NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

legocrazy505

Let's just hope the NBP isn't changed to reflect this lower requirement. TDs need to still be focused on this being a long term solution that puts a proper fibre network in place that can be more easily upgraded in the future. No doubt though some will call for less money to spent and for a cheaper but shorter term solution to be used.

tsue921i8wljb3

You would suspect that this 20Mb+ recommendation is irrelevant to our NBP. Four out of five bidders are proposing a FTTH solution with vastly greater speeds. A lot of money must have been spent already with all the various consultations. The Department are unlikely to now rewrite minimum specifications.

Nollog

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Let's just hope the NBP isn't changed to reflect this lower requirement. TDs need to still be focused on this being a long term solution that puts a proper fibre network in place that can be more easily upgraded in the future. No doubt though some will call for less money to spent and for a cheaper but shorter term solution to be used.

I agree, let's hope something was learned from the National Broadband Scheme.

KOR101

Can't be long now until there is some roll back on the 2022 deadline extension.....

legocrazy505

While I think it's excellent this issue is now getting the attention it deserves (if only other issues got that treatment too now) I don't think the government should feel pressured to provide immediate relief. Some Dubliners will continue to try and make it seem like broadband isn't an issue we should tackle now but the government has very little to do really so they can just continue to moan with duct tape on their mouth.

What rural people I think want now, is a solid plan that's set in stone. Give us a guarantee that the NBP will only use a fibre solution. Give us a guarantee that this deal will be signed off on by next year. Tell us now before the end of month (like they said they would) who are the preferred bidders.

Give us a solid set in stone timeline and I think the majority will be happy enough just to know that the solution they need is finally coming. I think right now a lot have doubts that this plan will meet the requirements and this is partly down to the fact they delayed the finish date by two years. The delay is the only thing that really put this issue into the spotlight too, if there was no delay I'd say a lot of papers wouldn't bother writing about it.

Charles Babbage

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Let's just hope the NBP isn't changed to reflect this lower requirement. TDs need to still be focused on this being a long term solution that puts a proper fibre network in place that can be more easily upgraded in the future. No doubt though some will call for less money to spent and for a cheaper but shorter term solution to be used.

This.

Some plan is needed to fund bringing fibre near places, even if the last leg is not fibre in the short term. So there should be strict requirements for backhaul capacity even if there are temporary cabinets or wireless distribution.

bk

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This.

Some plan is needed to fund bringing fibre near places, even if the last leg is not fibre in the short term. So there should be strict requirements for backhaul capacity even if there are temporary cabinets or wireless distribution.

That just isn't going to happen. There is nothing temporary about telecoms gear. Putting up a wireless tower is frighteningly expensive, the cost of it normally needs to be paid off over 20 years or so.

If they put up a "temporary" solution like Imagine's LTE, then it won't remain temporary for long, very quickly it will become seen as "good enough" by the politicians and you'll end up stuck on it for the next 20 years.

legocrazy505

bk wrote: »

That just isn't going to happen. There is nothing temporary about telecoms gear. Putting up a wireless tower is frighteningly expensive, the cost of it normally needs to be paid off over 20 years or so.

If they put up a "temporary" solution like Imagine's LTE, then it won't remain temporary for long, very quickly it will become seen as "good enough" by the politicians and you'll end up stuck on it for the next 20 years.

Definitely agree with this. I know I would prefer to go from copper to FTTH even if it meant waiting all the way to 2022 (although I doubt if the tender is done by 2017 that it will take that long). Using immediate solutions only gives politicians the excuse to cut back on the plan to fund something else that's completely unnecessary.

pegasus1

Do it right, means doing it once...and once only...

Wireless tech should only be a part of the mobile tech...

marno21

Everyone having FTTH or decent fixed line access frees up the mobile services to provide HQ mobile internet, rather than having people congest it using it for fixed access.

Charles Babbage

bk wrote: »

That just isn't going to happen. There is nothing temporary about telecoms gear. Putting up a wireless tower is frighteningly expensive, the cost of it normally needs to be paid off over 20 years or so.

If they put up a "temporary" solution like Imagine's LTE, then it won't remain temporary for long, very quickly it will become seen as "good enough" by the politicians and you'll end up stuck on it for the next 20 years.

Nonsense, that's a bit like saying there is no point in building the Naas bypass unless the whole N7 is made a motorway. A solution exists, if fibre comes near then smaller masts would suffice. Or it might be nothing more than older ADSL equipment taken from exchanges and mounted on a trailer parked in someone's garden, serving customers beyond that point until the full fibre rollout is completed.

