NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

tsue921i8wljb3

It's all set up for eir to win the two lots so all this talk of wholesale access costs may be moot.

turbbo

Legal here means nothing as the law is an ass - Eir are definitely cosy with power don't be fooled to think that this all just happened as if by chance. It's typical of what happens in big business when you're potentially talking about billions at stake. I don't believe Eir played this well regarding the legal loop holes, more likely they played it well lobbying the right people. The media and the government want us to believe that is how all this happened. One could nearly see that document that was accidentally leaked as being deliberate, to get the discussion going and put down any rumours before the NBP gets started.
Where's my tinfoil hat?:D

Dero

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Have SIRO connected any rural premises that is not in a village or town? (a built up area).
Have Enet done it?

I don't get this myself; especially with Siro. Surely the ESB have enough resources to match Eir on something like this? OK, their core network may not be up to the same level, but the most disappointing thing about Siro for me has been their urban focus. Being outside Dublin is not the definition of rural...

I have issues with Eir and the way they are playing this, but at least they are proving rural FTTH deployment to be viable. That genie isn't going back in the bottle now.

AidenL

user1842 wrote: »

Eircom should have been forced by the department in their commitment agreement to cover geographical areas and not just houses. Looking at the map it is a disgrace that one side of a road will get high speed broadband while the other side will have to wait for state intervention in 202X if ever at this point. Also in some areas Eircom just skip random housing estates. It is beyond cherry picking.

Why would any other bidder bother at this point. It would be a impossible undertaking.

Where are the EU Commission on this. It is either total incompetence by the department or the department now works for Eircom.

Sigh

I agree fully, I'm in a black hole of limbo, my home was supposed to be in a fibre area, turned out I'm too far from the cabinet.

I'm one house away now from the Eir rollout, and hence fell into the NBP, which will happen 'sometime' at the rate it's progressing. In the meantime, I'll be surrounded by 1000 meg connections for years, simply because of geography.

turbbo

AidenL wrote: »

I agree fully, I'm in a black hole of limbo, my home was supposed to be in a fibre area, turned out I'm too far from the cabinet.

I'm one house away now from the Eir rollout, and hence fell into the NBP, which will happen 'sometime' at the rate it's progressing. In the meantime, I'll be surrounded by 1000 meg connections for years, simply because of geography.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The Eir rollout is painfully slow and if you read anything from this thread - they have the best chance in winning the NBP which will just be a continuation of the work they've really just started. It's gonna be another 2 years before they finish the 300k(they haven't a hope of meeting the deadline) and it sucks to be at the end of that, but it's a small country and unless we hire some fibre installation teams from the continent we're not gonna move much faster.

Rock Lesnar

Im so near yet so far away, im in an amber area of County Meath, while the light blue cut off area is a pole less 50 yards away.

So bloody frustrating

9726_9726

turbbo wrote: »

why discuss it? huh? you having a laugh? I'll spell it out for you - because they have basically stolen all of the customer base that any competitor would have needed to make a bid for the NBP viable. Simples. And they've done this with the EU and Departments blessing - meanwhile the taxpayer will fund Richard Moats bonus. A great little country we live in.:rolleyes:

The taxpayer is not funding the 300,000.

The minister did not award the 300,000 to Eir.

Eir are building it themselves, as anybody else could choose to do.

ussjtrunks

So guys will we be stuck on our FWA connections for another 10 years at this rate?

turbbo

9726_9726 wrote: »

The taxpayer is not funding the 300,000.

The minister did not award the 300,000 to Eir.

Eir are building it themselves, as anybody else could choose to do.

1. The taxpayer is funding what will come after the 300,000.
2. I never said the minister awarded the 300k to Eir?
3. I agree Eir are building it themselves and yes anybody else could have done the same - Siro? Enet ? they were all holding out for funding in the form of the NBP before they started. Eir I guess didn't need it they are so flush with cash from ripping people off for years.:D And that will continue now.

jd

Siro's parents (VOD and ESB) would have deeper pockets than eir.

ED E

jd wrote: »

Siro's parents (VOD and ESB) would have deeper pockets than eir.

But also less reason to care. Profit margins on the national grid are far better for the ESB boys and Vodafone have 140M subs to look after, SIRO is a hobby for them.

westyIrl

Hi guys,

Long time thread follower and just after reading through the 'dreamy' Eir Rural FTTH thread so apologies in advance if this post comes across as a bit of rant as a result.

