NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

oscarBravo

kazoo106 wrote: »

Yes - I agree to a point, but every technology has its place - it would be far less expensive to run a point to point link to that distant boreen than have Alex White out with his shovel (like what was said in 2015)

Would it, though? I mean, sure: if you carefully ignore everything except an up-front price tag, it looks cheaper to do some things wirelessly. But if you're building infrastructure, then you have to look at the longer term.

If you send Alex White out with a shovel - or, more realistically, send KN or Actavo out with a JCB - and bring fibre to that "distant boreen", you have infrastructure that can handle literally petabytes per second, with nothing other than a swap-out of the optics at either end.

If you try to deliver even a gigabit wirelessly - assuming you have line of sight to that distant boreen in the first place, which is a blithe assumption that's made way too often in these discussions - you need planning permission for the transmission towers at each end; you need orders of magnitude more power to transmit the data; you're vulnerable to adverse weather; and your upgrade path involves completely replacing the entire kit and caboodle at both ends, often for relatively marginal gains in capacity.

Thought experiment for anyone who thinks that wireless is an adequate replacement for fibre: contact Amazon or Google, and suggest that they not bother running fibre to their next data centre, but just stick a few wireless antennae on the roof instead.

Let us know how you get on.

fergus1001

Former minister for communications saying gigawatts/s yesterday lololol

turbbo

fergus1001 wrote: »

Former minister for communications saying gigawatts/s yesterday lololol

That was my inspiration/point. Most people haven't got a clue including Eamonn Ryan - so asking them if they are they happy with 35mbs - invariably they will say yes. Fast forward 2/3 years later to the same people - "ah jaysis whats wrong with the BB can't even stream the match"

kazoo106

Run a fibre "Pair" to that farmhouse and yes yes all the way

turbanator

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I've made a living on designing and building WAN networks, wireless and wired. The recent announcement of Eir pulling out of the NBP is a significant set back for Ireland and is going to delay the government fibre roll out .... that's a bummer! But what do we do in the meantime?

I completely agree with @kazoo106. Wireless when done right, with the right technology is extremely effective, even in a busy/noisy frequency spectrum. I have been involved in project delivering up to 250Mbps to end users using PtMP technology which works up to 20km from the base station. Connectivity is flawless and for want of a better comparison ..... equaly to fibre performance and guess what .... no shovel needed!

Yes wireless has LoS concerns with trees and geographical constraints, but we have the same with fibre too!!! I was delighted when I heard that my own house was in a FTTH area but when I had KN call out, they couldn't install because of .... yes, a LoS issue with trees that were not on my property as in order to run fibre, they need clear LoS!!! In addition to that, my duct was blocked.

However guess what ... I have a 50Mbps wireless service into my house of 5 very heavy users and my average is 1Mbps throughout the day. We are able to us VoIP, Netflix, IPTV on multiple TVs, etc, etc!

So while I would never say Wireless is better than Fibre, I would say it is on par with fibre (once done correctly) and lower cost to deploy/operate. Wireless is here to stay and a great way to get disadvantaged areas or failed FTTH locations online with good speeds which will also bridge the gap until fibre is available. In my professional experience, very few people switch from 'good' wireless to fibre!!!

tsue921i8wljb3

kazoo106 wrote: »

Run a fibre "Pair" to that farmhouse and yes yes all the way

What about the evolution of GPON? We have seen SIRO already trialling XGS-PON.

turbbo

turbanator wrote: »

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I've made a living on designing and building WAN networks, wireless and wired. The recent announcement of Eir pulling out of the NBP is a significant set back for Ireland and is going to delay the government fibre roll out .... that's a bummer! But what do we do in the meantime?

I completely agree with @kazoo106. Wireless when done right, with the right technology is extremely effective, even in a busy/noisy frequency spectrum. I have been involved in project delivering up to 250Mbps to end users using PtMP technology which works up to 20km from the base station. Connectivity is flawless and for want of a better comparison ..... equaly to fibre performance and guess what .... no shovel needed!

