

Sure 95-98% is feasible, but 100% ? Nope. The nation isnt willing to spend that kind of money the way it was for the ESB. 100% will take a lot longer than 2020.

Fine. How about I give you a location, and you tell me where you're going to build a high site to service it? Then we can have a discussion about how you're going to go about acquiring the site, obtaining planning permission, installing fibre to that site...

Falcon L

ED E wrote: »

Sorry thats a load of hat.

Its FAR easier to get 100% mobile coverage, but mobile has never been pushed by the state the ESB was back in the rural electrification days. Apples and oranges.

Sure 95-98% is feasible, but 100% ? Nope. The nation isnt willing to spend that kind of money the way it was for the ESB. 100% will take a lot longer than 2020.

Hmm... let me check my mobile coverage. Nope still no signal. This in an area Vodafone says should be no problem.

The point OB was trying to make, I believe, is that the hard and expensive work has already been done by the ESB when providing electricity. The cost to string fiber on their pole route would be minimal.

Correct me if I misread you OB.

ED E

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fine. How about I give you a location, and you tell me where you're going to build a high site to service it? Then we can have a discussion about how you're going to go about acquiring the site, obtaining planning permission, installing fibre to that site...

High sites are only really an issue when you make this commercially viable, which it already is not, you only need a pole on the local school if you want high density coverage subsidized coverage.

Many ESB susbstations and 90% of eir exchanges already have fiber backhaul and abundant power, 30ft wooden pole (they already do this), 3x TX units and a few manhours testing and you're up and running. Thats vs a team of 5-10 staff hanging fiber 100m to a km per dwelling, then running drops into premises, drilling the wall, fitting an ONT and validating sync.

I'm no way suggesting this is how we should do it, but per euro spent the coverage rate of LTE (especially if 400Mhz was used) would be far higher than that of any fixed line, with notably lower throughput.

pegasus1

One question is LTE-A Line of site or not?

wexfordman2

ED E wrote: »

High sites are only really an issue when you make this commercially viable, which it already is not, you only need a pole on the local school if you want high density coverage subsidized coverage.

Many ESB susbstations and 90% of eir exchanges already have fiber backhaul and abundant power, 30ft wooden pole (they already do this), 3x TX units and a few manhours testing and you're up and running. Thats vs a team of 5-10 staff hanging fiber 100m to a km per dwelling, then running drops into premises, drilling the wall, fitting an ONT and validating sync.

I'm no way suggesting this is how we should do it, but per euro spent the coverage rate of LTE (especially if 400Mhz was used) would be far higher than that of any fixed line, with notably lower throughput.

The process you outline above easily costs 100k to deploy, has higher opex costs than running fibre.

oscarBravo

Falcon L wrote: »

The point OB was trying to make, I believe, is that the hard and expensive work has already been done by the ESB when providing electricity. The cost to string fiber on their pole route would be minimal.

Correct me if I misread you OB.

The broader point is that it's possible. There is pretty much nowhere in this country where it's infeasible to run a cable.

ED E wrote: »

High sites are only really an issue when you make this commercially viable, which it already is not, you only need a pole on the local school if you want high density coverage subsidized coverage.

Great. I'll provide a location, and you tell me what school will provide coverage to it.

Many ESB susbstations and 90% of eir exchanges already have fiber backhaul and abundant power, 30ft wooden pole (they already do this), 3x TX units and a few manhours testing and you're up and running. Thats vs a team of 5-10 staff hanging fiber 100m to a km per dwelling, then running drops into premises, drilling the wall, fitting an ONT and validating sync.

You're blithely assuming - without bothering to adduce any evidence - that every home in the country has line of sight to a school, an ESB substation or an eir exchange.

I'll reiterate - there are premises that not only don't have LoS to any of these things; they don't have LoS to anything that has LoS to any of these things. I can tell you how to get fibre to those premises: you string it along poles, or you bury it. Can you tell me how to get wireless connectivity to them other than waving the problem away?

I'm no way suggesting this is how we should do it, but per euro spent the coverage rate of LTE (especially if 400Mhz was used) would be far higher than that of any fixed line, with notably lower throughput.

If we're airily talking about coverage rates, sure: you could cover a lot of premises with LTE. But I'm talking about all premises. Specifically, I'm challenging the idea that LTE is the easy option for the most difficult homes. It's not, and you've yet to convince me otherwise.

ED E

oscarBravo wrote: »

The broader point is that it's possible. There is pretty much nowhere in this country where it's infeasible to run a cable.

There's nowhere really where its not possible, plenty of places where theres no way itll be feasible by 2020. Eir currently have a €7000 limit on providers where over that its considered uneconomical. Say the department raises the NBP limit to €14,000 per home there are still going to be homes out on the peninsulas and in the middle of bogs that will not be covered. Labor costs are just too high (See BT pricing for reference).

An LTE based deployment could make the savings for clustered areas to deploy femtocells for the few homes in a depression with LOS only to blue skies.

oscarBravo

ED E wrote: »

An LTE based deployment could make the savings for clustered areas to deploy femtocells for the few homes in a depression with LOS only to blue skies.

So, for the third time: shall I provide you with a location, and you tell me where you'll place the cell site to provide service to it?

pegasus1

ED E wrote: »

An LTE based deployment could make the savings for clustered areas to deploy femtocells for the few homes in a depression with LOS only to blue skies.

LTE limits future proofing an area whereas fibre doesn't limit it...

A pole with equipment attached needs maintenance, requires power, a fibre run does not...unless a tree knocks it...