NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

Ballycarton

Agreed there Rob 808 but did you see the article in the Sunday Independent Business section about the Wireless Internet Service Providers threatening legal action against the government as Wireless broadband does not seem to be included in the National Broadband Plan.

Afraid I am unable to post the link to it as I am not tech savvy, but perhaps some kind person could . It is a very interesting article and worth a read.

If they do go down the legal action route could it delay the rollout of the NBP?

The Cush

The Indo articles were posted earlier in the thread, posts 318 & 320. Here are the links again

Wifi broadband companies to sue over €500m National Broadband scheme roll out

Rural business in for rough ride with broadband plan

Also see this post - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95114638

Cuddlesworth

Ballycarton wrote: »

Agreed there Rob 808 but did you see the article in the Sunday Independent Business section about the Wireless Internet Service Providers threatening legal action against the government as Wireless broadband does not seem to be included in the National Broadband Plan.

Afraid I am unable to post the link to it as I am not tech savvy, but perhaps some kind person could . It is a very interesting article and worth a read.

If they do go down the legal action route could it delay the rollout of the NBP?

Sure, they have invested time and money into infrastructure to provide broadband to rural areas in what is the most cost effective method. The government is planning on killing their businesses with subsidized competitor that is clearly cost inefficient.

Not only that, they are devaluing larger networks(UPC) by stagnating their market expansion through unfair government intervention.

A better system would be a government owned and built meshed L2 backbone network into towns that meet a specific housing density, with a subsidy for each house with access given to the backbone meeting a minimum standard. A large problem for most WISP's is the backhaul is usually also wireless and can be badly underutilized. This would allow rural and larger ISP's to look into markets which would generally not be considered for any broadband access and would allow a level of tech/web industry investment in areas outside of Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick.

Ballycarton

Ballycarton wrote: »

.

If they do go down the legal action route could it delay the rollout of the NBP?

It might, but it shouldn't. The level of service requested is reasonable taking into account modern needs; multiple devices per home, kids streaming video, netflix etc... plus the future proofing that should be built into such projects..including 'the internet of things' and the huge explnsion in use that any reasonable person could foresee.

It seems that any system relying on wireless internet must, by its nature, be what a reasonable person would regard as inadequate for the present and certainly for the future.

An objectively inadequate service is way better than no service at all but it would be folly of the highest order to plan for the possibility of accepting this for the future.

Pappacharlie

Deleted User wrote: »

It might, but it shouldn't. The level of service requested is reasonable taking into account modern needs; multiple devices per home, kids streaming video, netflix etc... plus the future proofing that should be built into such projects..including 'the internet of things' and the huge explnsion in use that any reasonable person could foresee.

It seems that any system relying on wireless internet must, by its nature, be what a reasonable person would regard as inadequate for the present and certainly for the future.

An objectively inadequate service is way better than no service at all but it would be folly of the highest order to plan for the possibility of accepting this for the future.

Yes I have to agree with the point expressed above. A future proof service must be available to all. Maybe some funding generated by the new broadcasting charge could be diverted to subsidise the cost in low density areas!!??

chris_ie

Some of these WISP are happy providing a poor service knowing that the customers they are supplying have no other choice but to stick with them because there is no competition for them in the areas they setup in. Now when they are threatened they are saying its unfair.

rob808

They would need 7000 sites to support broadband For 630,000 customers at the cost of €150,000 each This equates to very high cost for customers for wisp.They would only be able to support 12-15 customers per site.A solution That is primary base On FTTH Is likely the best Because fixed line broadband Has transmission Characteristics that make eminenty Suitable for home broadband and is future proof.

I think if the wisp won it be a nightmare and there sue is just silly they cant cost effectIvety offer 30mb broadband without it costing more than if ESB or Eircom won it.

lucernarian

rob808 wrote: »

They would need 7000 sites to support broadband For 630,000 customers at the cost of €150,000 each This equates to very high cost for customers for wisp.They would only be able to support 12-15 customers per site.A solution That is primary base On FTTH Is likely the best Because fixed line broadband Has transmission Characteristics that make eminenty Suitable for home broadband and is future proof.

I think if the wisp won it be a nightmare and there sue is just silly they cant cost effectIvety offer 30mb broadband without it costing more than if ESB or Eircom won it.