Yes wireless has LoS concerns with trees and geographical constraints, but we have the same with fibre too!!! I was delighted when I heard that my own house was in a FTTH area but when I had KN call out, they couldn't install because of .... yes, a LoS issue with trees that were not on my property as in order to run fibre, they need clear LoS!!! In addition to that, my duct was blocked.

However guess what ... I have a 50Mbps wireless service into my house of 5 very heavy users and my average is 1Mbps throughout the day. We are able to us VoIP, Netflix, IPTV on multiple TVs, etc, etc!

So while I would never say Wireless is better than Fibre, I would say it is on par with fibre (once done correctly) and lower cost to deploy/operate. Wireless is here to stay and a great way to get disadvantaged areas or failed FTTH locations online with good speeds which will also bridge the gap until fibre is available. In my professional experience, very few people switch from 'good' wireless to fibre!!!

Why go for the best technology when you can go for the 2nd best. - I suggest you re read ED E's post from earlier. :P

Pique

Discussion coming up on Pat Kenny now.

SkepticQuark

Pique wrote: »

Discussion coming up on Pat Kenny now.

"Ah shur won't 5G do them?" "But can't they just move to cities?" "But should we subsidise the cost for rural broadband?" "Satellite and wireless is the way to go."

If any of those usual talking points come up I think I'm done with people's ignorance on the issue.

We could really use with politicians and media that are actually passionate and knowledgeable about technology in general, too many dinosaurs about these days making decisions and influencing people.

shigllgetcha

turbanator wrote: »

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I just dont think the government can be trusted to enforce the operators to provide a good service that doesnt end up getting congested and the operators certainly cant, especially in rural areas where there are little or no alternatives.

turbbo

shigllgetcha wrote: »

I just dont think the government can be trusted to enforce the operators to provide a good service that doesnt end up getting congested and the operators certainly cant, especially in rural areas where there are little or no alternatives.

In a perfect world what would happen now -
1. Scrap the existing NBP completely.

2. The ESB should be made roll out fibre to the whole country. - This would involve a state funded plan with costings broken down and explained clearly.

3. Sack all of the dept of comms & comreg and start over again clean, with a new dept made up of people with degrees in science and technology. And a new regulatory body that can be watched very closely and audited regularly.

ED E

turbanator wrote: »

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I've made a living on designing and building WAN networks, wireless and wired. The recent announcement of Eir pulling out of the NBP is a significant set back for Ireland and is going to delay the government fibre roll out .... that's a bummer! But what do we do in the meantime?

I completely agree with @kazoo106. Wireless when done right, with the right technology is extremely effective, even in a busy/noisy frequency spectrum. I have been involved in project delivering up to 250Mbps to end users using PtMP technology which works up to 20km from the base station. Connectivity is flawless and for want of a better comparison ..... equaly to fibre performance and guess what .... no shovel needed!

Yes wireless has LoS concerns with trees and geographical constraints, but we have the same with fibre too!!! I was delighted when I heard that my own house was in a FTTH area but when I had KN call out, they couldn't install because of .... yes, a LoS issue with trees that were not on my property as in order to run fibre, they need clear LoS!!! In addition to that, my duct was blocked.

However guess what ... I have a 50Mbps wireless service into my house of 5 very heavy users and my average is 1Mbps throughout the day. We are able to us VoIP, Netflix, IPTV on multiple TVs, etc, etc!

So while I would never say Wireless is better than Fibre, I would say it is on par with fibre (once done correctly) and lower cost to deploy/operate. Wireless is here to stay and a great way to get disadvantaged areas or failed FTTH locations online with good speeds which will also bridge the gap until fibre is available. In my professional experience, very few people switch from 'good' wireless to fibre!!!