I'm living in West Galway and could be described as one of those "side of the mountain" cases that Denis Naughten alludes to in his various interviews. I'm ~3 km from the closest planned Eir FTTH rollout and for the past 10 years have a business DSL line with Eir (1.7Mb down/200kb up) which is a miracle of itself as I'm 7km line distance from the local exchange. It took a lot of messing with various chipset modems over the years to achieve what is now a slow but consistent broadband connection for my business. Even Eir admitted at the time that it was a bit of "test case" due to the attenuation of the line(63.5dB/31.5dB). I run 2 voip lines and numerous PCs, devices etc. from day to day. It is a serious challenge to manage operating a business with it but I have nothing else available. There is no WISP availability.

I did trial the Three NBS dongle job in 2011 but handed it back within a week after realising the farce it was for business purposes (and for home use for that matter) even after getting them to trial signal boosters and having the satellite option being pushed as a solution.

It is really frustrating following the various delays with the National Broadband Plan. I don't begrudge anyone falling within Eir's FTTH rural rollout. I honestly think they will be the greatest beneficiaries of what I see as pea-cocking and showboating by Eir so as to secure the NBP lots. Don't get me wrong; the genius(es) in strategic planning in Eir are well entitled to their bonus payment this year. It was a master stroke, but how the Department Broadband Team seem to have unwittingly sleep-walked (and tripped over their own red tape) into bed with Eir boggles my mind and to listen to Minister Naughten seemingly claiming credit for the 300k just compounds it. Last weekend's memo 'leak' of a potential additional 15%/60% increase to the overall cost to implement the NBP for the remaining homes/businesses just shows up how duped they were.

I do have a concern with Eir basically gaining a monopoly on the NBP and hence my venom. Leopards rarely change their spots. Yes, they are certainly the only ones making any shape to push fiber out to rural areas at the moment, albeit it became commercially viable for them to do so (almost overnight) with the carrot on the stick in the form of the NBP.

However, where I saw the debt loading and cash creaming of Eir by various owners over the years really show was in the quality of their 'last mile' infrastructure. I have 4 wonky rotted poles supplying our DSL/POTS line. The line is partly resting on the ground some of the way and more like a clothes line the rest of the way. Cattle chewed through the line on more than one occasion. Many times after heavy rain I have to climb up the closest pole (well walk up as its more horizontal that vertical) to open up the Junction Box Enclosure to drain the water as it shorts the pair. I've seen similar in many such last mile sections of their network.

This is the Eir/Eircom/Telecom Eireann that I've got to know over the years. I have seen the decent quality of their recent installation of fiber, splice boxes and poles in towns/villages close to me and yes it does give me hope but leopards and spots come to mind.

ESB Networks obviously have a much better reputation for the quality of installation of a pair of wires to a premises (albeit an oversimplification and different network types). I had really hoped that SIRO would have taken the NBP carrot and gambled on the more rural areas but alas they are playing it safe and duplicating services in the urban centers. I do wonder how the DCCAE have kept SIRO sitting at the table through all this.

Apologies for the long winded rant. It's late but watching the way this is playing out is frustrating. I just see Eir getting awarded the NBP on the strength of the current FTTH rollout and our business will get offered some form of long range VDSL just to milk our already joke of a copper pair supply for all its worth.

I think if the Minister/Department are serious about the NBP being an international showcase they should just remove the 30Mb minimum and set the standard at 1Gb Fiber. Also, I don't understand why it isn't being contemplated using this fiber network as a broadcast medium for 2RN (RTE Networks) for current DVB-T2 broadcasts (and the costly Saorsat service for that matter). It would have significant cost savings for the same Department. And for good measure slap a PSO on that dual purpose fiber network if that's not already done. I'm sure the potential 15/60% cost risk they've landed themselves in would more than cover many last mile FTTH scenarios. In the meantime just shoot anyone that comes up with 4G, 5G,..... ∞G as a realistic, future-proof or scale-able solution.


Jim

ED E

While I can understand your frustration gotta check a few points.

westyIrl wrote: »

Even Eir admitted at the time that it was a bit of "test case" due to the attenuation of the line(63.5dB/31.5dB).

The Eir DSLAMs only read as high as 63.5, your real figure would be above 70 at that kind of range. You're benefiting from being on a small bundle. Still a bit of a miracle ER line.

westyIrl wrote: »

It is really frustrating following the various delays with the National Broadband Plan. I don't begrudge anyone falling within Eir's FTTH rural rollout. I honestly think they will be the greatest beneficiaries of what I see as pea-cocking and showboating by Eir so as to secure the NBP lots. Don't get me wrong; the genius(es) in strategic planning in Eir are well entitled to their bonus payment this year. It was a master stroke, but how the Department Broadband Team seem to have unwittingly sleep-walked (and tripped over their own red tape) into bed with Eir boggles my mind and to listen to Minister Naughten seemingly claiming credit for the 300k just compounds it. Last weekend's memo 'leak' of a potential additional 15%/60% increase to the overall cost to implement the NBP for the remaining homes/businesses just shows up how duped they were.

