NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

tsue921i8wljb3

Gonzo wrote: »

so Sky may become a reseller of OpenEir's FTTH?

If so that should mean we'll finally be getting an unlimited data FTTH provider!.

May. I've no more information than was in the articles. It took them a while to resell FTTC, waiting until people were out of contracts.

KOR101

Gonzo wrote: »

so Sky may become a reseller of OpenEir's FTTH?

If so that should mean we'll finally be getting an unlimited data FTTH provider!.

Sky is a mass market operator so it may be a while yet, but it's only a matter of time.

turbbo

Gonzo wrote: »

Ireland has a long way to go to get a decent broadband speed ranking. As of August 2017 we are 36th in the world, falling well below the United Kingdom and United States as well as many European countries.

Eir keep talking about placing Ireland in the front of the line of the broadband speed race but we have a huge way to go. It's gonna take alot more than 300,000 rural homes and the NBP for Ireland to leapfrog all these countries. Even in urban areas, FTTC speeds of 7-100 megs are not enough.

http://www.speedtest.net/global-index#

Eir - a rotten(no investment in the last 30 years - regressive line rental fees all around) company that should have been ignored in the rollout of fibre in ireland now are the only company allowed to do it.

ED E

turbbo wrote: »

Eir - a rotten(no investment in the last 30 years - regressive line rental fees all around) company that should have been ignored in the rollout of fibre in ireland now are the only company allowed to do it.

Missing the mark quite significantly there.

turbbo

ED E wrote: »

Missing the mark quite significantly there.

Oh please elaborate?:rolleyes:

ED E

turbbo wrote: »

Oh please elaborate?:rolleyes:

Comparing Eircom of 30yr ago to today is flawed. Not the same organization.

The company was asset stripped three times, now they're fluid and selling off redundant sites to free up cash. The unionised stranglehold is gone (aged out).

Line rental - Everyone gets their knickers in a twist over that, line rental was only the name. Politics of the USO. People get annoyed seeing line rental when they only want broadband but the copper has to get to your house, thats the cost. They just werent able to say BB €44, Phone €1 on the price sheet.

turbbo

ED E wrote: »

Comparing Eircom of 30yr ago to today is flawed. Not the same organization.

The company was asset stripped three times, now they're fluid and selling off redundant sites to free up cash. The unionised stranglehold is gone (aged out).

Still pulling strokes in 2017 with regards to the NBP and scaring off real competition.

ED E wrote: »

Line rental - Everyone gets their knickers in a twist over that, line rental was only the name. Politics of the USO. People get annoyed seeing line rental when they only want broadband but the copper has to get to your house, thats the cost. They just werent able to say BB €44, Phone €1 on the price sheet.

So they should(gets their knickers in a twist) the problem is not as simple as how the bill is itemised the problem is that all the ISPs that piggy back on Eirs network are not allowed to keep any of that "line rental" for themselves, that is the charge that Eir impose on them to use their lines. So that is a guaranteed income for Eir - and yes they should get something but the extortionate line rental is the problem and the main reason people have moved away from fixed line services in Ireland.

Edit: They still treat their customers like dirt.

ED E

turbbo wrote: »

Still pulling strokes in 2017 with regards to the NBP and scaring off real competition.

So they should(gets their knickers in a twist) the problem is not as simple as how the bill is itemised the problem is that all the ISPs that piggy back on Eirs network are not allowed to keep any of that "line rental" for themselves, that is the charge that Eir impose on them to use their lines. So that is a guaranteed income for Eir - and yes they should get something but the extortionate line rental is the problem and the main reason people have moved away from fixed line services in Ireland.

Edit: They still treat their customers like dirt.

They're a business, if Vodafone had the chance they'd do the very same.



Rubbish. The costs are weighted towards the last mile provider. Maintaining millions of KM of copper isnt cheap. The retailers only need to provide CS, AAAA, Peering, advertising. A relatively tiny segment.