You know yourself though, wireless can fill gaps only. 250Mbps to end users is fine when you want to serve 10% of the population in a given large area (20km radius). When you want to server 90% of it though the spectrum requirements make that impossible.


The NPB isnt a gap filling scheme. If it ever goes anywhere its to be a mass uptake near-complete coverage scheme that cannot be fulfilled with a set of 2.6 and 3.6Ghz radios on high sites every 50km.

rodge123

turbanator wrote: »

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I've made a living on designing and building WAN networks, wireless and wired. The recent announcement of Eir pulling out of the NBP is a significant set back for Ireland and is going to delay the government fibre roll out .... that's a bummer! But what do we do in the meantime?

I completely agree with @kazoo106. Wireless when done right, with the right technology is extremely effective, even in a busy/noisy frequency spectrum. I have been involved in project delivering up to 250Mbps to end users using PtMP technology which works up to 20km from the base station. Connectivity is flawless and for want of a better comparison ..... equaly to fibre performance and guess what .... no shovel needed!

Yes wireless has LoS concerns with trees and geographical constraints, but we have the same with fibre too!!! I was delighted when I heard that my own house was in a FTTH area but when I had KN call out, they couldn't install because of .... yes, a LoS issue with trees that were not on my property as in order to run fibre, they need clear LoS!!! In addition to that, my duct was blocked.

However guess what ... I have a 50Mbps wireless service into my house of 5 very heavy users and my average is 1Mbps throughout the day. We are able to us VoIP, Netflix, IPTV on multiple TVs, etc, etc!

So while I would never say Wireless is better than Fibre, I would say it is on par with fibre (once done correctly) and lower cost to deploy/operate. Wireless is here to stay and a great way to get disadvantaged areas or failed FTTH locations online with good speeds which will also bridge the gap until fibre is available. In my professional experience, very few people switch from 'good' wireless to fibre!!!

Take a quick look at the Imagine thread and you will discover countless examples of how wireless in implemented in the real world!
They clearly can't make a profit without subscribing too many people to the masts.
I'm one of those on a congested mast getting max 10Mb/2Mb at peak hours!
Thats with a data cap of 20Gb per day....pathetic when you consider HD steaming is now common place and 4k will soon be the standard (18Gb for a film download on sky).

Marlow

rodge123 wrote: »

They clearly can't make a profit without subscribing too many people to the masts.

Let me correct you: "They can't make as much of a profit, as they want to".

A service, like what Imagine is doing can most certainly be deployed with decent speeds and still make a profit. It would just not be quite that high.

There's wireless technology out there, that is capable of aggregated 750 Mbit/s per sector with max 200 Mbit/s per customer (PtMP) on a 10 km distance.

Said technology exists in a more affordable version, where the sector has aggregated 250 Mbit/s and the consumers have 25 or 50 Mbit/s. Low latency and all.

The client hardware is identical (from 25 Mbit/s to 200 Mbit/s) .. just a matter of replacing the sector and buying licenses for the clients to upgrade to the bigger version.

A few providers are using this now in select areas .. (Net1, BBNet, Airwire come to mind).

It's used to compete with VDSL areas, where there is enough density to fill up a sector and enough backhaul can be brought in to feed this sectors properly.

And it makes sense, because you don't have to give OpenEIR a chunk every month while delivering more speed than some of the crap VDSL lines, that only do 12, 15, 25 or maybe 30 Mbit/s.

But there is no PtMP wireless technology that effectively can compete with GPON or other fiber rollouts. Period.

Wireless remains an easy to roll out stop gap. It's not the final solution.

/M

Johnboy1951

turbanator wrote: »

Just came across this thread and had to get involved!

I've made a living on designing and building WAN networks, wireless and wired. The recent announcement of Eir pulling out of the NBP is a significant set back for Ireland and is going to delay the government fibre roll out .... that's a bummer! But what do we do in the meantime?

