Smoke signals versus rural broadband - better bang for buck?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

whisky_galore wrote: »

A large modern ugly home the size of a small hotel with a handful of humans residing within. Like the Anglo Irish mansions of old but without any class or other redeeming features.

That’s it. At least some of those old Anglo-Irish mansions were aesthetically pleasing. And indeed, I’ve seen the odd nice modern one. But so many of the one-off large houses built these days are arse-ugly.

John_Rambo

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Anyone giving out about this is a Dub where all the investment and money goes to in this county so their opinion isn’t worth even considering.

Any investment in Dublin comes from the city of Dublin. And indeed more investment is needed in the capital. Don't forget about 10 billion a year is diverted out of the city to subsidise rural areas that would struggle without. And rightly so, this isn't a problem. It's the same all over the world. Cities are the cultural and economic hubs of all modern countries.

The high horse brigade wrote: »

We got 30 years of tech advancement on the copper network from 56k to a hundred megabits per second and it will be the same for fibre. Fibre is in its infancy. To get faster speeds you just change the optics either end.

Excellent & valid point. This is a brave and bold move from the government. Naughton has to be admired, it's basically the deal he brokered with little or no changes with an extended release date to garner rural votes for FG.
There's amusing veiled threats of it not happening if FG aren't leading the country in the future, so interesting times ahead regarding this project.

Gary kk

John_Rambo wrote: »

Any investment in Dublin comes from the city of Dublin. And indeed more investment is needed in the capital. Don't forget about 10 billion a year is diverted out of the city to subsidise rural areas that would struggle without. And rightly so, this isn't a problem. It's the same all over the world. Cities are the cultural and economic hubs of all modern countries.



Excellent & valid point. This is a brave and bold move from the government. Naughton has to be admired, it's basically the deal he brokered with little or no changes with an extended release date to garner rural votes for FG.
There's amusing veiled threats of it not happening if FG aren't leading the country in the future, so interesting times ahead regarding this project.

I am not sure where the 10 billion figure is coming from I tried to find this out on government sites but I can't if you could share the link that would be great. Thanks

Anteayer

Equivalent money was spent in the 80s bringing modern phone services to remote areas.

I agree though that we have way too much unsustainable development.

At the end of the day the decision to subsidize it is a democratic one. The Irish dream seems to be living in an isolated house down a boreen with no facilities or neighbours.

I'd love to know how these post 1960s one off housing dwellers cope in old age when driving becomes an issue. We've an awful lot of rural isolation for no particular reason other than ppl not thinking beyond their 60s.

That being said, we've done a fine job of making the towns and cities far less attractive than they should be due to the equally bad urban planning.

Discodog

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Eircom rolled out fibre to 350k one-off houses and the take-up rate is only 20%. There are many vacant and holiday homes in remote parts of the West, so the take-up rate for the NBP will mos likely be lower than 20%. €3 billion for <100,000‬ homes just so boggers can watch Netflix and porn is just ridiculous.

The take up rate may be low because it's Eircom. They have huge numbers of complaints & for example, insist on direct debit. I am with Vodafone fibre to the exchange. I could have fibre to my home but only with Eircom. I'll stick with Vodafone.

Wanderer78

So we re handing a finance company 3 billion to build a fibre network, and we mightn't own it in the end, sure what could go wrong!

Anteayer

Discodog: It's OpenEir. You can buy services from Eir, Vodafone, Digiweb, Airwire and a whole load of other providers and they're all delivered over the OpenEir FTTH access network. You'd have no contact with Eir retail at all, unless you actually subscribe to them.

You can use Vodafone's services over it. There absolutely nothing forcing you to use Eir retail.

Personally, I'd go with one of the smaller ISPs like Digiweb. They've way way better customer care than either Eir or Vodafone and the Fritz!Box router they provide is far better than the own brand junk the big two give out.

Ask around the broadband forum for advice.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The term ‘McMansion’ doesn’t mean just any big house. Some large houses and mansions are elegantly designed. McMansions are large houses or mansions that are external eyesores. Small houses can be eyesores too of course but because they’re small, they don’t stick out so much. McMansions have all kinds of ugly appendages and/or rooflines because what the occupier wants internally can’t be reconciled with a pleasing exterior.

