NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

murphaph

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Frankly I think that is utterly ridiculous. Freedoms are being taken from people left, right and centre. Anybody should be allowed build houses in rural areas if they so feel like it, but let them pay extra for the essential services.

If people had to pay the true cost of services including properly maintaining septic tanks that the one off house would very quickly become something only very wealthy people could afford. Even the "expensive" connection fees the ESB charge don't reflect the true cost. Same for phone services.

Do you think anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere? I mean, do you accept or refute that some form of planning control is a hallmark of a civilised society?

Broadband has been around for at least 15 years now. Anyone who built OR BOUGHT a rural one off property in that time has no excuse whatsoever. Those people bought cheap houses and now want those who paid much more per m² to live in urban areas to subsidise them. That's morally very questionable.

Gonzo

murphaph wrote: »

Broadband has been around for at least 15 years now. Anyone who built OR BOUGHT a rural one off property in that time has no excuse whatsoever.

This I would tend to agree with alright. Broadband has been around since about 1999 and started to get more widespread around 2003. I finally got broadband in 2002 and live in a rural ribbon development 2km from the village of Dunshaughlin. For me this already feels quite far away from town but it's still close enough to avail of adsl2+ broadband and Eir's FTTH rural scheme.

Since broadband was introduced it has always been a distance sensitive technology and used to only work no more than 3-4km from an exchange, they eventually stretched this out to about 7km.

There are plenty of people like myself who live in a house that was bought long before the internet even existed and are not able to simply shut up shop and move into a town.

But if you had the choice and bought/built a house more than 6-8 km from an exchange over the past 15 years then chances are you can't even get basic broadband today. It's commons sense just like knowing that if you live that far away from a town or village that you will have to get in your car to drive to the shops.

MajesticDonkey

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere? I mean, do you accept or refute that some form of planning control is a hallmark of a civilised society?

No, obviously people can't build whatever they like wherever they like. But when it comes to housing, I would agree with a fairly liberal approach to planning regulations.

I would agree with you that anyone who has bought or built in a rural area in the last 10-15 years don't have much of an excuse, but beyond that, whether lifestyle choice or not, you simply cannot ignore people who didn't account for the ridiculously fast technological advancements since the early naughties in particular.

tsue921i8wljb3

You know there has been no news recently about the NBP when the same argument is being rehashed for what I believe is at least the third time in this thread.

damienirel

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

You know there has been no news recently about the NBP when the same argument is being rehashed for what I believe is at least the third time in this thread.

The news is nothings happening at light/fibre speed! :-)

Gonzo

damienirel wrote: »

The news is nothings happening at light/fibre speed! :-)

they will probably spend a few months considering submissions and then another report could take place based on the findings of the submissions and an eventual announcement of the winning parties. At this stage they would want to change the 30 meg minimum standard because by the time they start the NBP 30 meg may no longer be considered broadband past 2020.

rob808

Well 30mb was the base line speed not the target most the bidders are offering way over the 30mb.It only the really hard to reach areas that might be lucky to get 30mb.I think we all knew 2020 target would never be met with all the delays even bidders question it.

Johnboy1951

murphaph wrote: »

Broadband has been around for at least 15 years now. Anyone who built OR BOUGHT a rural one off property in that time has no excuse whatsoever. Those people bought cheap houses and now want those who paid much more per m² to live in urban areas to subsidise them. That's morally very questionable.

What should happen to those rural properties?

Should they be abandoned and the owner suffer the cost?

No one to sell to ..... but must move .....

Your proposal doesn't make any sense to me.

murphaph

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What should happen to those rural properties?

Should they be abandoned and the owner suffer the cost?

No one to sell to ..... but must move .....

Your proposal doesn't make any sense to me.

Buying a cheap third of an acre of agricultural land miles from the nearest shop or school, building a house on it an then expecting urban dwellers who had to pay significantly more per m² to pay for my infrastructure doesn't make any sense to me.

Those properties were and are unsustainable development. That's why such development is simply illegal in more mature countries. I don't need to show you a picture of some Donegal hillside festooned with bungalows to prove my point, do I?

wexfordman2

murphaph wrote: »

Buying a cheap third of an acre of agricultural land miles from the nearest shop or school, building a house on it an then expecting urban dwellers who had to pay significantly more per m² to pay for my infrastructure doesn't make any sense to me.

Those properties were and are unsustainable development. That's why such development is simply illegal in more mature countries. I don't need to show you a picture of some Donegal hillside festooned with bungalows to prove my point, do I?