I completely agree with @kazoo106. Wireless when done right, with the right technology is extremely effective, even in a busy/noisy frequency spectrum. I have been involved in project delivering up to 250Mbps to end users using PtMP technology which works up to 20km from the base station. Connectivity is flawless and for want of a better comparison ..... equaly to fibre performance and guess what .... no shovel needed!

Yes wireless has LoS concerns with trees and geographical constraints, but we have the same with fibre too!!! I was delighted when I heard that my own house was in a FTTH area but when I had KN call out, they couldn't install because of .... yes, a LoS issue with trees that were not on my property as in order to run fibre, they need clear LoS!!! In addition to that, my duct was blocked.

However guess what ... I have a 50Mbps wireless service into my house of 5 very heavy users and my average is 1Mbps throughout the day. We are able to us VoIP, Netflix, IPTV on multiple TVs, etc, etc!

So while I would never say Wireless is better than Fibre, I would say it is on par with fibre (once done correctly) and lower cost to deploy/operate. Wireless is here to stay and a great way to get disadvantaged areas or failed FTTH locations online with good speeds which will also bridge the gap until fibre is available. In my professional experience, very few people switch from 'good' wireless to fibre!!!

Line of Sight required to run a fibre cable?

One of us is seriously confused.

Would you explain what you really mean? Thanks.

If, as I suspect, you mean that some tree cutting was required to allow them to string the fibre cable on particular poles, you are being very disingenuous.
They could take an alternate route, or bury the cable or get the interference removed.
LoS is not a requirement for running fibre cable.

Dev84

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Line of Sight required to run a fibre cable?

One of us is seriously confused.

Would you explain what you really mean? Thanks.

If, as I suspect, you mean that some tree cutting was required to allow them to string the fibre cable on particular poles, you are being very disingenuous.
They could take an alternate route, or bury the cable or get the interference removed.
LoS is not a requirement for running fibre cable.

No LOS is in no way an issue but cost is. Fibre cable is not cheap and running to homes is not cheap either. This coupled with the fact that they might spend tens of thousands in order to connect what would give them very little return I for one can understand the lack of take up by providers.

It's time that BB infrastructure was re-nationalised.

ednwireland

turbbo wrote: »

2. The ESB should be made roll out fibre to the whole country. - This would involve a state funded plan with costings broken down and explained clearly.

i suspect that cant be done under EU competition rules, i beleive you can only provide such a service where a private provider has actually refused to provide a service.

i could be wrong though

Marlow

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Line of Sight required to run a fibre cable?

One of us is seriously confused.

Would you explain what you really mean? Thanks.

If, as I suspect, you mean that some tree cutting was required to allow them to string the fibre cable on particular poles, you are being very disingenuous.
They could take an alternate route, or bury the cable or get the interference removed.
LoS is not a requirement for running fibre cable.

You didn't read between the lines. It's a joking reference to overhead runs of fiber cables ... that's at least the way I read it.

There's probably no LoS because trees are in the way of running an overhead span. Meaning .. like in a wireless scenario, trees have to be cut down to get fiber.

/M

turbbo

Dev84 wrote: »

No LOS is in no way an issue but cost is. Fibre cable is not cheap and running to homes is not cheap either. This coupled with the fact that they might spend tens of thousands in order to connect what would give them very little return I for one can understand the lack of take up by providers.

It's time that BB infrastructure was re-nationalised.

Wrong - fibre cable is cheap! In fact it's a lot cheaper than copper cable.

turbbo

ednwireland wrote: »

i suspect that cant be done under EU competition rules, i beleive you can only provide such a service where a private provider has actually refused to provide a service.

i could be wrong though

Perfect world.

Marlow

Dev84 wrote: »

Fibre cable is not cheap and running to homes is not cheap either.

turbbo wrote: »

Wrong - fibre cable is cheap!

Fiber cable is dead cheap. And the stuff, that OpenEIR is using to connect homes is flimsy as feck.

