General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

VonZan wrote: »

The tendering process dealt with the easy contracts at the start. I don't know why you find this hard to believe when most of the companies have already pulled out. I'm not saying that the government wanted this to happen but the fact is rural broadband is much more expensive to provide. There are many locations where it is simply not feasible.

I am aware of this.
I find it very hard to believe that Mr. O'Brien is always the last man standing, as far as a FG government is concerned anyway.

Sam Russell

VonZan wrote: »

The tendering process dealt with the easy contracts at the start. I don't know why you find this hard to believe when most of the companies have already pulled out. I'm not saying that the government wanted this to happen but the fact is rural broadband is much more expensive to provide. There are many locations where it is simply not feasible.

I think it is time for the Gov to pull the plug on the tendering process and start another one. We have ended up with a tender having only one consortium offering to take the job, but it has changed complexion utterly.

Just by the by, has anyone checked what proportion of 'rural Ireland' are prepared to pay the €50 or so a month for broadband - as charged generally in Dublin?

Surely if the three network can get to 97% of the population with 4g mobile coverage, why is that not good enough?

James Brown

If we had a nationalised telecom company of some kind this wouldn't be an issue, just sayin'. This kind of thing is why privatisation of everything isn't a great idea. Mind who would have thought communication would be such a big deal after the invention of the phone, computer and internet?

By the size of the country could we not subsidies some company already in situ to bring broadband to more rural areas, maybe even just the local village or community hub??

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just by the by, has anyone checked what proportion of 'rural Ireland' are prepared to pay the €50 or so a month for broadband - as charged generally in Dublin?

Surely if the three network can get to 97% of the population with 4g mobile coverage, why is that not good enough?

The remaining 3% of people would be cost inefficient to serve with a wireless solution. The fact that they don't receive phone coverage to begin with demonstrates that they don't have coverage from an existing tower, meaning a new tower would have to be built which would be subsidised (if it were viable commercially it would likely be there already).

Due to terrain, some houses or clusters of houses could need to be served by a tower which would only serve a few people. This wouldn't be cost effective and it would be as useful to serve them using a wired connection.

This is in addition to the problem that wireless/mobile is not an effective method of rolling out high speed broadband due to capacity issues and inconsistency in coverage, along with cost as above.

This wouldn't have been an issue if the nationwide telecommunications network wasn't privatised.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

The remaining 3% of people would be cost inefficient to serve with a wireless solution. The fact that they don't receive phone coverage to begin with demonstrates that they don't have coverage from an existing tower, meaning a new tower would have to be built which would be subsidised (if it were viable commercially it would likely be there already).

Due to terrain, some houses or clusters of houses could need to be served by a tower which would only serve a few people. This wouldn't be cost effective and it would be as useful to serve them using a wired connection.

This is in addition to the problem that wireless/mobile is not an effective method of rolling out high speed broadband due to capacity issues and inconsistency in coverage, along with cost as above.

This wouldn't have been an issue if the nationwide telecommunications network wasn't privatised.

I accept that 'mobile' signal might be a problem, but point to point use of the mobile signal might be useful in the remote areas. Having a fixed antenna could extend the reach of the mobile network, and make the last mile easier to reach. In other words, going for a wireless solution rather than a wired solution.

No answer to whether the recipient will pay €50 per month for service. It would be a shame for the state to subsidise the users that refuse to pay anything for it. There were people who refused rural electrification.

spaceHopper

Media delivery is going on line now there will be less and less tv satellite and more on line tv content. That will push up demand for day usage remember when a 28k modem was fast then the content got richer then data speeds caught up. Soon we'll have 5G mobile but we'll all have 8k tv's pulling down rich content off Amazon or aren't sky going online soon too. You'll need a 300meg connection yo each home plus steaming capacity

blanch152

marno21 wrote: »

The remaining 3% of people would be cost inefficient to serve with a wireless solution. The fact that they don't receive phone coverage to begin with demonstrates that they don't have coverage from an existing tower, meaning a new tower would have to be built which would be subsidised (if it were viable commercially it would likely be there already).

Due to terrain, some houses or clusters of houses could need to be served by a tower which would only serve a few people. This wouldn't be cost effective and it would be as useful to serve them using a wired connection.

This is in addition to the problem that wireless/mobile is not an effective method of rolling out high speed broadband due to capacity issues and inconsistency in coverage, along with cost as above.

This wouldn't have been an issue if the nationwide telecommunications network wasn't privatised.

The remaining 3% are cost inefficient to any solution. In fact, better for them to move.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The remaining 3% are cost inefficient to any solution. In fact, better for them to move.

I think that advice was also given to those who used to come online "whinging" about having to pay for a GWS or private well.

I would hazard a guess that you would agree that having access to the public water network would be a priority/demand that should be high and above that of being online?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think that advice was also given to those who used to come online "whinging" about having to pay for a GWS or private well.