You complain about OpenEir not investing in infrastructure then complain about them securing funding for said? :rolleyes:

Gonzo

OpenEir have invested heavily into the network since 2012. Most of Ireland would still be on ADSL2+ if it wasn't for this investment because Virgin Media mainly cover cities and large towns and Siro only cover segments of certain towns. OpenEir are also the only ones currently expanding into rural areas which were previously very poorly served or not at all.

This investment is going to go on for at least another 10 to 15 years, not just for the 300k rural homes and NBP, but also the urban areas with FTTC. FTTC in it's current form isn't going to stay cutting edge for much longer and all this will need a serious upgrade.

9726_9726

plodder wrote: »

I still don't see how that follows. The subsidy per home will rise probably, but there are 300,000 fewer homes needing a subsidy now. So, I don't see how that means the overall cost will rise.

There was also a longish discussion about the NBP on Marian Finucane's program yesterday. Adrian Weckler was there, but the rest of the panel hadn't a clue. Someone even said the reason why rural broadband is slow, is because the signal 'has to be split so many times'.

Honestly when any tech-related item comes on mainstream radio, I just turn it off. Helps me to avoid wanting to smash the radio, I find.

turbbo

ED E wrote: »

They're a business, if Vodafone had the chance they'd do the very same.



Rubbish. The costs are weighted towards the last mile provider. Maintaining millions of KM of copper isnt cheap. The retailers only need to provide CS, AAAA, Peering, advertising. A relatively tiny segment.

You complain about OpenEir not investing in infrastructure then complain about them securing funding for said? :rolleyes:

Why would I listen to you? Your footer is calling to "Disband the Gardaí" which is complete twoddle.
:rolleyes:

KOR101

This is getting serious now........

Why I have said that the scheme will be predominantly fibre is as follows. The only way to future-proof the network for 25 years is to roll out fibre. There is no way to future-proof it for 25 years except by using fibre. I suspect the majority of the 342,000 homes will be a fibre solution, but technology is changing. In fact, in one particular town a process is being piloted that involves fibre to the gate and a wireless connection into the home. That means the last 50 metres or 100 metres connection would use new wireless technology. To answer the Deputy's question, I expect that well over half the 342,000 homes would have pure fibre outside their gates.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-09-27a.238&s=national+broadband+plan#g332

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

This is getting serious now........

Why I have said that the scheme will be predominantly fibre is as follows. The only way to future-proof the network for 25 years is to roll out fibre. There is no way to future-proof it for 25 years except by using fibre. I suspect the majority of the 342,000 homes will be a fibre solution, but technology is changing. In fact, in one particular town a process is being piloted that involves fibre to the gate and a wireless connection into the home. That means the last 50 metres or 100 metres connection would use new wireless technology. To answer the Deputy's question, I expect that well over half the 342,000 homes would have pure fibre outside their gates.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-09-27a.238&s=national+broadband+plan#g332

Looks like Eamon Ryan caught him off guard and he got his figures wrong. What is the 342,000 referring to? Did he mean 842,000?

Then he says:

At this time, 900,000 premises across provincial towns and rural Ireland get pure fibre outside their doors.

This is also incorrect unless he is mistakenly referring to FTTC as "outside their doors".

rob808

KOR101 wrote: »

This is getting serious now........

Why I have said that the scheme will be predominantly fibre is as follows. The only way to future-proof the network for 25 years is to roll out fibre. There is no way to future-proof it for 25 years except by using fibre. I suspect the majority of the 342,000 homes will be a fibre solution, but technology is changing. In fact, in one particular town a process is being piloted that involves fibre to the gate and a wireless connection into the home. That means the last 50 metres or 100 metres connection would use new wireless technology. To answer the Deputy's question, I expect that well over half the 342,000 homes would have pure fibre outside their gates.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-09-27a.238&s=national+broadband+plan#g332

it 542,000 homes maybe it a typo or he doesn't know number of houses in NBP.

SkepticQuark

KOR101 wrote: »

This is getting serious now........