I think everyone except Naughten knew the costing wasnt realistic. We've seen W/S costs per KM before and the wishy washy numbers didnt cover it. In any case, Eirs commercial rollout is protected by the EU. C'est tous. the DECNR cant do diddly squat. Their hands were tied rather than sleep walking into anything.

westyIrl wrote: »

I do have a concern with Eir basically gaining a monopoly on the NBP and hence my venom. Leopards rarely change their spots. Yes, they are certainly the only ones making any shape to push fiber out to rural areas at the moment, albeit it became commercially viable for them to do so (almost overnight) with the carrot on the stick in the form of the NBP.

OpenEir. As the USO with SMP they're very heavily regulated today. On an individual perspective some may not see this but taking the macro view they are. If plant comes down day or (most of the) night they're accessible through Limerick/Dublin to get emergency cover out, try the same with anyone other than the ESB and see how far you get. OpenEir of 2017 getting it is very different to Eircom Ltd of 2005 doing same.

westyIrl wrote: »

I have 4 wonky rotted poles supplying our DSL/POTS line. The line is partly resting on the ground some of the way and more like a clothes line the rest of the way. Cattle chewed through the line on more than one occasion. Many times after heavy rain I have to climb up the closest pole (well walk up as its more horizontal that vertical) to open up the Junction Box Enclosure to drain the water as it shorts the pair. I've seen similar in many such last mile sections of their network.

This is the Eir/Eircom/Telecom Eireann that I've got to know over the years. I have seen the decent quality of their recent installation of fiber, splice boxes and poles in towns/villages close to me and yes it does give me hope but leopards and spots come to mind.

You can thank yourself and people like you for that. Just like roads we have far more small plant than our continental peers thanks to dwelling patterns.

westyIrl wrote: »

ESB Networks obviously have a much better reputation for the quality of installation of a pair of wires to a premises (albeit an oversimplification and different network types). I had really hoped that SIRO would have taken the NBP carrot and gambled on the more rural areas but alas they are playing it safe and duplicating services in the urban centers. I do wonder how the DCCAE have kept SIRO sitting at the table through all this.

The ESB have also bent the country over and gone in dry for decades. No government has gone near dancing with the union and thus they've gotten exactly what they wanted every time. Eir had some old timers that contractually got away with only dealing with PSTN and thus spent 80% of their time having tea in the Exch/AEH, ESB still has loads of that.

SIRO has also being tragically slow. Being thorough is easy when its €3000/install, its harder when its €300.

westyIrl

ED E wrote: »

The Eir DSLAMs only read as high as 63.5, your real figure would be above 70 at that kind of range. You're benefiting from being on a small bundle. Still a bit of a miracle ER line.

I never realised they only read up to that figure (which I logged into my modem to retreive). But the long and short of it is that after doing some line diagnostics and figuring it was a broadcom DSLAM at Eir X, I had far better success in using broadcom based chipset modems.

The modems on the Eir supplied routers were a joke for such a line. I forget the chipset type on the Zyxel D1000 or Netopia 2247NWG but I did check at the time and both basically had the worst modem chipset for long range DSL connections. I went from a connection that wouldn't stay up past a few minutes to a connection that can do close to a month without dropping at the moment. I do agree that I'm seriously benefitting from low bundling.

I do have to say that the most of my post was a late night rant out of frustration. You do make some very valid points.

user1842

The NBP was the ideal opportunity to dismantle all the telephones poles in the country side and thus only have one pole serving a house (ESB networks pole).

Having two independent pole networks is an extremely inefficient use of resources, increases costs to the consumer and damages the environment.

The NBP tender could have simply said that the new fibre network will be provided over the ESB pole network, all bidding operators will be given access to the ESB pole infrastructure, end-of.

If this needed a law change, so be it, change the law. Hell, change the constitution if necessary, as it makes sense.

Network industries are natural monopolies and should be treated as such.

rob808

user1842 wrote: »

The NBP was the ideal opportunity to dismantle all the telephones poles in the country side and thus only have one pole serving a house (ESB networks pole).

Having two independent pole networks is an extremely inefficient use of resources, increases costs to the consumer and damages the environment.