I don't want to stand up for a technology that doesn't offer future-proofing, and with the risk of planning battles and protests all over the country like was the case with mobile phone masts years ago... But, if substantial amounts of spectrum were to be assinged for FWA in this country, like more of the 10 GHz band or the 2.3 GHz band, many more users could be supported per site or higher speeds made available.

rob808

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't want to stand up for a technology that doesn't offer future-proofing, and with the risk of planning battles and protests all over the country like was the case with mobile phone masts years ago... But, if substantial amounts of spectrum were to be assinged for FWA in this country, like more of the 10 GHz band or the 2.3 GHz band, many more users could be supported per site or higher speeds made available.

I know what your saying and Wisp have a place in NBP but should only be small it just not cost effective and as you said nobody nobody want loads of phone mast going up plus the cost and then there the spectrum and then having to pay comreg.The spectrum be use more by mobile phones in coming years.That why I think FTTH is the best solution than wisp for most of Rural Ireland.

Johnboy1951

Has a proper specification for the NBP been released?

I mean the speed of connection, with target time periods of availability to ALL users in the NBP areas?

Something like 30/10 in one year; 100/20 in two years and 1000/200 in 5 years .... or something along those lines.

All I recall seeing, so far, are 'consultations'.

rob808

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Has a proper specification for the NBP been released?

I mean the speed of connection, with target time periods of availability to ALL users in the NBP areas?

All I recall seeing, so far, are 'consultations'.

The target speed 30mb and 6mb upload most houses to be completed by 2018 with last few 2020 to 2021.There being no technology be choosing but going to be base on fibre.The ESB and Eircom think FTTH to be the best technology to be use and wireless company want wisp as main technology giving why there law sue happening.

KOR101

chris_ie wrote: »

Some of these WISP are happy providing a poor service knowing that the customers they are supplying have no other choice but to stick with them because there is no competition for them in the areas they setup in. Now when they are threatened they are saying its unfair.

My local WISP offers 2/3 mbits (6 advertised). I'm reluctant to fork out the 160 installation charge for that sort of service, especially with the NBP coming.

But what is the WISP going to do. Invest in upgrades? I don't think so. So, my incentive to join is even less.

Don't blame the WISPs.... They're snookered. We should have sympathy for people who are losing investments and livelihoods, even if we think FTTH really is the only path forward.

Cuddlesworth

chris_ie wrote: »

Some of these WISP are happy providing a poor service knowing that the customers they are supplying have no other choice but to stick with them because there is no competition for them in the areas they setup in. Now when they are threatened they are saying its unfair.

I don't want to interrupt the circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps but there is no competition in modern ISP's outside of incredibly dense areas. You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas. You won't see UPC running in to install CATV in FTTH enabled estates. Even the NBP points out that current areas which meet the minimum standard are not even going to be looked at regardless of what the current provider does or charges.

And if FTTH is installed, you won't see competition. Nobody else will come running in to try compete against government subsidised cabling. You will have 1 provider and will be at their mercy for pricing. Their will be nothing stopping Eircom/ESB from dropping a 1gig link rate limited to 30/6 at the low low price of 150 Euros a month for rural dwellings so they can recover costs. In the same way that ESB/CIE have year on year raised their prices well above the cost of inflation. Phone companies are the ideal model for this. They all took over networks paid for by national governments. They stagnated, invested nothing into the infrastructure or technology, which they paid nothing for and it took decades for their incompetence to allow other mediums to be able to compete with the initial investment simply due to the capital required.

rob808

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't want to interrupt the circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps but there is no competition in modern ISP's outside of incredibly dense areas. You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas. You won't see UPC running in to install CATV in FTTH enabled estates. Even the NBP points out that current areas which meet the minimum standard are not even going to be looked at regardless of what the current provider does or charges.

And if FTTH is installed, you won't see competition. Nobody else will come running in to try compete against government subsidised cabling. You will have 1 provider and will be at their mercy for pricing. Their will be nothing stopping Eircom/ESB from dropping a 1gig link rate limited to 30/6 at the low low price of 150 Euros a month for rural dwellings so they can recover costs. In the same way that ESB/CIE have year on year raised their prices well above the cost of inflation. Phone companies are the ideal model for this. They all took over networks paid for by national governments. They stagnated, invested nothing into the infrastructure or technology, which they paid nothing for and it took decades for their incompetence to allow other mediums to be able to compete with the initial investment simply due to the capital required.

That make No sense why shouldn't people rural areas have FTTH and wisp going cost tax payer more so make sense to go all wireless yea rigth.

lucernarian

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas.

This part is spurious nonsense and undermines some of the rest of your argument. How could you not be aware that eFibre and UPC Broadband are both available in many parts of Ireland like Swords, much of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick etc.??