Why I have said that the scheme will be predominantly fibre is as follows. The only way to future-proof the network for 25 years is to roll out fibre. There is no way to future-proof it for 25 years except by using fibre. I suspect the majority of the 342,000 homes will be a fibre solution, but technology is changing. In fact, in one particular town a process is being piloted that involves fibre to the gate and a wireless connection into the home. That means the last 50 metres or 100 metres connection would use new wireless technology. To answer the Deputy's question, I expect that well over half the 342,000 homes would have pure fibre outside their gates.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2017-09-27a.238&s=national+broadband+plan#g332

That just sounds like such a lazy arse way of doing things.... They shouldn't be allowed to use that for houses literally right next to the road. Fair enough if you are a good few hundred metres off but even then I'd hope they give the homeowner the option to maybe pay for that last stretch or something.

Trust them to find a way to wiggle out of getting fibre from the pole to the home....

Also "As I have always done up to now, I have used conservative estimates because I do not know what is in the Department's filing cabinet." he doesn't even know what his department is doing??? Sounds like he was elected to lead not to read then....

Johnboy1951

I would imagine anyone who applied for a fibre connection and failed to have a clear duct for the provider to use would be very glad of a short high speed wireless connection for a couple of years or until they provided a duct through which the fibre could be run.

Personally I would not care if my connection to the fibre outside my gate was a wireless one or a fibre cable, provided the connection was as fast as I wanted, and as stable as a fibre cable.
It would certainly cover my needs for the next few years.

The rural electrification is being used as a comparison ........ we should remember that some years after the first connections were provided households had to upgrade their connection to the supply and the house wiring.

If a new broadband connection is good enough for a few years (150Mb/s) with the promise that an upgrade to the connection will be available when required, I would have no quibble with that.

KOR101

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Looks like Eamon Ryan caught him off guard and he got his figures wrong. What is the 342,000 referring to? Did he mean 842,000?

Then he says:



This is also incorrect unless he is mistakenly referring to FTTC as "outside their doors".

I think he means the 542,00 NBP homes. He doesn't know what has been submitted but there is clearly something in the wind.

The Cush

KOR101 wrote: »

This is getting serious now........

Why I have said that the scheme will be predominantly fibre is as follows. The only way to future-proof the network for 25 years is to roll out fibre. There is no way to future-proof it for 25 years except by using fibre. I suspect the majority of the 342,000 homes will be a fibre solution, but technology is changing. In fact, in one particular town a process is being piloted that involves fibre to the gate and a wireless connection into the home. That means the last 50 metres or 100 metres connection would use new wireless technology. To answer the Deputy's question, I expect that well over half the 342,000 homes would have pure fibre outside their gates.

Wireless from the gate will require a power supply of some sort, how will that work? Are we looking at some sort of local Wi-Fi?

ED E

The Cush wrote: »

Wireless from the gate will require a power supply of some sort, how will that work? Are we looking at some sort of local Wi-Fi?

And what spectrum? All the overheads of licensed spectrum management or use 2.4/5 and be mired with interference issues?

Bah humbug.

rob808

The Cush wrote: »

Wireless from the gate will require a power supply of some sort, how will that work? Are we looking at some sort of local Wi-Fi?

I wonder would it be something like G.fast that requires a small amount of power with reverse power feeds.

plodder

The Cush wrote: »

Wireless from the gate will require a power supply of some sort, how will that work? Are we looking at some sort of local Wi-Fi?

Can't see how it would work.

The Cush

rob808 wrote: »

I wonder would it be something like G.fast that requires a small amount of power with reverse power feeds.

Isn't G.Fast over short distance copper?

ED E

The Cush wrote: »

Isn't G.Fast over short distance copper?

Yeah, its not wireless.


Just shows aul Denis doesnt know his arse from his elbow when it comes to networking.

TomOnBoard

ED E wrote: »

Yeah, its not wireless.


Just shows aul Denis doesnt know his arse from his elbow when it comes to networking.