The NBP tender could have simply said that the new fibre network will be provided over the ESB pole network, all bidding operators will be given access to the ESB pole infrastructure, end-off.

If this needed a law change, so be it change the law. Hell change the constitution if necessary, as it makes sense.

Network industries are natural monopolies and should be treated as such.

ESB suppose allow access to all other ISP to it network because of new EU law that came in so far the ESB denied access to both Eir and Enet.

user1842

rob808 wrote: »

ESB suppose allow access to all other ISP to it network because of new EU law that came in so far the ESB denied access to both Eir and Enet.

If the government had any will power that could be fixed easily.

ED E

user1842 wrote: »

If the government had any will power that could be fixed easily.

No government has ever stood up to the ESB.

Johnboy1951

rob808 wrote: »

ESB suppose allow access to all other ISP to it network because of new EU law that came in so far the ESB denied access to both Eir and Enet.

Is there anyone really clamouring for access?

If yes, and refused, then they should have redress through EU courts?

Of course the terms of access could be very restrictive considering the nature of the infrastructure.

The Cush

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is there anyone really clamouring for access?

If yes, and refused, then they should have redress through EU courts?

Of course the terms of access could be very restrictive considering the nature of the infrastructure.

eir, according to a report in the Irish Times, requested access. Discussed here back in July.

ESB network

Another issue dogging the process relates to the ESB’s network, to which Eir itself has requested access, and the price the electricity utility, which part owns Siro, might charge.

Under the European Union’s shared utilities directive, infrastructural companies are required to open up their networks to other operators for projects of strategic national importance.

Eir claims it has been stonewalled in its attempts to secure access to the ESB’s network, which can use private lands to erect pylons unlike the telecoms company.

Minister for Communications Denis Naughten will have to iron out these complex pricing structures to progress the Government’s broadband plan, which has already been hit by a series of delays, pushing the likely start date out to 2019, a year later than originally anticipated.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/row-over-eir-s-pricing-structure-at-centre-of-broadband-delay-1.3144586

Johnboy1951

The Cush wrote: »

eir, according to a report in the Irish Times, requested access. Discussed here back in July.

Yeah and we all believe what we read and what eir states

Maybe eir wanted their unqualified staff to be given access and were told no ...... maybe any of many reasons eir might claim they were stonewalled, without the ESB actually refusing.

We just do not know. It might well be the ESB refused for no good reason.

Yet I believe if eir were serious and were definitely refused they would have no qualms about appealing to the courts.
That has not happened to my knowledge ...... hence my emphasis on

really clamouring for access?

user1842

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yeah and we all believe what we read and what eir states

Maybe eir wanted their unqualified staff to be given access and were told no ...... maybe any of many reasons eir might claim they were stonewalled, without the ESB actually refusing.

We just do not know. It might well be the ESB refused for no good reason.

Yet I believe if eir were serious and were definitely refused they would have no qualms about appealing to the courts.
That has not happened to my knowledge ...... hence my emphasis on

I suppose it does not matter now. Eircom will get the whole thing and we will be left with two pole networks in Ireland (one of them needless).

At least sometime in 202X rural Ireland might get 30MB broadband.

westyIrl

user1842 wrote: »

I suppose it does not matter now. Eircom will get the whole thing and we will be left with two pole networks in Ireland (one of them needless).

At least sometime in 202X rural Ireland might get 30MB broadband.

And the end cost of these inefficiencies and duplication fall back into the consumers pocket. It is frustrating to behold. There really isn't much of an ability to think outside the box (by government) for projects like this for government.

Don't forget that another network being duplicated and which could easily (RFoG) ran over fibre is RTE Dvb transmissions. Last I checked we are spending ~1.5 million/annum for Saorsat which could easily be distributed over a full fiber network (as well as DVB-T2 transmissions) but i guess the same politics that goes on with ESB happens with RTE which wouldn't allow such efficiencies.

Johnboy1951

westyIrl wrote: »

And the end cost of these inefficiencies and duplication fall back into the consumers pocket. It is frustrating to behold. There really isn't much of an ability to think outside the box (by government) for projects like this for government.

Don't forget that another network being duplicated and which could easily (RFoG) ran over fibre is RTE Dvb transmissions. Last I checked we are spending ~1.5 million/annum for Saorsat which could easily be distributed over a full fiber (as well as DVB-T2 transmissions) but i guess the same politics that goes on with ESB happens with RTE which wouldn't allow such efficiencies.