A complete plan is need so that these interim stages are seen as exactly that.

ED E

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Nonsense, that's a bit like saying there is no point in building the Naas bypass unless the whole N7 is made a motorway. A solution exists, if fibre comes near then smaller masts would suffice. Or it might be nothing more than older ADSL equipment taken from exchanges and mounted on a trailer parked in someone's garden, serving customers beyond that point until the full fibre rollout is completed.

A complete plan is need so that these interim stages are seen as exactly that.

Temporary fixes aren't a thing in access networks, your post unfortunately is the nonsense.

plodder

As a matter of interest, how many simultaneous 30/8 connections can a single LTE tower support? That has to be the criterion, simultaneous busy-hour connections at full speed. Someone mentioned a limit of 400 subscribers per tower, but I find it hard to believe even that number could be sustained.

pegasus1

plodder wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how many simultaneous 30/8 connections can a single LTE tower support? That has to be the criterion, simultaneous busy-hour connections at full speed. Someone mentioned a limit of 400 subscribers per tower, but I find it hard to believe even that number could be sustained.

A retired telecoms manager/engineer told me recently microwave/radio speed is 1Gb,
You may find your answer here...

http://www.broadbandexpert.com/wireless-internet/networking-advice/what-is-a-backhaul/

plodder

pegasus1 wrote: »

A retired telecoms manager/engineer told me recently microwave/radio speed is 1Gb,
You may find your answer here...

http://www.broadbandexpert.com/wireless-internet/networking-advice/what-is-a-backhaul/

1 Gbit shared is only 33 times 30Mbit download. But, maybe they can offer it in multiple directions from the one tower. I still don't see it adding up to 400 subscribers though.

pegasus1

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-data-carrying-capacity-of-a-cell-tower

KOR101

I assume he meant shortlist. Again, there's the mention of future proofing for 25 years. He also said the same in an interview on newstalk, so there's no doubt that the Department/Government get the point about short term fixes (wireless) versus the once and for all time advantages of fibre.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-now/every-home-in-the-country-will-get-highspeed-service-naughten-34763198.html

The unknown at this point is the EU response to any complaint. There have been a suspiciously large number of reports recently on Ireland's broadband deficiencies....the Engineers just yesterday (attended by the minister), Vodafone's Amárach report last week. Seems like they are trying to build a case.

pegasus1

So It looks like the rollout is back on course for 2020 or sooner..

There is nothing wrong with wireless competing with what they have, without getting the any of the two NBP contracts...

Think about it...If they want to compete for the NBP, they would have to ensure everyone ie.100% can get the speed even if a customer is in a hole in the ground...

legocrazy505

pegasus1 wrote: »

So It looks like the rollout is back on course for 2020 or sooner..

Depends on who wins the bid, the article above is mistaken in thinking the winning bidder will be announced this year, that won't happen. The plan is still to sign off on it by mid 2017. After that Eir have come out and said they could do it by 2020 but we'll have to wait and see.

BandMember

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Depends on who wins the bid, the article above is mistaken in thinking the winning bidder will be announced this year, that won't happen. The plan is still to sign off on it by mid 2017. After that Eir have come out and said they could do it by 2020 but we'll have to wait and see.

Remember the old saying: a week is a long time in politics.

By the time mid-2017 comes around, there will more than likely be other priorities or hot news items so this will have fallen down in terms of urgency and the current media blitz will have concluded.

It's also highly likely that we could have a new Government by then so I would urge everyone who cares to put pressure on ALL of their current elected representatives (whether they are in Government or in opposition) to progress this plan as far as they can, as soon as they can. No harm to remind them that they will be looking for a vote from you soon enough....

pegasus1

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Depends on who wins the bid, the article above is mistaken in thinking the winning bidder will be announced this year, that won't happen. The plan is still to sign off on it by mid 2017. After that Eir have come out and said they could do it by 2020 but we'll have to wait and see.

Lets hope in a couple of weeks that you will be eating your legocollection...
Unless of course you know better than Naughten..who would be foolish to make an announcement that there will be a decision 2 weeks away...just saying...
Maybe they got their finger out and pushed some paperwork though the necessary holes...

KOR101

legocrazy505

pegasus1 wrote: »

Lets hope in a couple of weeks that you will be eating your legocollection...
Unless of course you know better than Naughten..who would be foolish to make an announcement that there will be a decision 2 weeks away...just saying...
Maybe they got their finger out and pushed some paperwork though the necessary holes...