If I remember correctly, Swords was even in eircom's Phase 1!!

chris_ie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't want to interrupt the circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps but there is no competition in modern ISP's outside of incredibly dense areas. You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas. You won't see UPC running in to install CATV in FTTH enabled estates. Even the NBP points out that current areas which meet the minimum standard are not even going to be looked at regardless of what the current provider does or charges.

And if FTTH is installed, you won't see competition. Nobody else will come running in to try compete against government subsidised cabling. You will have 1 provider and will be at their mercy for pricing. Their will be nothing stopping Eircom/ESB from dropping a 1gig link rate limited to 30/6 at the low low price of 150 Euros a month for rural dwellings so they can recover costs. In the same way that ESB/CIE have year on year raised their prices well above the cost of inflation. Phone companies are the ideal model for this. They all took over networks paid for by national governments. They stagnated, invested nothing into the infrastructure or technology, which they paid nothing for and it took decades for their incompetence to allow other mediums to be able to compete with the initial investment simply due to the capital required.

"circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps"? Nice... Just let the important people in the towns have it. Feck the rest of us.

I currently have "up to" 50mb broadband with a WISP. It never gets near 50mb no matter the time of day. During peak times you get about 2-4mb. There is also alot of packet loss on the internal network with the ISP which they refuse to fix. FTTH would be more stable and of course future proof.. No doubt there would be issues but I doubt there would be as many as I currently have. 30mb coming in via a FTTH connection is still a massive improvement over what rural areas have at the minute and has the ability to be increased.

jimmycrackcorm

chris_ie wrote:

"circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps"? Nice... Just let the important people in the towns have it. Feck the rest of us.

Would you be willing to pay the cost of FTTH for your rural home when you consider that the cost in urban areas is effectively shared by the density.

chris_ie

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay the cost of FTTH for your rural home when you consider that the cost in urban areas is effectively shared by the density.

I would be willing to pay an increased install fee yeah. Its not as if rural people are going out robbing money off town dwellers! ESB/Vodafone and Eircom have both said FTTH is the answer, have done their research and it falls in line with what the government want. I really dont get why people seem to not be happy that rural Ireland is finally going to get decent broadband.

rob808

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay the cost of FTTH for your rural home when you consider that the cost in urban areas is effectively shared by the density.

I would and say alot of other rural people because it better done right than the half ass job 3 done in last NBP is main reason no one want the wisp company to win.

ItHurtsWhenIP

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

...
And if FTTH is installed, you won't see competition. Nobody else will come running in to try compete against government subsidised cabling. You will have 1 provider and will be at their mercy for pricing. Their will be nothing stopping Eircom/ESB from dropping a 1gig link rate limited to 30/6 at the low low price of 150 Euros a month for rural dwellings so they can recover costs.
...

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Firstly, I recall somebody saying that the way the NBP was worded, that it is possible that more than one company could win the NBP contract, but obviously they wouldn't be competing in the same geographic areas. However that would seem unlikely, as I'm sure the DCENR would only want to be monitoring the performance of one company.

So if, say, SIRO gets the NBP gig (hah! excuse the pun ) then they will roll around the amber areas on the map wrapping fibre along the electricity lines to every home and providing an ONT at your house, presumably with some kind of unique identifier thing like an MPRN (your leccie meter identifier).

You can then pick up the phone to Eircom, UPC, Sky ... etc. and take out the internet service from them at whatever rates they charge. The wholesale rate that SIRO charge them will have been set and agreed as part of the NBP. bk on here has already found the Eircom wholesale prices for their current FTTH rollout and they ain't that awfully high.

fergus1001

Cuddlesworth wrote:

I don't want to interrupt the circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps but there is no competition in modern ISP's outside of incredibly dense areas. You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas. You won't see UPC running in to install CATV in FTTH enabled estates. Even the NBP points out that current areas which meet the minimum standard are not even going to be looked at regardless of what the current provider does or charges.

So you decide to go against what everyone even the experts are saying just to rise us rural dwellers


Nice trolololol

Cuddlesworth

rob808 wrote: »

That make No sense why shouldn't people rural areas have FTTH and wisp going cost tax payer more so make sense to go all wireless yea rigth.