It's the civils and the labour to lay it, that is costly.

Re-nationalizing the last mile infrastructure won't do a thing either.

- Sure, the County Councils can't even maintain the roads properly.
- Comreg isn't interested in regulating OpenEIR properly.
- The Department of Comms can't even get a tendering process for the NBP right.

Would you trust them with rolling out and maintaining fiber technology on an ongoing basis ?

/M

turbbo

Marlow wrote: »

Fiber cable is dead cheap. And the stuff, that OpenEIR is using to connect homes is flimsy as feck.

It's the civils and the labour to lay it, that is costly.

/M

There is a misconception here that wireless is cheap - it's certainly one of the most expensive long term options. Wireless should be the icing on the cake the bit we get after we have a proper fixed line infrastructure - so that when you're driving in your car you can have internet - or out in your garden - these would seem like luxuries to me.

Marlow

turbbo wrote: »

There is a misconception here that wireless is cheap - it's certainly one of the most expensive long term options. Wireless should be the icing on the cake the bit we get after we have a proper fixed line infrastructure - so that when you're driving in your car you can have internet - or out in your garden - these would seem like luxuries to me.

Nobody has ever said that wireless is cheap.

The reason fixed wireless is so popular is that the process to build a network and connect customers is the less complicated. Hardware is not the only factor in the pricing. Nor is money. Time and trouble (planning etc.) also.

If you stick within the limitations of where no planning is needed for customer premises and use existing masts or build structures where little or no planning is needed you can build a network in no time and get the service out there.

Also, the hardware for a basic broadband service is very cheap these days. The technology where you can do 50-200 Mbit/s is quite expensive .. but compared to 10 years ago, it's the same price as what we paid for equipment that was used for 512kbit/s to 1 Mbit/s service back then.

The issue is, that the consumer won't pay the prices from back then (added inflation) anymore. A lot of families have cut back that spend to a minimum during the downturn, but yet expect a premium service. So it's often not feasable. Well .. or in some cases, the consumers pay the equivalent pricing, but the providers want to max their profits opposed to deliver a quality service

/M

turbbo

Marlow wrote: »

Nobody has ever said that wireless is cheap.

The reason fixed wireless is so popular is that the process to build a network and connect customers is the less complicated. Hardware is not the only factor in the pricing. Nor is money. Time and trouble (planning etc.) also.

If you stick within the limitations of where no planning is needed for customer premises and use existing masts or build structures where little or no planning is needed you can build a network in no time and get the service out there.

Also, the hardware for a basic broadband service is very cheap these days. The technology where you can do 50-200 Mbit/s is quite expensive .. but compared to 10 years ago, it's the same price as what we paid for equipment that was used for 512kbit/s to 1 Mbit/s service back then.

The issue is, that the consumer won't pay the prices from back then (added inflation) anymore. A lot of families have cut back that spend to a minimum during the downturn, but yet expect a premium service. So it's often not feasable. Well .. or in some cases, the consumers pay the equivalent pricing, but the providers want to max their profits opposed to deliver a quality service

/M

I'm looking at Eir who are certainly no charity company and they're managing to rollout to 300k rural homes - with a business case. Now I could see at least another 300k homes been covered by extending that fixed line cover. The last 240 we could probably look at fixed wireless but it would be very late stages and only where costs have been accurately compared - I'd be very dubious that wireless is in anyway a money saver.

oscarBravo

turbbo wrote: »

I'm looking at Eir who are certainly no charity company and they're managing to rollout to 300k rural homes - with a business case. Now I could see at least another 300k homes been covered by extending that fixed line cover. The last 240 we could probably look at fixed wireless but it would be very late stages and only where costs have been accurately compared - I'd be very dubious that wireless is in anyway a money saver.

And, as always, it's easy to wander into the trap of believing that the last few premises that are considered too remote to connect to fibre will somehow be easy to connect wirelessly.