The problem I have with the article that makes me believe the timeline is still 2017 is they start by saying we'll know who won in the "next couple of weeks" and then they take a longer quote which says they'll have the shortlist in the "next couple of weeks". They can't have both.

plodder

KOR101 wrote: »

I assume he meant shortlist. Again, there's the mention of future proofing for 25 years. He also said the same in an interview on newstalk, so there's no doubt that the Department/Government get the point about short term fixes (wireless) versus the once and for all time advantages of fibre.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-now/every-home-in-the-country-will-get-highspeed-service-naughten-34763198.html

The unknown at this point is the EU response to any complaint. There have been a suspiciously large number of reports recently on Ireland's broadband deficiencies....the Engineers just yesterday (attended by the minister), Vodafone's Amárach report last week. Seems like they are trying to build a case.

Call me cynical, but wireless has one huge advantage - that when you want to draw a "coverage map" it's so much easier to plonk a wireless tower in the middle of an area, and hey presto the whole area is "covered".

So, if a politician wants to see those lovely maps in today's Indo becoming a reality by 2020, then wireless could be a major part of it, unless very exacting technical standards are specified.

damienirel

plodder wrote: »

Call me cynical, but wireless has one huge advantage - that when you want to draw a "coverage map" it's so much easier to plonk a wireless tower in the middle of an area, and hey presto the whole area is "covered".

So, if a politician wants to see those lovely maps in today's Indo becoming a reality by 2020, then wireless could be a major part of it, unless very exacting technical standards are specified.

Yeah that might be so, but slowly and surely the old copper telephone wires will be replaced by fibre - outside of any NBP, this evolution will take place that is certain.
So the quick fix might be wireless but the long term will always always be fibre there is no escaping it. There is no point pumping a load of tax payers money in subsidizing wireless when fibre will replace every phone copper wire that exists today. Wireless should pay it's own way. Wireless has it's own application and that is convenience - if people want that convenience then they should pay for it - not the tax payer.

pegasus1

legocrazy505 wrote: »

The problem I have with the article that makes me believe the timeline is still 2017 is they start by saying we'll know who won in the "next couple of weeks" and then they take a longer quote which says they'll have the shortlist in the "next couple of weeks". They can't have both.

How can you shortlist from 5 bidders and then invite several ie. 3, to talks unless the shortlist is 4..

pegasus1

plodder wrote: »

Call me cynical, but wireless has one huge advantage - that when you want to draw a "coverage map" it's so much easier to plonk a wireless tower in the middle of an area, and hey presto the whole area is "covered".

So, if a politician wants to see those lovely maps in today's Indo becoming a reality by 2020, then wireless could be a major part of it, unless very exacting technical standards are specified.

One problem with your thinking.. Wireless does not cover everywhere... It would if the land was flat, there were no trees etc...have a look at the last few pages on imagine lte thread...

Charles Babbage

ED E wrote: »

Temporary fixes aren't a thing in access networks, your post unfortunately is the nonsense.

What I am proposing is no more than is happening anyway. Initially fibre went to exchanges and people had ADSL, then it went to cabinets and people had VDSL. In another 5 years those cabinets may be bypassed by FTTH or the equipment may be upgraded to G.Fast or the like.

And pushing fibre nearer people and using existing copper from there for a few years until the fibre can be rolled out is much closer to what is needed than wireless, which is a dead end.

daraghwal

Charles Babbage wrote: »

What I am proposing is no more than is happening anyway. Initially fibre went to exchanges and people had ADSL, then it went to cabinets and people had VDSL. In another 5 years those cabinets may be bypassed by FTTH or the equipment may be upgraded to G.Fast or the like.

And pushing fibre nearer people and using existing copper from there for a few years until the fibre can be rolled out is much closer to what is needed than wireless, which is a dead end.

Ah here...

VDSL or G.Fast or the like will never replace Fibre. Wireless won't either. It is not physically possible/economically viable for any type of technology to surpass fibre. While the government and others may think that wireless could be a solution, it is not. Fibre is the only way to go.

pegasus1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

What I am proposing is no more than is happening anyway. Initially fibre went to exchanges and people had ADSL, then it went to cabinets and people had VDSL. In another 5 years those cabinets may be bypassed by FTTH or the equipment may be upgraded to G.Fast or the like.

And pushing fibre nearer people and using existing copper from there for a few years until the fibre can be rolled out is much closer to what is needed than wireless, which is a dead end.

Our exchange is fed by 1Gb microwave...and it's the only holdup to get FTTH, Yes we are blue lined.....

Johnboy1951

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Depends on who wins the bid, the article above is mistaken in thinking the winning bidder will be announced this year, that won't happen. The plan is still to sign off on it by mid 2017. After that Eir have come out and said they could do it by 2020 but we'll have to wait and see.