I would hazard a guess that you would agree that having access to the public water network would be a priority/demand that should be high and above that of being online?

Why would you hazard that guess?

Anyone who chooses to live in splendid rural isolation should have to accept the consequences.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would you hazard that guess?

Anyone who chooses to live in splendid rural isolation should have to accept the consequences.

I think the sky is about to fall in.

Blanch and me agree on something.

BonnieSituation

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think the sky is about to fall in.

Blanch and me agree on something.

And I agree with him too.

Better crack out the helmets.

Edward M

Living in the sticks I know of the complaints of rural broadband.
We are lucky here in south Cavan anyway, we have a good selection of wireless broadband with mobile coverage.
Vodafone and 3 signals are good and well catered for and we have Iona Arden which provides a service through antenna.
All are good enough and relatively inexpensive, ranging from a start of €25 with Arden to €30 each with Vodafone and 3 for home broadband with wi fi router.
3 gives unlimited download, the others are limited and price increases depending on your usage needs.
I would think that business users would be the more necessary to get broadband and lots of country towns and villages have little enterprises and the odd major one that should get priority when it comes to wired or fibre broadband.
Most if not all houses in our area have, or have access to reasonable if not good home broadband through some service or other, some even through the phone line, I think too much is being made of the necessity to get wired service to every home.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's not have the rural vs urban Ireland thing again.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think the sky is about to fall in.

Blanch and me agree on something.

Sorry to rain on the love in
But what about all the people who want free houses next to mammy? Was it not put forward that they should be moved to places with housing to spare rather than have their dead weight taking up prime real estate that could be sold, (and sold back to us?) to the lowest bidder, (if it's the right bidder)?

Access need not necessarily mean free. If folk don't want broadband they don't need to have. We could subsidise a company to bring it to rural regions with developer/landlord style grants or tax breaks surely? They could still charge their usual rates that way.

Any road I see Naughton signed yer man into Dail Eireann, booked him and his in for dinner, but didn't attend said dinner so alls well with the world wide web. The man should be sacked or forced to resign. He's queered any deal and I've absolutely no confidence in him, he'll be aghast to hear.

James Brown

He also payed for yer man's lunch.

A spokesperson for the Minister for Communications has said Denis Naughten did pay for lunch for a businessman involved in the tender for the National Broadband Plan.

The lunch for David McCourt and his daughter cost €37 and it was deducted from Minister's Naughten's salary in July under the Oireachtas payments system, the spokesperson said.

This afternoon, Mr Naughten had said he did not know who paid for the lunch in the members' restaurant at Leinster House in April.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1010/1002207-denis-naughten-dail/

I believe this would break the protocol of the tender process in LA's, I would imagine national level might be a bit more or at least as strict?
Meeting potential contractors in the process of tendering in social circumstances. This chap has to go. This is way beyond Noonan level inappropriate behaviour.

nc6000

Matt Barrett wrote:

Any road I see Naughton signed yer man into Dail Eireann, booked him and his in for dinner, but didn't attend said dinner so alls well with the world wide web. The man should be sacked or forced to resign. He's queered any deal and I've absolutely no confidence in him, he'll be aghast to hear.

It's just crazy that Naughton thinks this is even close to being appropriate. How many people visit Dublin for the day and decide to go to Leinster House for lunch? All the places in Dublin to choose from and look where they end up.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He also payed for yer man's lunch.



I believe this would break the protocol of the tender process in LA's, I would imagine national level might be a bit more or at least as strict?
Meeting potential contractors in the process of tendering in social circumstances. This chap has to go. This is way beyond Noonan level inappropriate behaviour.

Another conspiracy to be noted and bigged up!



Yawns called for.

Sam Russell

Good loser wrote: »

Another conspiracy to be noted and bigged up!



Yawns called for.

Denis O’Brien associate appointed new head of broadband bidder Enet

A long-time associate of businessman Denis O’Brien has been appointed as the new chief executive of Enet, the Limerick-based telecoms group which is part of the consortium bidding for the Government’s National Broadband Plan (NBP).

Peter McCarthy, a former senior executive at Mr O’Brien’s engineering services group Actavo, replaces Enet’s Bartley McElroy, who has only been in the top job for several months.

Mr McCarthy’s association with Mr O’Brien stretches back to 1997 when he worked as the head of procurement for Esat, the telecoms firm that Mr O’Brien set up in the early 1990s, which went on to secure the State’s second mobile phone licence.

Perhaps it is not a conspiracy theory.

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He also payed for yer man's lunch.



I believe this would break the protocol of the tender process in LA's, I would imagine national level might be a bit more or at least as strict?
Meeting potential contractors in the process of tendering in social circumstances. This chap has to go. This is way beyond Noonan level inappropriate behaviour.