As I've said before, every single premises (to a useful approximation) in the country has services delivered to it over wires. Not even close to all of them have mobile phone coverage, or even Saorview coverage - and Saorview, comparatively speaking, is easy.

kazoo106

There is nobody saying to scrap the current GPON deployments and replace with wireless - it does however make technical, financial and business sense to deliver the most difficult to reach one off developments by proper fixed wireless - yet again I have to be very careful because one particular company has screwed the word wireless south of the border for ever.
First they oversubscribed Alvarion VL Breeze - then Navini, then Motorola - and now they are doing similar with their TDD LTE
In the North BT are rolling out FTTC in rural areas - however this is not scaling very well where the first house could be over 1km from the (unvectored)cabinet - There is a Better Broadband UK scheme there on a case by case voucher scheme, where the customer applies for a voucher and if they cannot get above 2Meg on VDSL/ADSL they can get a subsidised wireless install, provided that operator gives above 15Meg.
This is happening now folks - in areas where there isn't even mobile coverage and where overspill from the South is relied upon just for mobile coverage.

user1842

If Enet pull out which I hope they do, all competition issues evaporate and the state can just mandate ESB networks to do it all. Sure it will cost a lot but it will get done and will be world class. We will own the network so no long term rental agreements with Eir that could cost a fortune for the state.

shigllgetcha

user1842 wrote: »

If Enet pull out which I hope they do, all competition issues evaporate and the state can just mandate ESB networks to do it all. Sure it will cost a lot but it will get done and will be world class. We will own the network so no long term rental agreements with Eir that could cost a fortune for the state.

If everyone pulls out I can see the can kicked another five years down the road to restart the process

Metric Tensor

I think it's only fair to give enet a shot at convincing the tender assessment panel* that they can do the job. They've committed to an expensive tender process from the start and apparently provided enough suitable information to have made it this far, plus they haven't dicked around like the other two by pulling out to make political capital or as part of an outside bargaining process. So far they have submitted a tender and are standing by it - more power to them if they are capable of doing a good job.


* We just have to hope that the panel assessing the tender know their stuff and aren't hoodwinked by some "half-solution".

user1842

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I think it's only fair to give enet a shot at convincing the tender assessment panel* that they can do the job. They've committed to an expensive tender process from the start and apparently provided enough suitable information to have made it this far, plus they haven't dicked around like the other two by pulling out to make political capital or as part of an outside bargaining process. So far they have submitted a tender and are standing by it - more power to them if they are capable of doing a good job.


* We just have to hope that the panel assessing the tender know their stuff and aren't hoodwinked by some "half-solution".

I think the panel now will be fully open to being hoodwinked - wireless all the way, satellites for everyone and bring on the balloons.

turbbo

user1842 wrote: »

I think the panel now will be fully open to being hoodwinked - wireless all the way, satellites for everyone and bring on the balloons.

Pigeons smoke signals anybody??

Metric Tensor

user1842 wrote: »

I think the panel now will be fully open to being hoodwinked

Or more likely will be politically instructed to be hoodwinked!

That's where the problem might occur - in order for Digital Denis to claim every house in the country has 75 Gigahoolwatts he might instruct any half-arsed scheme to be accepted.

oscarBravo

kazoo106 wrote: »

There is nobody saying to scrap the current GPON deployments and replace with wireless - it does however make technical, financial and business sense to deliver the most difficult to reach one off developments by proper fixed wireless...

Does it?

F26 F439 is the Eircode of one of a cluster of three houses in a truly remote area. Please explain to me how a proper fixed wireless service can be provided to those three houses - from where, and at what cost.

Technical, financial and business sense, remember.

While you're pondering the question, please note that there are already two different services being provided over wires to that cluster of houses.

rodge123

Could be missing something obvious here.
In order to reduce the cost for enet and ensure they have a business case for delivering ftth for everyone.