The article quoted the minister on that .....

"We've sought the initial expressions of interest and five consortia have come in, involving 30 companies," he said.

"The department is going through those at the moment and we expect in the next couple of weeks to be making an announcement in relation to that. We also expect to bring a memo to Government.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

Call me cynical, but wireless has one huge advantage - that when you want to draw a "coverage map" it's so much easier to plonk a wireless tower in the middle of an area, and hey presto the whole area is "covered".

pegasus1 wrote: »

One problem with your thinking.. Wireless does not cover everywhere... It would if the land was flat, there were no trees etc...have a look at the last few pages on imagine lte thread...

This.

We addressed this in one of our NBP consultation submissions. This is a coverage map from a high site just outside Westport:



Patchy in the extreme. Let's try to fill it in with seven carefully-chosen high sites:



Still not even close - and that's using terrain models that don't take into account trees, buildings and other such obstacles. It's also ignoring the fact that at least four of those sites would require newly-built radio towers in a scenic rural area.

It's a common myth that wireless coverage is easy. It's far from it. As I've said already in this thread, the belief that those premises that will be hard to fibre will automatically be easy to supply wirelessly is a deeply mistaken one.

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a common myth that wireless coverage is easy. It's far from it. As I've said already in this thread, the belief that those premises that will be hard to fibre will automatically be easy to supply wirelessly is a deeply mistaken one.

Automatically yes, but I'm sure there will be some parts of the country that are easier to supply with a wireless service where the population density is low.

The question is will that only be used for the really hard to reach places (that are still accessible wirelessly) or will there be a temptation to use wireless to hit overly aggressive targets sooner, where if people were prepared to wait a bit longer, they might get fibre?

pegasus1

plodder wrote: »

Automatically yes, but I'm sure there will be some parts of the country that are easier to supply with a wireless service where the population density is low.

The question is will that only be used for the really hard to reach places (that are still accessible wirelessly) or will there be a temptation to use wireless to hit overly aggressive targets sooner, where if people were prepared to wait a bit longer, they might get fibre?

You, just don't get it...insert FacePalm here...

Any where you put a wireless mast, there will be places that are nearby that won't get the signal...

ED E

Well, black valley masts can obtain 100% coverage

/tongueInCheek

plodder

pegasus1 wrote: »

You, just don't get it...insert FacePalm here...

Any where you put a wireless mast, there will be places that are nearby that won't get the signal...

So, you're saying that wireless is 100% definitely not going to be part of NBP. Is that right?

pegasus1

plodder wrote: »

So, you're saying that wireless is 100% definitely not going to be part of NBP. Is that right?

There is a total of two contracts for the NBP... So in light of OscarBravos post do you think wireless will cover one half of the country 100%

pegasus1

ED E wrote: »

Well, black valley masts can obtain 100% coverage

/tongueInCheek

Are there any masts in black valley?

plodder

pegasus1 wrote: »

There is a total of two contracts for the NBP... So in light of OscarBravos post do you think wireless will cover one half of the country 100%

Obviously not, but where is it written that each contract must use only one access technology?

Why are we even discussing this if it's that clear cut?

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

Automatically yes, but I'm sure there will be some parts of the country that are easier to supply with a wireless service where the population density is low.

There are pretty much no parts of the country where 100% coverage can be achieved wirelessly - and that's before you get into the question of whether or not a government initiative to build future-proof communications infrastructure should have any wireless component whatsoever.

The question is will that only be used for the really hard to reach places (that are still accessible wirelessly) or will there be a temptation to use wireless to hit overly aggressive targets sooner, where if people were prepared to wait a bit longer, they might get fibre?

You're buried waist-deep in the fallacy that "really hard to reach places" can be reached wirelessly.

What about those remote places that are not merely "really hard", but practically impossible, to reach wirelessly?

We need to completely decouple the concept of "remote" and "easy to reach with wireless". If wireless coverage of remote premises was easy, nobody would be bitching about the absence of mobile phone coverage.

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are pretty much no parts of the country where 100% coverage can be achieved wirelessly

That seems like a bold claim. If it's true though, then we've nothing to worry about. NBP can only be delivered using wired access.

ussjtrunks

Personally I think fixed wireless is a decent interim option I'm here getting 20mb instead of the 1-2 I had on eircom and strangely enough pings are really fast for games. I would love a full on 100mb fibre connection though so heres hoping eir can supply everyone eventually, my worry is exchange distance as most rural dwelling can be 4-5km from the exchange.

legocrazy505

ussjtrunks wrote: »

Personally I think fixed wireless is a decent interim option I'm here getting 20mb instead of the 1-2 I had on eircom and strangely enough pings are really fast for games. I would love a full on 100mb fibre connection though so heres hoping eir can supply everyone eventually, my worry is exchange distance as most rural dwelling can be 4-5km from the exchange.