FTTH is a better long term investment. Wireless is the more cost effective method. Hence the reason so many wireless solutions exist and there are effectively no fibre solutions present in rural areas unless its one of the few cost shared schemes(which bypass a lot of the traditional costs). The question is, is it worth the substantial investment to ensure that "every" home in Ireland gets FTTH versus for example, saying that every industrial zoned and used area should have subsidised fibre instead? What benefit would that bring versus other alternatives. Are there downsides, have they actually been acknowledged(like the WISP one mentioned)? Could there be a benefit to amending the requirements, using fibre as a carrot on a stick to try minimise the rural cost to society at large?

lucernarian wrote: »

This part is spurious nonsense and undermines some of the rest of your argument. How could you not be aware that eFibre and UPC Broadband are both available in many parts of Ireland like Swords, much of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick etc.??

If I remember correctly, Swords was even in eircom's Phase 1!!

FTTC isn't a competing product to CATV or FTTH but I agree, my point was ill conceived and badly presented. I wasn't aware that Eircoms efibre rollout was quite so extensive(I just did a quick google). Although from initial impressions I got, their roll-out was very specific to certain cabs/areas at the detriment to others, something not represented on their maps. But I stand by what I said, its becoming clear in most markets that there is little interest in duplicating infrastructure of this type. You will not see another coaxial network setup in UPC areas and it's incredibly unlikely to see dual fibre installs.

chris_ie wrote: »

"circle jerk of rural dwellers demanding 1gig fibre to their doorsteps"? Nice... Just let the important people in the towns have it. Feck the rest of us.

I currently have "up to" 50mb broadband with a WISP. It never gets near 50mb no matter the time of day. During peak times you get about 2-4mb. There is also alot of packet loss on the internal network with the ISP which they refuse to fix. FTTH would be more stable and of course future proof.. No doubt there would be issues but I doubt there would be as many as I currently have. 30mb coming in via a FTTH connection is still a massive improvement over what rural areas have at the minute and has the ability to be increased.

Your WISP's service is bad, therefore the government should subside a large state run network and destroy x number of businesses in the next 10 years. Ones that would have substantial investment in infrastructure and would quite frankly put them immediately out of business. Whats your place of business. Maybe the government should set up a state sponsored equivalent to put you out of business too.

fergus1001 wrote: »

So you decide to go against what everyone even the experts are saying just to rise us rural dwellers


Nice trolololol

The experts are paid consultants who have advised the best course of action in the interests of those who would prefer a national plan(the driving force behind this) and those who would like to bid for it(existing or new ISP's). They have not and will not take into account every factor involved in this process including the capitalisation of the project.

There would be questions on who owns the fibre and equipment, who controls the costs. Who runs the backbone, where do they peer and why? What's the legality of placing down subsidised services in existing private industry. Its not just WISP's here who would be under pressure, any FTTH network would require a backbone that would be in direct competition with fibre installs across this country for a host entities. That would or could be for all purposes selling below cost bandwidth country wide.

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Firstly, I recall somebody saying that the way the NBP was worded, that it is possible that more than one company could win the NBP contract, but obviously they wouldn't be competing in the same geographic areas. However that would seem unlikely, as I'm sure the DCENR would only want to be monitoring the performance of one company.

So if, say, SIRO gets the NBP gig (hah! excuse the pun ) then they will roll around the amber areas on the map wrapping fibre along the electricity lines to every home and providing an ONT at your house, presumably with some kind of unique identifier thing like an MPRN (your leccie meter identifier).

You can then pick up the phone to Eircom, UPC, Sky ... etc. and take out the internet service from them at whatever rates they charge. The wholesale rate that SIRO charge them will have been set and agreed as part of the NBP. bk on here has already found the Eircom wholesale prices for their current FTTH rollout and they ain't that awfully high.

Any details on the level of control Eircom were offering wholesale on efibre? Is it rented space on the local cab, with added costs like rack rental and power, fibre or otherwise backbone rental(that wouldn't be part of the base rate? What level of network redundancy was included? Who manages what, is it all managed entirely by Eircom with peering only arrangements at the POP?

rob808

Well why did Eircom or ESB and say vodafone FTTH best solution and with small few areas with fixed wireless.It just cost to much money to do full fixed wireless more than FTTH.The wisp company wouldn't go out of business since it open access most likely government will own it there just annoy there monopoly On rural Ireland would be coming to a end.imagine living in a town or village were you could only get Eircom and no other provider that the way it is in rural Ireland.The wisp company know this giving why there crying the bigger Isp could open some of the market that was closed to them it true some of the small wisp migth disappear or just become part of one of the big one.

lucernarian

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

FTTC isn't a competing product to CATV or FTTH but I agree, my point was ill conceived and badly presented. I wasn't aware that Eircoms efibre rollout was quite so extensive(I just did a quick google). Although from initial impressions I got, their roll-out was very specific to certain cabs/areas at the detriment to others, something not represented on their maps. But I stand by what I said, its becoming clear in most markets that there is little interest in duplicating infrastructure of this type. You will not see another coaxial network setup in UPC areas and it's incredibly unlikely to see dual fibre installs.