Jesus, can't we rehash this tired old redundant argument on a dedicated thread and not derail this one anymore ?

Falcon L

Extending your logic, Ireland as a whole is unsustainable! We should all pack up and move to the European mainland where services don't need to cross bodies of water to reach us.

I live in a nice house on an acre looking out over the sea. I'm prepared to put up with poor broadband because it is balanced out by good neighbours. I have no wish to be surrounded by drug addicts and joyriding scumbags.

Your payment for good broadband is to have to live in the armpit of your chosen country, be it Dublin or Berlin. Cities are just spread-out workhouses. I have no further need of a job, so I have escaped that hell hole.
If good broadband comes to me, I have found utopia.

ED E

Falcon L wrote: »

Extending your logic, Ireland as a whole is unsustainable! We should all pack up and move to the European mainland where services don't need to cross bodies of water to reach us.

I live in a nice house on an acre looking out over the sea. I'm prepared to put up with poor broadband because it is balanced out by good neighbours. I have no wish to be surrounded by drug addicts and joyriding scumbags.

Your payment for good broadband is to have to live in the armpit of your chosen country, be it Dublin or Berlin. Cities are just spread-out workhouses. I have no further need of a job, so I have escaped that hell hole.
If good broadband comes to me, I have found utopia.

Thats great until you have a stroke and wait 30-40 minutes for an ambulance.

But really the issue isn't with people like yourself, its the people who feel entitled to city broadband in rural Connemara.

murphaph

Falcon L wrote: »

Extending your logic, Ireland as a whole is unsustainable! We should all pack up and move to the European mainland where services don't need to cross bodies of water to reach us.

I live in a nice house on an acre looking out over the sea. I'm prepared to put up with poor broadband because it is balanced out by good neighbours. I have no wish to be surrounded by drug addicts and joyriding scumbags.

Your payment for good broadband is to have to live in the armpit of your chosen country, be it Dublin or Berlin. Cities are just spread-out workhouses. I have no further need of a job, so I have escaped that hell hole.
If good broadband comes to me, I have found utopia.

Urban != city. Rural villages are urban areas too and most aren't hotbeds of drugs and joyriding, though if you think there are no drug addicts living near you now, think again. The rural one off lobby in Ireland think it's either a house on an acre by the sea or a studio flat in Phibsboro. There is a middle ground

Johnboy1951

ED E wrote: »

Thats great until you have a stroke and wait 30-40 minutes for an ambulance.

But really the issue isn't with people like yourself, its the people who feel entitled to city broadband in rural Connemara.

That implies abandoning a heck of a lot of villages and small towns around the country also ....... else you are really unaware how bad such services have become outside the major urban areas.

Johnboy1951

murphaph wrote: »

Buying a cheap third of an acre of agricultural land miles from the nearest shop or school, building a house on it an then expecting urban dwellers who had to pay significantly more per m² to pay for my infrastructure doesn't make any sense to me.

Those properties were and are unsustainable development. That's why such development is simply illegal in more mature countries. I don't need to show you a picture of some Donegal hillside festooned with bungalows to prove my point, do I?

No, no need for a picture, because no one has questioned the presence of rural homes.

I questioned the sense of your suggestion that people should abandon those homes to live in urban areas.
I guess you would be prepared for those already in urban areas to pay for accommodation for those who abandoned their rural homes?
no broadband = no sale of rural home
EDIT
Tried to post more but failed to post

Johnboy1951

Add to previous post ...



Seems you want to add to the number of homeless in urban areas, as there is not sufficient houses for those already there, so more would just increase the problem.


Creating a greater problem is not the answer.

That serious errors were made for many decades by our planners, is no reason to try to isolate those who bought into that.

Falcon L

murphaph wrote: »

Urban != city. Rural villages are urban areas too and most aren't hotbeds of drugs and joyriding, though if you think there are no drug addicts living near you now, think again. The rural one off lobby in Ireland think it's either a house on an acre by the sea or a studio flat in Phibsboro. There is a middle ground

It doesn't matter They'll all have to be abandoned when we all have to move to the central European control zone. This is the only place where people are allowed to live. Development outside this zone is verboten!

Just to add: yes there are drug addicts living near me. The local community are aware of who they are and they are carefully watched.

murphaph

Falcon L wrote: »

It doesn't matter They'll all have to be abandoned when we all have to move to the central European control zone. This is the only place where people are allowed to live. Development outside this zone is verboten!

Just to add: yes there are drug addicts living near me. The local community are aware of who they are and they are carefully watched.