Exchange distance becomes irrelevant really with fibre since it can do about 20km. The problem I personally have with wireless (there's no wireless ISP that can actually provide anything to our house) is the data caps. Data caps should be dead and buried by now. We used to have a Three 3G modem (that had to hang out the window to get anything) and the data caps were what made us get sick of it. At least now even with our 1.7mbps down we don't have to worry about our roughly 500GB usage every month.

km79

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Exchange distance becomes irrelevant really with fibre since it can do about 20km. The problem I personally have with wireless (there's no wireless ISP that can actually provide anything to our house) is the data caps. Data caps should be dead and buried by now. We used to have a Three 3G modem (that had to hang out the window to get anything) and the data caps were what made us get sick of it. At least now even with our 1.7mbps down we don't have to worry about our roughly 500GB usage every month.

Yes I'm in same position
Coverage and speeds are good with three but the cap is killing me

ACLFC7

km79 wrote: »

Yes I'm in same position
Coverage and speeds are good with three but the cap is killing me

You can cheat the data cap by just using a Three Pre-Pay SIM and topping up €20 every month

ussjtrunks

On fixed wireless its abit better nova give me 20gb a day, managing it for game downloads can be a pain though but atleast the service is reliable. So if can fibre actually maintain roughly its full speed to everyone on the exchange whats stopping it from being a reality is it just a matter of swapping out all the copper cables or does work have to be done at the exchange aswell.

9726_9726

plodder wrote: »

1 Gbit shared is only 33 times 30Mbit download. But, maybe they can offer it in multiple directions from the one tower. I still don't see it adding up to 400 subscribers though.

There are *some* point to point backhaul links that will do 1Gbps, from the likes of Ceragon, SAF, etc. Usually they needed XPIC.

Imagine's system is point to multipoint and does a total of 100Mbps per sector (yes one hundred). It's Huawei eLTE or Enterprise LTE.

At 400 customers on a BSU with 6 RRUs/sectors, that's 66 subs per sector or 100/66 = 1.5Mbps CIR/committed information rate, guaranteed bandwidth per customer. Guaranteed 30Mbps is just marketing speak.

Even that would assume 600Mbps on the microwave backhauls which are some descendants of Stratex Eclipse, so that'd be pushing it.

daraghwal

ussjtrunks wrote: »

On fixed wireless its abit better nova give me 20gb a day, managing it for game downloads can be a pain though but atleast the service is reliable. So if can fibre actually maintain roughly its full speed to everyone on the exchange whats stopping it from being a reality is it just a matter of swapping out all the copper cables or does work have to be done at the exchange aswell.

Assuming you're talking about FTTH, it's a good bit more complicated than that. Exchanges have to be upgraded. Planning permission has to be got for new exchanges. New exchanges have to be put in (possibly bigger than the older ones as more people would be subscribing to FTTH further out from the exchange. Exchanges have to get electricity from ESB. Fibre has to be put through to each exchange. Planning permission has to be got to bring fibre from other places (although I am pretty sure most of the country's exchanges have fibre connected up to them - I could be wrong). The fibre cable has to be physically brought from the exchange to the customers house.Equipment has to be fitted and installed in everyone's house (see picture)... The list goes on..

The one added complication to Fibre that doesn't exist with Copper is the fact that it cannot be cut and just soldered back together. If it breaks, it is more complicated and has to be either spliced back together perfect or replaced. Otherwise there would be a huge loss in speed

I do agree though that there is not much stopping it from becoming reality. It's just it is going to be complicated to make it a reality. It is by far the best solution to bring broadband to every home in Ireland. As you can guess from previous posts, wireless is not a viable option compared to fibre.

ussjtrunks

Can the fibre lines be put on poles aswell, If the trees broke them wouldnt it be a hassle?

daraghwal

ussjtrunks wrote: »

Can the fibre lines be put on poles aswell, If the trees broke them wouldnt it be a hassle?

Yes they are put on poles as well as underground (eir used this in their fibre pilot using lightweight fibreoptic cable). For small breaks between the exchange and the home I am sure KNN and eir staff will be well used to fixing them as efficiently as they fix copper. For larger fibre breaks then yes there is a lot of hassle like in February when this
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/meteor-outage-leinster happened. I think I remember reading somewhere it was a car crash caused it? Not sure though