You explicitly said that "You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas". This isn't just ill-conceived and badly presented, it was 100% an error in fact and you would be better just taking it back or holding your hands up properly. Especially when you preceded that complete fiction with the circle-jerk comment.

So, you weren't aware eircom have been supplying VDSL in places like Tallaght and Swords since 2013, and Sandyford and Dundrum since before that (early 2012 at least IIRC)? UPC are prominent and active in all these areas. And both eircom and Siro plan to both roll out FTTH in Cavan, Castlebar, Sligo, Carrigaline, Tralee, Letterkenny and Wexford. Of those, 3 of those towns also have Cable (EuroDOCSIS) broadband supplied by UPC or Smyths Cablevision. Castlebar has had ducting for actual cable installed but for whatever reason Chorus and then UPC never bothered their a**es to use it.

chris_ie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Your WISP's service is bad, therefore the government should subside a large state run network and destroy x number of businesses in the next 10 years. Ones that would have substantial investment in infrastructure and would quite frankly put them immediately out of business. Whats your place of business. Maybe the government should set up a state sponsored equivalent to put you out of business too.

Yeah that was exactly what I meant, wasn't it? Just because I have a bad service the government should spend money on an proper network, all because of me. Sure what were government thinking even putting electricity out here, sure the candles were fine. :rolleyes:

If WISP can't provide a service to compete with or match it then tough. You know that when they set up their masts, they took customers away from the likes of Three mobile broadband? Was that unfair on Three? Companies move also, unfortunately, and people lose their job because these companies find better alternatives. Companies likely don't think too much about their customers when they move. You think if the WISPs found that they could make money better elsewhere they would stick around because of their customers? Doubt it. If they dont get their way with this NBP then they will likely pull the plug leaving customers without connection and they won't care either. The only thing they will care about is the money. They probably knew of the risk that broadband would eventually reach people in those area via fiber or other means.

On the topic of companies closing. A lot of companies setup in large towns because that is where the best services are. Broadband connectivity is a big part of it. If rural areas and smaller towns had the same level of broadband connectivity then companies could setup in more rural towns for less cost, thus creating more jobs. Yes this is an ideal scenario but possible when a proper network is established.

WISPs would need a lot of masts. There are alot of hills around so it is very easy to be blocked. So to get the same level of coverage that the government want would require alot of masts.

Cuddlesworth

lucernarian wrote: »

You explicitly said that "You don't see Eircom running out to install FTTC in UPC internet enabled areas". This isn't just ill-conceived and badly presented, it was 100% an error in fact and you would be better just taking it back or holding your hands up properly. Especially when you preceded that complete fiction with the circle-jerk comment.

So, you weren't aware eircom have been supplying VDSL in places like Tallaght and Swords since 2013, and Sandyford and Dundrum since before that (early 2012 at least IIRC)? UPC are prominent and active in all these areas. And both eircom and Siro plan to both roll out FTTH in Cavan, Castlebar, Sligo, Carrigaline, Tralee, Letterkenny and Wexford. Of those, 3 of those towns also have Cable (EuroDOCSIS) broadband supplied by UPC or Smyths Cablevision. Castlebar has had ducting for actual cable installed but for whatever reason Chorus and then UPC never bothered their a**es to use it.

Sure like I said it was badly thought out. Then I amended it to point out that there is no competition in comparable cable mediums outside of dense populations. Which you have also asserted above. And once a subsidised fibre network is laid there will be no competition. You can't compete with state funding at that level of capitalisation.

If eircom truly thought it was feasible to invest to specifically compete with UPC, the first locations they would install FTTH would be dense population areas in Dublin/Cork/Galway with established UPC market share. Exactly what UPC did to them with their broadband rollout. But they don't.