Political networking - YES...
Communications networking - NO...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just added the rolleyes as everyone seems to be at it today.... :P

Johnboy1951

The Cush wrote: »

Isn't G.Fast over short distance copper?

ED E wrote: »

Yeah, its not wireless.


Just shows aul Denis doesnt know his arse from his elbow when it comes to networking.

But Denis didn't mention G.Fast

Gonzo

The Cush wrote: »

Wireless from the gate will require a power supply of some sort, how will that work? Are we looking at some sort of local Wi-Fi?

I can't believe i'm reading this. Fibre along roads and then wireless to each house. Anything to save a bit of money. What happens if GPON get's upgraded later on to much faster speeds,how will customers connecting wirelessly take advantage of the faster speeds?

Even with fibre coming into my home, if I connect to it wirelessly, speeds fall off a cliff very quickly as I walk away from the F2000. Wireless is never good, at least provide a fixed connection to each home so that the customer can take advantage of the maximum speed of the connection available to them.

The Cush

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

But Denis didn't mention G.Fast

No, but rob808 did

oscarBravo

I'd love to know where the idea is coming from that wireless from the gate would be cheaper. Think about it: fibre to the home involves fibre from a pole or chamber to the gate, through a duct (or overhead) and into the house to an ONT. Wireless from the gate involves fibre from a pole or chamber to an ONT at the gate, a wireless base station of some kind at the gate, and a wireless client at the house.

Saving: a few metres of fibre. Cost: wireless equipment.

On what planet is that cheaper?

I'm blue in the face saying it: the last few percent of houses that will be hard to reach with fibre will be harder to reach with wireless, and fibre at least has the virtue of being futureproof.

The Cush

Anyone know if Huawei are testing a wireless solution, the 2.6GHz band is vacant at the moment, what about the 26 and 42 GHz bands?

ED E

OB: You'll know, which US MNO trialled an access network using one femtocell for every 5-8 dwellings? My Google Fu is weak tonight.

oscarBravo

ED E wrote: »

OB: You'll know, which US MNO trialled an access network using one femtocell for every 5-8 dwellings? My Google Fu is weak tonight.

I actually don't, but my point stands: consider the price of an LTE femtocell and 8 CPEs, versus an 8:1 PON splitter, 8 ONTs and a few hundred metres of fibre.

ED E

Agreed, just wondering where he pulled it from.

dashoonage

ED E wrote: »

Agreed, just wondering where he pulled it from.

his arse.

tsue921i8wljb3

Just remember that this is coming from someone that does not have a technical qualification or background. I would be very wary of taking his claims seriously until we get more concrete information on the bidders plans.

plodder

Maybe cost isn't the main issue, rather Naughton's having promised us all high speed bb tomorrow (or yesterday as he said in that Dail reply). Said it before, that fibre will sooner or later be deployed everywhere in this country. But, the failure rate from Openeir installs suggests that it's getting in the way of Naughton's promise, and will take many years to realise. Obviously, cost can't be ignored either, and it's hard to see anyone wanting to pay for a huge network of LTE pico/femtocells only to be thrown away when fibre can be installed.

KOR101

Remember there is also that talk about satellite.

oscarBravo

I'm not convinced the failure rate of installs has any impact on the project, to be honest. The criterion is premises passed, and if there's an active DP with your eircode on it, your home is passed. If your duct is blocked within your premises, that's your problem.

I'm not saying I agree with that philosophy; just that it's not a reason to faff around with dumbass wireless solutions when fibre makes more sense on every conceivable level.

turbbo

ED E wrote: »

Yeah, its not wireless.


Just shows aul Denis doesnt know his arse from his elbow when it comes to networking.