So you reckon that RTÉ should have distributed over a non-existent fibre network when they planned and rolled out Saorsat?

Maybe when - and IF - fibre becomes available to every premises in the country, present and future, then your idea might have some merit. Of course FUPs would have to disappear also.

I doubt that will happen in my lifetime!

westyIrl

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So you reckon that RTÉ should have distributed over a non-existent fibre network when they planned and rolled out Saorsat?

Not at all. I'm focusing on the per annum on-going costs for 2RN specifically in relation to the DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 transmission network, the purpose of which is analogous to the NBP i.e. coverage. I'm simply making the point that Fiber introduces an obvious cost efficiency here that strengthens it's case for a blanket national deployment. It just appears to me that the NBP is focused on broadband alone while it has the capability to serve as a transport medium for our television transmissions also, with the benefits of greater interactive services etc.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Maybe when - and IF - fibre becomes available to every premises in the country, present and future, then your idea might have some merit. Of course FUPs would have to disappear also.

It's a chicken and egg situation. No, the network is not there yet, but what surprises and disappoints me is that I have seen no mention/vision/analysis of this possibility in any of the DCENR NBP documentation that I have read or I've simply missed it. Any such service would have to be exempted from FUPs and also mandate FTTH a public service obligation.

user1842 wrote: »

I suppose it does not matter now. Eircom will get the whole thing and we will be left with two pole networks in Ireland (one of them needless).

My reasoning is similar to this. Duplication is costly and inevitably delays well....the inevitable which I think any reasoned person would agree is nationwide FTTH.

Sorry if I don't articulate my point too well and it's a 10,000ft view. I just have this grand idealistic, and probably unrealistic, image in my head of a single network infrastructure (ESB Networks) with a fiber optic overlay. But I'm an engineer not a politician.

Jim

Johnboy1951

westyIrl wrote: »

Not at all. I'm focusing on the per annum on-going costs for 2RN specifically in relation to the DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 transmission network, the purpose of which is analogous to the NBP i.e. coverage. I'm simply making the point that Fiber introduces an obvious cost efficiency here that strengthens it's case for a blanket national deployment. It just appears to me that the NBP is focused on broadband alone while it has the capability to serve as a transport medium for our television transmissions also, with the benefits of greater interactive services etc.

First you need the fibre; then you provide the services.
The NBP is to provide the fibre/infrastructure.
The services will be provided by others ........ IF the infrastructure is suitable.

That suitability cannot be determined prior to installation.

It's a chicken and egg situation. No, the network is not there yet, but what surprises and disappoints me is that I have seen no mention/vision/analysis of this possibility in any of the DCENR NBP documentation that I have read or I've simply missed it. Any such service would have to be exempted from FUPs and also mandate FTTH a public service obligation.

Without the fibre network ...... and indeed a great doubt if there will ever be one ...... and the ownership of that proposed network being in private hands ....... there is no way a national 'broadcast' strategy could accept that as its means of distribution.

Now if we were to have a publicly owned infrastructure from beginning to end over which to provide the national channels, then it should definitely be considered.

We won't have that in my lifetime.

My reasoning is similar to this. Duplication is costly and inevitably delays well....the inevitable which I think any reasoned person would agree is nationwide FTTH.

SIRO seems to think duplication is worth doing, as their fibre roll out is mostly in places that already have fibre or will have fibre from eir.

I guess duplication is a necessary part of competition.

Sorry if I don't articulate my point too well and it's a 10,000ft view. I just have this grand idealistic, and probably unrealistic, image in my head of a single network infrastructure (ESB Networks) with a fiber optic overlay. But I'm an engineer not a politician.

Jim

The point is well made, but IMO is looking at things with a very rosy view.
In an ideal world we would all have symmetrical fibre at our finger tips without any FUP or other limitations, and at a cost all could afford.

Ireland is far from being an ideal world.

user1842

I assume the reason why we have two pole networks in the first place is that you cannot string copper telephone cables under electric cables due to interference?

At least I hope that is the case or what the hell were we doing back then.

Persiancowboy

The EU Directive (originally a Regulation which would have had direct effect in all Member States) facilitating access to existing infrastructure has a list as long as your arm of "opt outs" i.e reasons why an infrastructure owner can refuse access to a requester. Therefore the Government is not in a position to instruct ESB to allow eir access.

To my knowledge eir has not specified exactly which poles and wires it wants access to...suspect they don't actually want it at all and is simply another of their endless ploys to make the NBP as unattractive as possible to other bidders.