Cuddlesworth

chris_ie wrote: »

Yeah that was exactly what I meant, wasn't it? Just because I have a bad service the government should spend money on an proper network, all because of me. Sure what were government thinking even putting electricity out here, sure the candles were fine. :rolleyes:

If WISP can't provide a service to compete with or match it then tough. You know that when they set up their masts, they took customers away from the likes of Three mobile broadband? Was that unfair on Three? Companies move also, unfortunately, and people lose their job because these companies find better alternatives. Companies likely don't think too much about their customers when they move. You think if the WISPs found that they could make money better elsewhere they would stick around because of their customers? Doubt it. If they dont get their way with this NBP then they will likely pull the plug leaving customers without connection and they won't care either. The only thing they will care about is the money. They probably knew of the risk that broadband would eventually reach people in those area via fiber or other means.

On the topic of companies closing. A lot of companies setup in large towns because that is where the best services are. Broadband connectivity is a big part of it. If rural areas and smaller towns had the same level of broadband connectivity then companies could setup in more rural towns for less cost, thus creating more jobs. Yes this is an ideal scenario but possible when a proper network is established.

WISPs would need a lot of masts. There are alot of hills around so it is very easy to be blocked. So to get the same level of coverage that the government want would require alot of masts.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of government funding being used in competition to private enterprise and the potential issues involved. Its akin to government seizure of their business. Or the benefits of a good fibre backbone to a existing WISP provider. Or perhaps looking at utilizing the bandwidth in the premium and best frequencies that we cleared up from analogue TV to provide extremely effective wireless solutions less .

lucernarian

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Sure like I said it was badly thought out. Then I amended it to point out that there is no competition in comparable cable mediums outside of dense populations.

No you didn't. Here's a reminder: "You will not see another coaxial network setup in UPC areas and it's incredibly unlikely to see dual fibre installs. " You have said it's incredibly unlikely even though Cavan town already has an active FTTH and EuroDOCSIS service (albeit not with UPC) and Eircom have announced plans to roll out FTTH there in a matter of months. Your point is still 100% wrong.

Which you have also asserted above.

No I haven't, other than an implict recognition that there aren't competing EuroDOCSIS networks. It's quite a different story already with FTTH. All I asserted was that there will be numerous towns and cities in Ireland where both Siro and Eircom plan to provide FTTH in their plans, in a matter of months even.

And once a subsidised fibre network is laid there will be no competition. You can't compete with state funding at that level of capitalisation.

If eircom truly thought it was feasible to invest to specifically compete with UPC, the first locations they would install FTTH would be dense population areas in Dublin/Cork/Galway with established UPC market share. Exactly what UPC did to them with their broadband rollout. But they don't.

There are a number of problems there: There is no evidence to say that UPC specifically targeted eircom's areas and their anaemic expansion of, well any services to areas previously unserved with cable would help confirm this. UPC happened to buy existing cable operators who years ago had one very specific market: urban areas that couldn't receive terrestrial TV from the North. Some of the largest exchanges by lines served in this country aren't within an ass' roar of UPC broadband (Drogheda and Dundalk and most of the Navan exchange area).

eircom obviously do intend to compete with UPC. Given that they have increased prices to coincide with VDSL rollout, at comparatively low capital cost, it wouldn't take long at all for their capex to be paid off. By firmly establishing their faster products across many areas, in the face of the long-awaited Siro challenge, they can at least make their new services and speeds "up to 100 Mbit" also relevant to UPC's customers. And eircom's service has comparable upload speeds to UPC's packages as well as ping times. Finally, why did eircom bring out eVision and their quadruple-play services along with eFibre, shortly after UPC completed the bulk of the network rebuild and triple-play offerings??

chris_ie

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the concept of government funding being used in competition to private enterprise and the potential issues involved. Its akin to government seizure of their business. Or the benefits of a good fibre backbone to a existing WISP provider. Or perhaps looking at utilizing the bandwidth in the premium and best frequencies that we cleared up from analogue TV to provide extremely effective wireless solutions less .

Yes I do understand the concept and yes I can see why they'd be annoyed with it. But for once the government are trying to do things correctly. Yes that means that the service they provide will be better than WISP. Its unfortunate for them but its bad if its blocked because of that. Let them bid, its likely they wont be able to match whats required and if thats the case then so be it. We already had the mess that was the previous broadband plan with Three.

fergus1001

It's intervention where there is NO competition WISPS knew it was only a matter of time and they are afraid of the government breaking up their monopoly on rural ireland, please stop you clearly have an agenda trying to suggest we go for the 3 NBP v 2.0

MajesticDonkey

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the concept of government funding being used in competition to private enterprise and the potential issues involved. Its akin to government seizure of their business. Or the benefits of a good fibre backbone to a existing WISP provider. Or perhaps looking at utilizing the bandwidth in the premium and best frequencies that we cleared up from analogue TV to provide extremely effective wireless solutions less .