More worryingly - Dennis doesn't know how to count either.
Fibre To The Gate - a first in the world is it Dennis?
I wouldn't listen to a word he has to say anymore as most of it is complete $hite.

plodder

Fibre to the gate is complete nonsense. It doesn't exist and never will. The tradeoff between wireless and fibre is more complicated. Most people want fibre, but are they prepared to wait? Is Denis prepared to wait? Some people don't care whether it's fibre or wireless so long as they have something that works.

turbbo

plodder wrote: »

Fibre to the gate is complete nonsense. It doesn't exist and never will. The tradeoff between wireless and fibre is more complicated. Most people want fibre, but are they prepared to wait? Is Denis prepared to wait? Some people don't care whether it's fibre or wireless so long as they have something that works.

It's such obvious muck that I'm surprised anybody is taking it seriously.
Think about it...
They will invest millions bringing fibre to the curb all across the country but then not bother for the last few meters - why because they couldn't be arsed. And then use an overly complicated means of covering the last few meters only to have a far worse and more unreliable service. Yeah its muck coming from a muck spreader. Should muzzle him from now on.

listermint

Take the apple money contract out Statewide BB fibre and do it, then go after renewables with the remaining money. This may set the bed for movement of industries outside the City Centres. Data centres next to power generation and high speed connections . Houses next to jobs.

NBP is a snail, its a snail that has all but crawled to a full stop.

turbbo

I've been more and more disappointed with Denis Naughten since he was appointed.
I started off being optimistic thinking well at least he's an independent he might shake things up a bit.
Boy was I wrong.

Gonzo

Fibre to the gate and then wireless from there to the home just sounds crazy. It would be like building a motorway from one big city to another and ending the motorway 20 km before the destination and then a 2 lane dirt track to complete the journey.

FTTH all the way into the home is the only solution that works for 95% of rural areas. Wireless has too many problems associated with it.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

The tradeoff between wireless and fibre is more complicated. Most people want fibre, but are they prepared to wait?

As always I'm risking boring people to death with repetition, but: you're continuing to make the mistake of thinking that universal wireless coverage is easier and quicker than universal fibre coverage, and that's an assumption that needs to be challenged every time it rears its head.

It's fairly easy to roll out a widespread wireless service that doesn't cover everyone and doesn't provide a true next-generation broadband service. How do we know? Because it's already being done.

It's hard - and I'd venture to suggest impossible - to roll out a wireless service that covers everyone and provides a true next-generation broadband service. How do we know? Because it isn't being done.

Wireless is not a long-term answer. Wireless is not a short-term fix. We need to get everyone involved to shut up about wireless and roll out a goddamn fibre network already.

turbbo

Gonzo wrote: »

Fibre to the gate and then wireless from there to the home just sounds crazy. It would be like building a motorway from one big city to another and ending the motorway 20 km before the destination and then a 2 lane dirt track to complete the journey.

FTTH all the way into the home is the only solution that works for 95% of rural areas. Wireless has too many problems associated with it.

Hate the term but it literally is "fake news".

plodder

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always I'm risking boring people to death with repetition, but: you're continuing to make the mistake of thinking that universal wireless coverage is easier and quicker than universal fibre coverage, and that's an assumption that needs to be challenged every time it rears its head.

I never said anything about universal wireless coverage.

It's fairly easy to roll out a widespread wireless service that doesn't cover everyone and doesn't provide a true next-generation broadband service. How do we know? Because it's already being done.

It's hard - and I'd venture to suggest impossible - to roll out a wireless service that covers everyone and provides a true next-generation broadband service. How do we know? Because it isn't being done.

Wireless is not a long-term answer. Wireless is not a short-term fix. We need to get everyone involved to shut up about wireless and roll out a goddamn fibre network already.

Agreed. wireless is not a solution universally short or long term, or as a long term solution in any event. The question is if it could be a short term fix in some circumstances.... and I don't know the answer, but I suspect it's a question the Dept. are asking.

If it's gung-ho for fibre everywhere, then people need to start getting real about when it's going to be done.

Persiancowboy

All the discussion in recent posts about the technology to be used in the NBP is missing one vital point: the department will not be determining the technology to be used. The spec they issued sets out clearly that proposed solutions from bidders must be future-proofed...it also has this provision about a download minimum of 30mbps.