Additionally, the State Aid Guidelines contain a provision obliging bidders for public contracts to allow other bidders access their infrastructure. If eir are serious about this matter, this is where they will twist arms...and they may well have Brussels support for this.

So we have a case where provisions emanating from one wing of the EU Commission (DG Competition) are not necessarily in sync with those from another wing (DG CNECT).

While officials in DCCAE or whatever it's being called this week can defend themselves, it has to be said that in relation to the jaded arguments from many posters here about the Department rolling over for eir, let's be very clear. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will the Legal Services officials in DG Competition allow a red cent of public money be spent in an area where commercial investment is taking place and which could harm or damage that investment.

Once our friends in Heuston Square suddenly "discovered" 300,000 commercial premises that heretofore weren't commercial at all, the Department was fcuked because the chances of getting State Aid clearance to invest in connecting these premises using public money was non-existent. The fact that this move might/will increase the overall price of any NBP contract is not of any particular importance to DG Comp. The challenge for the Minister is to wrap eir up in a water-tight contract that forces them to deliver on their latest promise.....and as they say "good luck with that...."

ED E

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0913/904309-eir-full-year-results/

Telecoms and entertainment group Eir has reported an increase in earnings for the full financial year to the end of June, while its revenue rose by 1%.

Eir said its earnings before interest, tax and depreciation costs for the year were 4% higher at €520m.

OP costs down 5% before annual storm damage. Retiring crap copper will help here.

user1842

Persiancowboy wrote: »

While officials in DCCAE or whatever it's being called this week can defend themselves, it has to be said that in relation to the jaded arguments from many posters here about the Department rolling over for eir, let's be very clear. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will the Legal Services officials in DG Competition allow a red cent of public money be spent in an area where commercial investment is taking place and which could harm or damage that investment.

Once our friends in Heuston Square suddenly "discovered" 300,000 commercial premises that heretofore weren't commercial at all, the Department was fcuked because the chances of getting State Aid clearance to invest in connecting these premises using public money was non-existent. The fact that this move might/will increase the overall price of any NBP contract is not of any particular importance to DG Comp. The challenge for the Minister is to wrap eir up in a water-tight contract that forces them to deliver on their latest promise.....and as they say "good luck with that...."

So what would have happened if the department just ignored Eircom and went ahead with the procurement including the 300,000 Eircom commercially viable homes. The reason that could have been given is that they don't believe Eircom.

DG Comp cannot stop the government awarding tenders, the can only jump up and down after the fact due to a possible complaint and that's only if Eircom did not win the tender.

Even if DG Comp did investigate by the time it is resolved the network would have been built.

At that point there is no way DG Comp would force Ireland to unbuild/not use the network. A fine would just be imposed. In my book this fine would be well worth paying. And this would be the worst case scenario and only if Ireland could not prove that Eircom were lying about the 300,000 commercially viable homes.

I love the way our government use some EU laws to disguise their bad decision making and just ignores other EU laws when it suits them (Water Framework Directive).

If people marched on the streets against Eircoms 300,000 commercially viable homes ploy im sure the government would quickly forget about DG Comp issues.

Anyway, water under the bridge, Eircom pulled a fast one and the government bought it hook, line and sinker. Pigs will fly if anyone thinks they will make their houses passed objective and the fine imposed is a joke and probably not even legally binding (which im sure Eircom will bring the Government to court to get out of paying). The proof will be in the pudding if the contract gets awarded to another bidder and suddenly Eircom decides that a lot of the 300,000 are really not commercially viable.

We had a chance to have one efficient rural fiber and electricity network that would have saved costs, improved connection time, improved repair time, helped the environment and actually made rural Ireland look nicer.

The government blew it because it was too afraid to challenge one company and their lawyers.

Sorry about the rant.

Actually reading up about the tender challenge procedures. Any unsuccessful bidder has the right to challenge the contract within a 14 day grace period. This challenge would have to go to the High court. What I cannot find is can the contract continue while this challenge is taking place (there seems to be exceptions in a lot of the EU procurement rules that don't have time to read).

turbbo

user1842 wrote: »

The government blew it because it was too afraid to challenge one company and their lawyers.

I find that a little naive, don't you think rather than being afraid they've just been bought off.

Johnboy1951

user1842 wrote:

At that point there is no way DG Comp would force Ireland to unbuild/not use the network. A fine would just be imposed. In my book this fine would be well worth paying. And this would be the worst case scenario and only if Ireland could not prove that Eircom were lying about the 300,000 commercially viable homes.

On what do you base this opinion?
Do you have some indication of the level of the potential fine?