Lol. Ah so they won't be breaking into any homes then to feed their habits. That's alright so. As for the forced death marches to the cities....nobody is suggesting that. I suggest the following:
-Immediate ban on any further development outside villages.
-Existing owners carry on as before, no changes whatsoever.
-A property sale would trigger the property becoming due for a property tax that reflects the true cost of providing (even seemingly crappy) services to such properties. This would be a very gradual process, that would increase with each sale of the property over say 3 or 4 steps.

This would seek to GRADUALLY discourage people from moving to unsustainable properties. No short sharp shock. The damage has been done over decades. It would take decades to reverse it.

By the way, don't just blame the planners. People have free will. Nobody is being forced to build their home miles from the nearest primary school. It was and remains a lifestyle choice for the vast majority. Broadband is just one facet of this disaster.

pegasus1

murphaph wrote: »

Urban != city. Rural villages are urban areas too and most aren't hotbeds of drugs and joyriding, though if you think there are no drug addicts living near you now, think again. The rural one off lobby in Ireland think it's either a house on an acre by the sea or a studio flat in Phibsboro. There is a middle ground

I think you have been brainwashed by a certain German chancellor...Time to join the real world...come back anytime to feel the burden of the bailout

pegasus1

ED E wrote: »

Thats great until you have a stroke and wait 30-40 minutes for an ambulance.

Hey you could wait the same length in Kilkenny City...Where FTTH is rolling out as we speak..

pegasus1

murphaph wrote: »

I suggest the following:
-Immediate ban on any further development outside villages.
-Existing owners carry on as before, no changes whatsoever.
-A property sale would trigger the property becoming due for a property tax that reflects the true cost of providing (even seemingly crappy) services to such properties. This would be a very gradual process, that would increase with each sale of the property over say 3 or 4 steps.

Heil Murphaph!
.
.
.
Nien!:p

ED E

pegasus1 wrote: »

Hey you could wait the same length in Kilkenny City...Where FTTH is rolling out as we speak..

Thats fixable. If the followed the Dublin model (#2 in the WORLD for a cardiac incident). The "wild west" ins't unless we find a whole rake of oil buried under Termonfeckin.


Right now eir can say no over a €7000 costing to supply service. Unfortunately An Post and the national fire and ambulance services can't do the same. AGS sorta can and have. Obviously we can't migrate everyone over night but a plan like what murph has suggested is exactly what we need.

Ireland doesnt need to spend the next 100yrs pissing away much needed funds to support OAPs living in the back arse of nowhere.

rob808

That why we have a NBP for to give people in rural areas broadband.It a 25 year network and could benefit the government if they decide to keep it or sell it.It kinda pay for it self don't know why urban people are so annoyed.

MajesticDonkey

rob808 wrote: »

It kinda pay for it self don't know why urban people are so annoyed.

Because they're selfish pr!cks who only worry about the services they receive for their money

murphaph

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Because they're selfish pr!cks who only worry about the services they receive for their money

Who is being selfish here? The family who pay the premium per m² to live in an urban area with the critical mass of people to ensure quality services can be delivered or the family who buy a cheap acre of land and build their home for far less per m² and then come cap in hand to the urban taxpayer or urban electricity or broadband customer and expect those people to cross subsidise the provision of infrastructure and services?

There is no way to sugar coat this. One off and ribbon development was and remains totally unsustainable. It is not something that will become sustainable. There are limited numbers of jobs where you can actually work effectively from home. Kids will always have to physically go to school and to sociallise with other children. People will always need to go shopping or visit the doctor and in an emergency it is a matter of life and death how far you've chosen to build your house from a hospital A&E.

Honestly, I am a little uneasy that our nearest hospital with A&E will be a little under 9 miles from our new house. I don't know how people with kids can sleep at night when the (should) know that they are looking at half an hour or more before an ambulance will even reach them. I couldn't place my kids at that unnecessary risk personally.

MajesticDonkey

It's a completely different way of life. People who have lived in towns or cities all their lives will simply never understand why many rural people do not want to live in urban areas, for a variety of reasons.

My point about selfishness was related to the point someone made the other day about why urban people should be forced to pay for a project which is only serving rural people. Like I said, everyone pays for national projects they may not get direct benefit from. This is not a good enough reason to not support something like the NBP.

flutered

ED E wrote: »

Thats great until you have a stroke and wait 30-40 minutes for an ambulance.