It is a matter for each of the 2 remaining bidders to put forward the technology solution that they believe will best meet the criteria set out by the Dept.

Presumably, in the evaluation process, while price is a major factor, technological solutions, future proofing and speed of deployment will also be major determinants of who ultimately wins.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the State Aid Guidelines specifically refer to the need for a "step-change" in terms of quality and resilience of any infrastructure funded from public money....therefore as part of the obligatory State Aid process, Dept will have to convince EU Commission that the intervention is delivering this "step-change".

As I said in a previous post, it is a matter of some concern that the likes of Carol Ann Lennon in eir is talking about non-fibre solutions for an increasing % of premises...this was always likely to be the case in a very small number of difficult to reach buildings but worry now is that with the departure of SIRO eir will feel more confident about claiming a higher % of premises will need to be thus treated.

If you're Pascal Donohoe and you're being asked to fund a large part of this capital investment you will surely want an assurance that if the State pays now it will be for a network that will stand the test of time and that we are all not back here again in a few years time arguing for the need for a further intervention because this one didnt provide the necessary resilience to deal with future increased consumer demand and technological developments.

listermint

Persiancowboy wrote: »

All the discussion in recent posts about the technology to be used in the NBP is missing one vital point: the department will not be determining the technology to be used. The spec they issued sets out clearly that proposed solutions from bidders must be future-proofed...it also has this provision about a download minimum of 30mbps.

It is a matter for each of the 2 remaining bidders to put forward the technology solution that they believe will best meet the criteria set out by the Dept.

Presumably, in the evaluation process, while price is a major factor, technological solutions, future proofing and speed of deployment will also be major determinants of who ultimately wins.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the State Aid Guidelines specifically refer to the need for a "step-change" in terms of quality and resilience of any infrastructure funded from public money....therefore as part of the obligatory State Aid process, Dept will have to convince EU Commission that the intervention is delivering this "step-change".

As I said in a previous post, it is a matter of some concern that the likes of Carol Ann Lennon in eir is talking about non-fibre solutions for an increasing % of premises...this was always likely to be the case in a very small number of difficult to reach buildings but worry now is that with the departure of SIRO eir will feel more confident about claiming a higher % of premises will need to be thus treated.

If you're Pascal Donohoe and you're being asked to fund a large part of this capital investment you will surely want an assurance that if the State pays now it will be for a network that will stand the test of time and that we are all not back here again in a few years time arguing for the need for a further intervention because this one didnt provide the necessary resilience to deal with future increased consumer demand and technological developments.

Id put money down that any minister in the current fold could be talked around into thinking anything that was put before them was a step change.

I dont see any of them holding any notions otherwise as if they had the where withall to question seasoned experts from the private sector who are effectively trying to sell them a service.

oscarBravo

plodder wrote: »

If it's gung-ho for fibre everywhere, then people need to start getting real about when it's going to be done.

Gah, you're still doing it. Implicit in what you say is the idea that wireless NGA can be done more quickly than fibre NGA.

People seem to have this idea that a fibre-equivalent technology can be quickly and affordably deployed in areas where fibre is difficult. I'd love to know where those areas are, because I can't think of a single place in Mayo that would be easier to cover wirelessly than via fibre - unless you're going to cheat and call LTE fibre-equivalent, in which case we might as well just revive the NBS and have done with it.

turbbo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Gah, you're still doing it. Implicit in what you say is the idea that wireless NGA can be done more quickly than fibre NGA.

People seem to have this idea that a fibre-equivalent technology can be quickly and affordably deployed in areas where fibre is difficult. I'd love to know where those areas are, because I can't think of a single place in Mayo that would be easier to cover wirelessly than via fibre - unless you're going to cheat and call LTE fibre-equivalent, in which case we might as well just revive the NBS and have done with it.

100% agree - the problem is the politicians mainly Naughten has been allowed to speak. Maybe talk to somebody in the dept. that's actually calling the shots. Because "wire to the gate" this morning gave me a good chuckle.