If the Gov ignored eir's offer, and proceeded to include the 300k in the NBP, then the whole scheme could be stopped by legal wrangles initiated by eir.

So there would be no 300k and no NBP for many years.
Would you blame the Gov for making that happen?

The best the gov could do was to force eir into a contract for the 300k including a time line and roll out targets.
Except for a couple of items in that which seem to be 'weak' (the amount of the fine for failure to meet target; the lack of costing on open access to the fibre) the gov seem to have achieved quite a lot in that contract.

If eir had announced their 300k, refused to sign a contract, and the NBP was awarded, eir had the potential to stop the NBP dead in its tracks by legal means.

IMO eir signed the agreement only because they did not wish to take a chance, however slim, that a legal challenge would not work in their favour.

Persiancowboy

user1842 wrote: »

So what would have happened if the department just ignored Eircom and went ahead with the procurement including the 300,000 Eircom commercially viable homes. The reason that could have been given is that they don't believe Eircom.

DG Comp cannot stop the government awarding tenders, the can only jump up and down after the fact due to a possible complaint and that's only if Eircom did not win the tender.

Even if DG Comp did investigate by the time it is resolved the network would have been built.

At that point there is no way DG Comp would force Ireland to unbuild/not use the network. A fine would just be imposed. In my book this fine would be well worth paying. And this would be the worst case scenario and only if Ireland could not prove that Eircom were lying about the 300,000 commercially viable homes.

Sorry but your understanding of how State Aid laws work is totally incorrect. Prior to going to tender State has to get approval from Brussels....this will not be forthcoming while there are questions about possible commercial investment in the intervention area.

Believe me, a formal State Aid complaint would take months if not a couple of years to fully investigate...and is the very last thing the NBP needs.

Johnboy1951

It should also be remembered that the 'state aid' is dependent on EU funding ...... which will not be forthcoming unless all procedures are followed properly.

user1842

Persiancowboy wrote: »

Sorry but your understanding of how State Aid laws work is totally incorrect. Prior to going to tender State has to get approval from Brussels....this will not be forthcoming while there are questions about possible commercial investment in the intervention area.

Believe me, a formal State Aid complaint would take months if not a couple of years to fully investigate...and is the very last thing the NBP needs.

A bit unfair, i was under the impression that broadband infrastructures have a general block exemption from the state aid notification rules. However reading the regulation now it seems the notification threshold is €70 million euro. Sorry I typed before I checked fully.

user1842

Also interesting from the Commission:

Aid for broadband infrastructures:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=OJ:C:2013:025:0001:0026:EN:PDF

I assume the Government is trying to avoid this:

‘Grey areas’: need for a more detailed assessment

Which would mean that the usual two month Commission check would be prolonged into a more detailed assessment.

‘Grey areas’ are those in which one network operator is present and another network is unlikely to be developed in the near future.

I worry about Imagine here also. If they complain the Commission might do a more detailed assessment anyway.

Persiancowboy

user1842 wrote: »

Also interesting from the Commission:

Aid for broadband infrastructures:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.douri=OJ:C:2013:025:0001:0026:EN:PDF

I assume the Government is trying to avoid this:

‘Grey areas’: need for a more detailed assessment

Which would mean that the usual two month Commission check would be prolonged into a more detailed assessment.

‘Grey areas’ are those in which one network operator is present and another network is unlikely to be developed in the near future.

I worry about Imagine here also. If they complain the Commission might do a more detailed assessment anyway.

You are right but I think Imagine and their very vocal CEO will have a challenge convincing Commission that their product is high speed and future proofed.

KOR101

‘We are expecting another announcement, later this year, about a very new satellite offering that will provide far greater speeds than would have been envisaged up to now.’

http://www.southernstar.ie/news/roundup/articles/2017/09/14/4145701-ireland-could-lead-world-in-broadband-says-minister/

Johnboy1951

KOR101 wrote: »

‘We are expecting another announcement, later this year, about a very new satellite offering that will provide far greater speeds than would have been envisaged up to now.’

http://www.southernstar.ie/news/roundup/articles/2017/09/14/4145701-ireland-could-lead-world-in-broadband-says-minister/

Siro have ramped up their capacity and they are passing one door of every minute of every day with pure fibre again, so there has been a significant ramp-up over the last six months in relation to the delivery of pure fibre.