Why dont the goverment force ESB to provide free access to their poles to the winning bidder seen as they still own this infrastructure?
I.e. none of this €20 per pole nonsense.

I suppose it's the goverment picking up the tab untimately in this case, but it's a option to ensure enet go through with it.

Means they can give the two fingers to Eir then, thinking they could pull out and still get the €20 per pole from winning bidder.

ED E

rodge123 wrote: »

Why dont the goverment force ESB

*error buzzer*

The ESB tell govt what is and isnt happening, not the other way around.

Marlow

turbbo wrote: »

The last 240 we could probably look at fixed wireless but it would be very late stages and only where costs have been accurately compared - I'd be very dubious that wireless is in anyway a money saver.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And, as always, it's easy to wander into the trap of believing that the last few premises that are considered too remote to connect to fibre will somehow be easy to connect wirelessly.

As I've said before, every single premises (to a useful approximation) in the country has services delivered to it over wires. Not even close to all of them have mobile phone coverage, or even Saorview coverage - and Saorview, comparatively speaking, is easy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does it?

F26 F439 is the Eircode of one of a cluster of three houses in a truly remote area. Please explain to me how a proper fixed wireless service can be provided to those three houses - from where, and at what cost.

Technical, financial and business sense, remember.

While you're pondering the question, please note that there are already two different services being provided over wires to that cluster of houses.

I'm with oscarBravo on this.

Wireless to connect the last remaining homes is on NO WAY a solution. It's actually more costly than running the fiber up the road.

Wireless deployment only makes sense if you have the density. That means 40-100 homes within the view of the sector used and within 10 km .. all with Line of Sight to that ONE sector.

Only then, wireless MAY be an option.

/M

rodge123

ED E wrote: »

*error buzzer*

The ESB tell govt what is and isnt happening, not the other way around.

Unless there is some legislation stating it is this way then that’s not good enough.
Goverment need to grow a pair and dictate what is happening....any dissent and just start sacking from the top down.
I’ll go without electricity for a few years if it means I get ftth! 😂

pegasus1

shigllgetcha wrote: »

If everyone pulls out I can see the can kicked another five years down the road to restart the process

If everyone pulls out, that means no network installer is out there now or even in 5 years time..or 10 years time for that matter..

There there is no private company that will deliver 30Mb to everyone, so there is no conflict there for the government to then do a fibre infrastructure to those who are in the NBP...

ussjtrunks

How much faffing about did it take before the electrification started all those years ago?

pegasus1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does it?

F26 F439 is the Eircode of one of a cluster of three houses in a truly remote area. Please explain to me how a proper fixed wireless service can be provided to those three houses - from where, and at what cost.

I know one person who is only getting .5 Mb B/B...

His house is in a hollow and no way in hell could he get wireless unless the base station was 50 mtrs from house..

turbbo

ED E wrote: »

*error buzzer*

The ESB tell govt what is and isnt happening, not the other way around.

LOL - true but not the way it should be. We the taxpayers and electricity users pay for those dopes.

kazoo106

@oscarbravo - Does/will Inniscottle have any fibre infrastructure? there is a possibility of doing something from there - it's "doable" but challenging ! There are areas however which would be very easy to connect, this one is a challenge but each one should be looked at individually.
Take it this one failed LOS !

oscarBravo

kazoo106 wrote: »

@oscarbravo - Does/will Inniscottle have any fibre infrastructure? there is a possibility of doing something from there - it's "doable" but challenging !

If you think you can do a radio link from Inishcottle to the location I mentioned, I want some of that radio kit!

There are areas however which would be very easy to connect, this one is a challenge but each one should be looked at individually.

This one isn't a challenge, it's impossible.

My point is the same one I've made many, many times: it's easy to assume that a location that's hard to service with fibre will be easy to service wirelessly. That assumption is wrong and needs to be knocked on the head.