But really the issue isn't with people like yourself, its the people who feel entitled to city broadband in rural Connemara.

they arrive faster in citys, not really i recon

irishfeen

Do people not realise some will always have to live out the country? .. How do people think their shop shelves get filled with fresh Irish produce?

We are all part of the Irish nation, people in cities and towns don't have any extra right to access modern technology... We all have electricity and telephone access for decades - we have paid our line rental for decades too and have contributed to the building of the telephone network in this country.

Oafley Jones

Seriously wtf is going on in this thread. Sustainable rural planning was what I investigated for my master's thesis. It's an incredibly interesting subject, but I don't want to read about it in the NBP thread!

murphaph

irishfeen wrote: »

Do people not realise some will always have to live out the country? .. How do people think their shop shelves get filled with fresh Irish produce?

Do you think German supermarket shelves are empty because you're not allowed to build houses outside villages here? You and I know well that the vast majority of people are not working the land and could just as easily live in the nearest village.

Oafley Jones

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think German supermarket shelves are empty because you're not allowed to build houses outside villages here? You and I know well that the vast majority of people are not working the land and could just as easily live in the nearest village.

Is there anything more irritating than the fella who moves abroad and returns only to lecture everyone about how enlightened and superior everyone else is.

Jack Killian

murphaph wrote: »

Who is being selfish here? The family who pay the premium per m² to live in an urban area with the critical mass of people to ensure quality services can be delivered or the family who buy a cheap acre of land and build their home for far less per m² and then come cap in hand to the urban taxpayer or urban electricity or broadband customer and expect those people to cross subsidise the provision of infrastructure and services?

A fair argument; I take it that you guys in Dublin will be paying in full for the piping of water from the Shannon so ? Why should the rest of us subsidise that, based on your logic ?

murphaph

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Is there anything more irritating than the fella who moves abroad and returns only to lecture everyone about how enlightened and superior everyone else is.

I knew one off development was unsustainable long before I left. I'm not "lecturing everyone". Plenty of people still living in Ireland know that such development is unsustainable. Would it be different if one of those people was saying it?

murphaph

Jack Killian wrote: »

A fair argument; I take it that you guys in Dublin will be paying in full for the piping of water from the Shannon so ? Why should the rest of us subsidise that, based on your logic ?

Dublin generated taxes will pay for 100% of the scheme. What makes you think I live in Dublin? I don't.

wexfordman2

Well,

It looks like this thread is no longer the place to go to tfind out about the nbp anymore.

Well done lads.

Jack Killian

murphaph wrote: »

Dublin generated taxes will pay for 100% of the scheme. What makes you think I live in Dublin? I don't.

Completely false, given that water charges for the whole country have been set up partly for that very reason.

I don't want to drag this thread off-topic though; just wanted to bring some balance to the conversation re where resources are vs where they're required and/or used, and the costs of delivering them to those areas.

Johnboy1951

Regardless views on sustainability etc etc, we have what we have now and it is this that must be dealt with by the NBP.

It is pointless (and rather nasty) to tell people they need to move home to an urban centre to get a service.

This scheme is a NATIONAL plan and not an Urban or other plan.
If you do not like it then complain to the politicians who devised it.

Yes, the spread of homes in this country does affect the plan; it was a considered fact when the plan was devised; so yes it is in that way on topic.

Railing against it now in this thread is pointless.

xxyyzz

Stop feeding the troll

Gonzo

be nice now if we could just go back to talking about the NBP, theres been more action in this thread over past 3 pages than in the NBP, it looks like we could have another 6+ month wait before we hear any more developments with the NBP...

marno21

Sorry to drag the one off housing debate thread off topic by discussing the National Broadband Plan, but 2 tenders went out last week with regards to it:

Provision of Process Auditor Services in relation to the Procurement Process for the State-led intervention under the National Broadband Plan
https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=97502&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

RFT for the Provision of Specialist Personnel to Support the National Broadband Plan
https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=95891&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

KOR101

So, getting back to the article in the Independent. The civil servants in the Department, who'se minister hasn't even won his seat, decide to give themselves a more generous deadline. I know it really was unrealistic in the first place, but I think they are taking advantage of the lack of government.

murphaph

At the end of the day there are only so many fibre optic splicing techs in the country. Eir and Siro are busy with commercial roll outs. Until contracts are actually awarded to the big players who win the NBP contracts (and then in turn largely sub contracted to KN, Sierra etc.), no company will be willing to start a big hiring and training campaign. The existing qualified techs are all flat out with the present commercial roll outs of FTTH and FTTC and Eir will be held to the promise of rolling out FTTH to those 300k premises. They won't be allowed tender for the NBP, roll that out and then go back to the non intervention areas and roll out FTTH there (nor would they want to presumably as those areas are often the best of the bad bunch with perhaps "not so appallingly" low density settlement.