Yeah, for the most part passing the same doors that already have a fast service ...

wexfordman2

KOR101 wrote: »

‘We are expecting another announcement, later this year, about a very new satellite offering that will provide far greater speeds than would have been envisaged up to now.’

http://www.southernstar.ie/news/roundup/articles/2017/09/14/4145701-ireland-could-lead-world-in-broadband-says-minister/

And how is sattelite "bb" in any way relevant to the NBS minister ?

westyIrl

wexfordman2 wrote: »

And how is sattelite "bb" in any way relevant to the NBS minister ?

Any available positive sound bite is made relevant very fast.

‘We are bringing high speed broadband to every single premises in the country – this has not been contemplated by any other country in the world.’

He could have easily and more accurately said: They (and I assume he's talking about his department) haven't brought broadband to a single person yet under NBP. Yes, he'll claim credit. It's not helpful or healthy to overstate as such.

ED E

wexfordman2 wrote: »

And how is sattelite "bb" in any way relevant to the NBS minister ?

*NBS is old and discontinued, just for clarity sake. This is the NBP.

tsue921i8wljb3

westyIrl wrote: »

Any available positive sound bite is made relevant very fast.

‘We are bringing high speed broadband to every single premises in the country – this has not been contemplated by any other country in the world.’

He could have easily and more accurately said: They (and I assume he's talking about his department) haven't brought broadband to a single person yet under NBP. Yes, he'll claim credit. It's not helpful or healthy to overstate as such.

There is something of the Chicken and Egg scenario though. Would eir be connecting 300,000 rural homes to fibre, would SIRO exist, would enet be signing a deal to connect 115,000 premises if the NBP process did not happen?

westyIrl

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

There is something of the Chicken and Egg scenario though. Would eir be connecting 300,000 rural homes to fibre, would SIRO exist, would enet be signing a deal to connect 115,000 premises if the NBP process did not happen?

I actually agree. I have no doubt whatsoever that only for NBP & SIRO (especially) we would have no FTTH roll out by Eir who in such a scenario would be still sitting on their hands waiting for a cheque to be signed by gov. I just think that claiming credit for the effects of the carrot on a stick is a bit rich. Thank Eir who's rolling if anyone. The only direct thing they have achieved so far is oversight/mapping and the contract that attempts to oblige Eir to complete.

They'll have plenty opportunities so set themselves up for credit claiming once the NBP is rolling, but only then.

wellboss

Hi Guys,

Quick question regarding the NBP, sorry if it's already covered but I cant find it in the threads.

Looking at the map for the NPB I am in the amber areas that is to be covered by the government intervention, when ever that will happen.But its bugging me as to what technology they intend to use to cover these areas?, too rural/Far from exchange for FTTC/Vdsl ?, and outside the commercial FTTH rollout.

Hope somebody can help

Johnboy1951

wellboss wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Quick question regarding the NBP, sorry if it's already covered but I cant find it in the threads.

Looking at the map for the NPB I am in the amber areas that is to be covered by the government intervention, when ever that will happen.But its bugging me as to what technology they intend to use to cover these areas?, too rural/Far from exchange for FTTC/Vdsl ?, and outside the commercial FTTH rollout.

Hope somebody can help

That is up to whoever wins the contracts ....... the service must be up to the standard laid down.
At present that is 30Mb/s down and 6Mb/s up, minimum.

There are likely other requirements in the contracts also which ensure the service can be upgraded in the future, to provide the new minimum service requirements, whenever they might issue.

wellboss

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That is up to whoever wins the contracts ....... the service must be up to the standard laid down.
At present that is 30Mb/s down and 6Mb/s up, minimum.

There are likely other requirements in the contracts also which ensure the service can be upgraded in the future, to provide the new minimum service requirements, whenever they might issue.

Cheers,

What current technological options would enable these speeds with future upgrades possible?

Johnboy1951

wellboss wrote: »

Cheers,

What current technological options would enable these speeds with future upgrades possible?

Most of us believe that fibre is the only real option.

But other technologies that can manage the present standard are likely to be capable of being upgraded for new standards when they arise.
Whether or not that upgrade path materialises and whether or not it will be financially viable is of course unknown at this time.

ED E

wellboss wrote: »

What current technological options would enable these speeds with future upgrades possible?

Sensible: You get GPON (FTTH)

Totally Stupid: You get some kind of FWA/LTE solution

We hope the DECNR arent stupid.

BandMember

ED E wrote: »

Sensible: You get GPON (FTTH)

Totally Stupid: You get some kind of FWA/LTE solution

We hope the DECNR arent stupid.

I honestly believe that they have learned their lesson from the fiasco that was the NBS and we'll be getting FTTH. All the talk has been about future proofing and fibre. Makes sense or else we'll be back here again in a couple of years time....