Well it's been stated multiple times in this thread, and others, that rural wireless done properly would cost the same as, if not more than, rural fibre. So why not go fibre, seeing as we're talking about having "economical sense"?

I understand it's not an ideal situation for WISPs, but frankly, they need to get with the times. FWA providers simply can't provide the level of service that is becoming a necessity for people to have, particularly at peak times. To achieve a constant 30 Mb/s download speed, even at peak times, is simply not that easy with FWA. The only solution to contention is to change the medium to fibre, which has the nice side effect of having essentially limitless speed.

The WISPs that are pursuing legal action against the state for the NBP really don't care about the broadband situation in this country, and it's completely and utterly selfish in my opinion. All they care about is themselves and their business, which, to be fair, is expected. But instead of actually helping out and changing the way they run their business, they are just pointing fingers.

godskitchen

Some crazy stuff being posted in here.

Ftth is the only option. Suggesting anything else is madness and short sighted in the extreme.

It's over for wisps, become a reseller and hope your customers stay with you or find another industry.

Maybe we should start making horse drawn carts again or bring back asbestos for roofing. Things move on. The market will sort it self out.

They all knew this was coming, I don't think any of them have sought to install their own fibre with the help of the communities they serve ala b4rn in the UK. If I was a wisp I would have been knocking on doors years ago to get a fibre network talked about.

I was once asked by my wisp what I wanted the extra bandwidth for. That was the end of my custom for them. Imagine if the Esb were questioning what you wanted more power for.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

KOR101

yuloni wrote: »

I know I'm viewing the WISP's as luddites with their recent press releases, but what might this be for a compromising agreement:

The NBP gets rolling on a FTTH basis which will inevitably make the WISP's redundant. So phase 1 is to include first running fibre back-haul to the WISP's base-stations across the country. This allows the WISP's to improve their service for the few years it will take to cable up the areas they're serving. Most of these areas are rural so it helps the WISP with back-haul and it allows the NBP provider to get trunk spurs into rural areas ahead of time

In the meantime, the Wireless Operators of Ireland or whatever it is are to move to become a FTTH reseller. They have the customers, they have the knowledge and they have routing agreements in place all over the country. With the back-haul provided through the NBP, they needn't worry about losing investment as it could be seen as their last move before decommissioning their networks


... something like that anyways

Yeah. The point of the legal threat is to try and make the government throw them a bone of some sort. It's hard to see them being completely left out.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

ItHurtsWhenIP

I was just at a community broadband group meeting, where there was a guest speaker from our local WISP - Munster Broadband.

He says the articles in the weekend papers had John McDonnell totally misinterpreted and the journo put 2 and 2 together and got how long was a piece of string. :eek:

They had previously stated that if they were to stand a chance of competing for the NBP with a Wireless offering, they would need access to the 3.5/3.6Ghz range of licensed spectrum which COMREG is refusing and the DCENR don't want to get involved.

Apparently John McDonnell has contacted the DCENR and told them that there is no threat to sue or impede the NBP. They want the fibre that is likely to be rolled out as part of the NBP to remain in government/semi-state control and for the WISPs to able to re-sell internet services at a reasonable cost.

The future is fibre my friends and nobody (except maybe Three) can argue that.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

rob808

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

I was just at a community broadband group meeting, where there was a guest speaker from our local WISP - Munster Broadband.

He says the articles in the weekend papers had John McDonnell totally misinterpreted and the journo put 2 and 2 together and got how long was a piece of string. :eek:

They had previously stated that if they were to stand a chance of competing for the NBP with a Wireless offering, they would need access to the 3.5/3.6Ghz range of licensed spectrum which COMREG is refusing and the DCENR don't want to get involved.

Apparently John McDonnell has contacted the DCENR and told them that there is no threat to sue or impede the NBP. They want the fibre that is likely to be rolled out as part of the NBP to remain in government/semi-state control and for the WISPs to able to re-sell internet services at a reasonable cost.

The future is fibre my friends and nobody (except maybe Three) can argue that.