Naughton paid for their lunch, not the other way around. If Naughton received a benefit when he was going to have a say in the tendering process then you would have a point. But there seems to be no evidence that Naughton has benefitted in any way from his contacts with these people.

tobsey

Sam Russell wrote: »

Denis O’Brien associate appointed new head of broadband bidder Enet



Perhaps it is not a conspiracy theory.

A senior manager in a telecoms firm in the 90s has managed to reach CEO level in a telecoms firm 20 years later. That's not that hard to believe is it?

Sam Russell

tobsey wrote: »

A senior manager in a telecoms firm in the 90s has managed to reach CEO level in a telecoms firm 20 years later. That's not that hard to believe is it?

Did you read the article?

enet, the major part of the consortium have ceded readership to D O'Briens company Actovo (- formerly Siteserv) lead by one of his lieutenants.

Enet is now fully owned by the State-backed Irish Infrastructure Fund (IIF), which announced this week that it had acquired the remaining 22 per cent stake in the company from US investment fund Granahan McCourt.

The IIF had acquired 78 per cent of Enet in August 2017 in a deal that valued the company at up to €200 million.

Ongoing
Earlier this year Enet was left in pole position to win the Government’s NBP contract, said to be worth over €500 million, following the surprise exits of Eir and ESB-Vodafone joint venture Siro. The procurement process is ongoing.

The company’s bid for the State-subsidised scheme has subsequently been taken over by its former backer Granahan McCourt.

However, Enet and Mr O’Brien’s Actavo are still listed as “key partners” to the bid.

The changing composition of the lead NBP consortium had added further complexity to the Government’s already-strained broadband process. UK heavyweights SSE and John Laing have recently exited the consortium despite being brought in by Enet last year to shore up its bid.

Edward M

tobsey wrote: »

Naughton paid for their lunch, not the other way around. If Naughton received a benefit when he was going to have a say in the tendering process then you would have a point. But there seems to be no evidence that Naughton has benefitted in any way from his contacts with these people.

He denied that firstly, then it was clarified it was paid for out of his dail salary.
He initially said he just facilitated it, pretty mean to be facilitated and then drop the bill on the facilitator?

Its a pittance of a lunch €37 euro I think, but that's not the point. It looks bad to be interacting socially with potential investors for a contract like this, not once but twice at least now that we know of.

James Brown

nc6000 wrote: »

It's just crazy that Naughton thinks this is even close to being appropriate. How many people visit Dublin for the day and decide to go to Leinster House for lunch? All the places in Dublin to choose from and look where they end up.

And on the very day Naughten apologised for his other bout of inappropriate behaviour.

tobsey wrote: »

Naughton paid for their lunch, not the other way around. If Naughton received a benefit when he was going to have a say in the tendering process then you would have a point. But there seems to be no evidence that Naughton has benefitted in any way from his contacts with these people.

The Bertie defense? He initially denied it. His story evolved. He acted inappropriately..again. Not good enough for the tax payer IMO.

At Local Authority level there are rules for tendering. Each company applies with the required criteria set out. They don't get to see each others tender so they aren't trying to one up each other. You certainly wouldn't play favourites and give a preferred consortium or company the inside track. Is that what happened here? We don't know.

Added:

As Catherine Murphy said on Morning Ireland, "Primary focus is that we have a broadband roll out...And we have to have it in a situation where we don't end up with a tribunal fairly soon afterwards...Now is the time to ask the questions".

nc6000

He has resigned.

Could well cause an election due to the effect on the Government numbers.

James Brown

nc6000 wrote: »

He has resigned.

Decent thing to do, al beit later. The whole process needs looking at by an impartial/non-political observer. They can't continue as is.

Was it not this morning Coveney said he had a brief chat and had full confidence? Seems this was decided between himself and Leo last night.

Colonel Claptrap

nc6000 wrote: »

Could well cause an election due to the effect on the Government numbers.

He resigns his ministry, not his seat.

He still votes with the government from the back benches. Same as Frances Fitzgerald.

hotmail.com

Leo to make statement shortly to explain why he sacked Naughten.

Faugheen

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

nc6000 wrote: »

Could well cause an election due to the effect on the Government numbers.

He resigns his ministry, not his seat.

He still votes with the government from the back benches. Same as Frances Fitzgerald.

Naughten's an independent. He's under no obligation to vote with the government and his statement about Leo suggests that he won't.

Colonel Claptrap

Faugheen wrote: »

Naughten's an independent. He's under no obligation to vote with the government and his statement about Leo suggests that he won't.

My mistake.

I assumed he had regained the party whip.

McMurphy

Faugheen wrote: »

Naughten's an independent. He's under no obligation to vote with the government and his statement about Leo suggests that he won't.

Peter Fitzpatrick indicated he wouldn't either.