5 years to rollout FTTH to areas outside FTTC land was and remains ridiculously optimistic. If Eir's pole network wasn't falling apart at the seems I might think a bit differently, but it needs serious rehabilitation or wide scale replacement with ducts. They want physical access to the ESB pole network, which I don't think they will get. I think the reality of the NBP is that it will happen, but it will heavily depend on Eir doing most of the non intervention areas with FTTH first, and then working out from there.

The only way I see some blitz roll out is if a foreign operator wins one of the contracts and has spare capacity sitting around doing nothing wherever they are. Something similar to during the roads building boom with plenty of foreign labour involved as there simply wasn't enough Irish guys around to do it.

guil

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think eir gave any sort of promise for the 300k houses?

murphaph

guil wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think eir gave any sort of promise for the 300k houses?

They will have to if they want them excluded from the NBP, which they obviously do. If they can't make that commitment, then there's no grounds for excluding those areas from the NBP.

guil

murphaph wrote: »

They will have to if they want them excluded from the NBP, which they obviously do. If they can't make that commitment, then there's no grounds for excluding those areas from the NBP.

I'm pretty sure there was article posted here where eir explicitly said they won't give any guarantee to have the work done.

Gonzo

guil wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think eir gave any sort of promise for the 300k houses?

They seem fairly serious about getting these houses done. They have obviously worked out that these areas will eventually turn a profit over time and they don't want to lose these areas to another provider since they lost much of Dublin already to upc/virgin media.

2 weeks ago they announced a list of exchanges covering 100,000 homes to be completed by this time next year. Work has already started in these areas with the trimming of hedges and some new poles installed. On my road Eir replaced 6 poles over the past 2 months.

I reckon Eir will not start on the NBP (If awarded) for along time to come because:

1. They have 300,000 homes/premises to provide FTTH for which is commercially viable for Eir to complete.

2. They still have FTTC to finish and new cabinets to add in finished exchanges.

3. I am guessing they will probably announce another major project within the next 12-18 months to upgrade urban areas to FTTH to compliment the rollout with the 300,000 rural homes and replacing FTTC. They probably want to complete the 300,000 rural homes in the 3 year timescale so that they can get active again in the urban areas upgrading everyone to FTTH. Such a plan may take well past 2020.

and then once all the commercially viable areas are complete then they can turn attention to the NBP.

galljga1

Gonzo wrote: »

They seem fairly serious about getting these houses done. They have obviously worked out that these areas will eventually turn a profit over time and they don't want to lose these areas to another provider since they lost much of Dublin already to upc/virgin media.

2 weeks ago they announced a list of exchanges covering 100,000 homes to be completed by this time next year. Work has already started in these areas with the trimming of hedges and some new poles installed. On my road Eir replaced 6 poles over the past 2 months.

I reckon Eir will not start on the NBP (If awarded) for along time to come because:

1. They have 300,000 homes/premises to provide FTTH for which is commercially viable for Eir to complete.

2. They still have FTTC to finish and new cabinets to add in finished exchanges.

3. I am guessing they will probably announce another major project within the next 12-18 months to upgrade urban areas to FTTH to compliment the rollout with the 300,000 rural homes and replacing FTTC. They probably want to complete the 300,000 rural homes in the 3 year timescale so that they can get active again in the urban areas upgrading everyone to FTTH. Such a plan may take well past 2020.

and then once all the commercially viable areas are complete then they can turn attention to the NBP.

Hi Gonzo, do you have a link to the list of exchanges that are to be completed by this time next year?

Gonzo

galljga1 wrote: »

Hi Gonzo, do you have a link to the list of exchanges that are to be completed by this time next year?

Exchanges listed at link below and exact numbers of houses to be covered per exchange.

http://www.openeir.ie/news/First-rural-FTTH-locations-announced/

marno21

galljga1 wrote: »

Hi Gonzo, do you have a link to the list of exchanges that are to be completed by this time next year?

Can't find it on the eir website but here it is on carphonewarehouse:

http://www.carphonewarehouse.ie/magazine/march-2016/eir-announces-the-locations-of-new-rural-fibre-bro

galljga1

Cheers lads, I could be joining the 21st century very soon. Are the blue lines the 100,000 or the 300,000?
I don't suppose there is anyway of ascertaining when the individual areas are being upgraded.