That brilliant new and it should stay in goverment/semi-state control and we have a choice who we like to go with thank god 3 has notting to do with this NBP.It a shame you have no link doh .

mass_debater

yuloni wrote: »

Three probably have a hape of old satellite dishes to get rid of


What would the 3.5-6 Ghz spectrum offer the WISP's and are they talking backhaul or last mile here? What sort of speeds would they propose to be running

Fixed wireless on 3.6ghz with fibre backhaul can easily do 30mbit each way. The problem is the way Comreg allocate the spectrum, it's completely underutilised and very badly planned. Licenses are restricted to ridiculous 20km circles.

bk

3.5/3.6GHz still won't help them much. At best it might just about allow them offer the basic 30Mb/s, but forget about anything beyond that. Those frequencies simply don't have the bandwidth for higher speeds. There is no future proofing with the wisps.

They might just be able to offer 30, but forget about 100, 200, 1Gb/s that would be needed in future.

Content and the department of communications are absolutely correct to ignore the wisps. It should be FTTH all the way.

ItHurtsWhenIP

bk wrote: »

3.5/3.6GHz still won't help them much. At best it might just about allow them offer the basic 30Mb/s, but forget about anything beyond that. Those frequencies simply don't have the bandwidth for higher speeds. There is no future proofing with the wisps.

They might just be able to offer 30, but forget about 100, 200, 1Gb/s that would be needed in future.

Content and the department of communications are absolutely correct to ignore the wisps. It should be FTTH all the way.

That's the point he was making. If they were to be able to offer a Wireless solution meeting the initial criteria of the NBP they would need access to spectrum they can't get. Even then, there is no room for growth for the future. So Wireless doesn't stand a chance.

Therefore they are disadvantaged and will be put out of business, unless they are allowed to resell their services over the new (presumably) fibre infrastructure that Siro/Eircom will be wrapping around the country.

tsue921i8wljb3

mass_debater wrote: »

Fixed wireless on 3.6ghz with fibre backhaul can easily do 30mbit each way. The problem is the way Comreg allocate the spectrum, it's completely underutilised and very badly planned. Licenses are restricted to ridiculous 20km circles.

Out of interest do you know is there anwhere in the world where there is a WISP offering a 30Mb or greater symmetric link on a large scale? I am not talking about one off point to point links.

dalta5billion

bk wrote: »

3.5/3.6GHz still won't help them much. At best it might just about allow them offer the basic 30Mb/s, but forget about anything beyond that. Those frequencies simply don't have the bandwidth for higher speeds. There is no future proofing with the wisps.

What would the contention be like though? Is it 30Mbps per sector? We forget that a PtMP wireless solution will always have contention, so 30Mbps becomes a "target" speed, not a minimum guarantee.

mass_debater

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Out of interest do you know is there anwhere in the world where there is a WISP offering a 30Mb or greater symmetric link on a large scale? I am not talking about one off point to point links.

Yes, the Canadians are already doing it. 30-50mbit are the speeds typical fixed WiMax systems are designed to deliver.

fergus1001

Look up wimax here in Ireland and see what speeds you get in even built up urban areas

30-50mb :pac:

fergus1001

mass_debater wrote:

Yes, the Canadians are already doing it. 30-50mbit are the speeds typical fixed WiMax systems are designed to deliver.

Look up wimax here in Ireland and see what speeds you get in even built up urban areas

30-50mb :pac:

tsue921i8wljb3

mass_debater wrote: »

Yes, the Canadians are already doing it. 30-50mbit are the speeds typical fixed WiMax systems are designed to deliver.

Thanks. Do you happen you know which manufacturer is making the equipment involved?

bk

The Eu directive and thus NBP correctly specify that the minimum each customer most receive is 30Mb/s at peak times.

WiMAX advertising 30 to 50Mb/s is bull. It is the speed with no contention. In reality you would lucky to get 10Mb/s at peak time with contention.

This is why FWA will NEVER be suited to large scale high speed broadband and why it absolutely be excluded from the NBP. It simply isn't good enough.

Frankly this idea of the wisps suing the government over the NBP is ridiculous. It is like candle makers suing the government over the electrification of rural Ireland.

Frankly it is completely indefensible.

mass_debater

But as said many times FWA can be a good stopgap, nobody is asking for it as an alternative, fibre need to be the end goal to every building but this will take years. All these FWA providers need is access to the fibre and a better allocation of frequencies. There are lots of FWA providers have already made investments into WiMax systems but are being held back by the lack of fibre and by Comreg as I already explained.

mass_debater

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Thanks. Do you happen you know which manufacturer is making the equipment involved?

The Canadians are best in the world at wireless technologies. These are just three I've worked with.

Vecima http://www.vecima.com/
Tranzeo http://www.tranzeo.com/
Redline http://rdlcom.com/