9726_9726

Dev84 wrote: »

No LOS is in no way an issue but cost is. Fibre cable is not cheap and running to homes is not cheap either. This coupled with the fact that they might spend tens of thousands in order to connect what would give them very little return I for one can understand the lack of take up by providers.

It's time that BB infrastructure was re-nationalised.

Fibre cable is piss cheap.

ED E

9726_9726 wrote: »

Fibre cable is piss cheap.

And kn@c ...people won't rob it like copper.

rodge123

Another possible solution they could have looked at?

Allow eir replace all copper lines with fibre as part of public service obligation for phone lines ..I know you have issues then if the power goes then so does the line but surely a way around this

ED E

rodge123 wrote: »

Another possible they could have looked at?

Allow eir replace all copper lines with fibre as part of public service obligation for phone lines ..I know you have issues then if the power goes then so does the line but surely a way around this

Thats what OpenEir would have essentially done.

Problem is EU law says you cannot just pay Eir to do it, and also the combination of requirements meant Eir would have to setup a third branch making things impossibly awkward.

rodge123

ED E wrote: »

Thats what OpenEir would have essentially done.

Problem is EU law says you cannot just pay OpenEir to do it, and also the combination of requirements meant OpenEir would have to setup a third branch making things impossibly awkward.

Yeah but that shouldn’t stop them at least changing the rules so that OpenEir are allowed replace copper with fibre as they see fit.
At least that way OpenEir may over time slowly replace all copper at their own expenses rather than replacing with new copper.
Naughten could then tak credit for removing even more homes from nbp!

Marlow

ED E wrote: »

And kn@c ...people won't rob it like copper.

Erhm .. that's not quite true.

Microsoft has a place up in Mayo. The first 2 or 3 years, they never paid BT for the fiber they had that way up, because BT was never able to stay within the SLA.

The ********* (skrotes) would drive up to the rail track, bind a rope around anything that looked like cable, hitch it to the Transit and drive off ... Didn't matter if it was copper, fiber or what not.

So .. disruptions were every month .. sometimes every week.

It took a long while, before they figured out, that what they were pulling wasn't worth a dime.

Well .. I guess the timeline was:
- stop fixing the copper .. don't redeploy copper
- Waiting for knacks copping on a few months gone past, that there was no copper in those cables any longer
- maybe fiber being burried in ducting along that particular track
- hoping no new knacks came about and tried the same stunt.
- word spreading in knack circles



/M

Jurgen Klopp

roddy15 wrote: »

"Ah shur won't 5G do them?" "But can't they just move to cities?" "But should we subsidise the cost for rural broadband?" "Satellite and wireless is the way to go."

If any of those usual talking points come up I think I'm done with people's ignorance on the issue.

We could really use with politicians and media that are actually passionate and knowledgeable about technology in general, too many dinosaurs about these days making decisions and influencing people.

Ah Jesus stop I know, then if their "stop subsidizing rural Ireland" wet dream came through when they all move to the cities we'll be having teh same lads whinge non stop at a housing, rental, hospitals and every service under the sun crisis that would make the current housing/rental crisis in Dublin look like a wee teething problem

They seem to forget if everyone was shoved urban, who can afford a new house if they can't get a buyer for the rural house they must leave. Then add to the fact the tax payer would get a nice land at national emergency social housing build never seen in the developed world, given all these people would need somewhere to live along with beefing up every public service in cities when we can't even solve a trolley crisis

Where will their food come from? Of everyone is gone urban who will farm? Assuming farmers are left alone how do we plan to support them and get the products to the cities, remember we are no longer "subsidizing" so roads and others essentials for produce is gone

Thankfully 99% of people don't harp on about this shoite of subsidizing rural Ireland shove everyone into mega cities cause they live in the real world

Why am I even bothering to post this actually, most people know this and the ones that bang on about it are bitter old cranks. They would have been whinging when the government was deploying electricity outside the cities of the time too

"Why are we paying? Can't they use candles?!"