IMO is a painful term used to describe any house that’s of a half decent size in the country by people who choose to live in small houses in estates (and are most likely jealous).

I personally see almost no “eyesores” or ugly houses. The vast majority of one off houses are at worst grand to look at and there are a lot of very nice houses also. I’m paying particular attention also as I’m in the process of having my own house designed so I am going out of my way to look at houses both online and in person to build up ideas and suggestions for our own house. Building a small house is a total waste of time imo. If you are building build big better to have too much space than not enough and end up having to extend etc in future.

whisky_galore

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

IMO is a painful term used to describe any house that’s of a half decent size in the country by people who choose to live in small houses in estates (and are most likely jealous).

I personally see almost no “eyesores” or ugly houses. The vast majority of one off houses are at worst grand to look at and there are a lot of very nice houses also. I’m paying particular attention also as I’m in the process of having my own house designed so I am going out of my way to look at houses both online and in person to build up ideas and suggestions for our own house. Building a small house is a total waste of time imo. If you are building build big better to have too much space than not enough and end up having to extend etc in future.

Fine if you're planning to procreate a small army.

whisky_galore

Gary kk wrote: »

A lot of hate there guys did some rural person run over a pet when you where small

I am from rural Ireland.
My 'one off' house is c.150 years old.

Getting back ot, there are places in rural SE Asia with better broadband than supposedly 1st world rural Ireland.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fine if you're planning to procreate a small army.

Not at all, even with no kids I would build big as I like the space and options many different types of room in the house. I struggled badly living in a 3 bed semi with just me and my oh I find it tiny having grown up in a large country house (we had neighbors in the estate raising 3 kids in the same size houses I’ve no idea how they manage it).

As a comparison our master bedroom in our own build incl walk in dressing room/wardrobe and large en-suite will be of a similar size to the entire upstairs of the 3 bed semi (which has 3 bedrooms, one en-suite and a main bathroom).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

IMO is a painful term used to describe any house that’s of a half decent size in the country by people who choose to live in small houses in estates (and are most likely jealous).

I personally see almost no “eyesores” or ugly houses. The vast majority of one off houses are at worst grand to look at and there are a lot of very nice houses also. I’m paying particular attention also as I’m in the process of having my own house designed so I am going out of my way to look at houses both online and in person to build up ideas and suggestions for our own house. Building a small house is a total waste of time imo. If you are building build big better to have too much space than not enough and end up having to extend etc in future.

No, definitely not jealousy. If it was that, people who use the term McMansion would hate all big houses. The term McMansion refers to externally ugly large houses of which there are plenty. They are eyesores. And, believe it or not, not everyone wants a huge house.

whisky_galore

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, definitely not jealousy. If it was that, people who use the term McMansion would hate all big houses. The term McMansion refers to externally ugly large houses of which there are plenty. They are eyesores. And, believe it or not, not everyone wants a huge house.

Yep. Dick waving in poor taste architecture.

Yurt2

Pkiernan wrote: »

Here we go. The far left telling us we all need to cram ourselves into dirty, polluted, crime ridden cities.

No thanks.

Yeah, because living in a village or town (where there is actually community instead of being in the middle of a field) is akin to a scene from Blade Runner.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Yeah, because living in a village or town (where there is actually community instead of being in the middle of a field) is akin to a scene from Blade Runner.

You do realise people still have neigbors and community in the country side they just aren’t living on top of each other. People living in the county also often have multiple family members living close by or next door which allows much closer family relationships etc.

Yurt2

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

You do realise people still have neigbors and community in the country side they just aren’t living on top of each other. People living in the county also often have multiple family members living close by or next door which allows much closer family relationships etc.

Because it's impossible to have close family relationships in a village or town, I get it.


One-off rural Ireland is a permanent money-pit. The "chape site" comes at a cost to the rest of the tax-payers in the country.

EDIT: I'm from the country btw, before you call me a flat-white drinking yuppie.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

whisky_galore wrote: »

Yep. Dick waving in poor taste architecture.

Both willy-waving and “I want this room and this room and this room and to hell with what that looks like from the outside!”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Both willy-waving and “I want this room and this room and this room and to hell with what that looks like from the outside!”.

I doubt any person building a house says to hell with the look from the outside. I know the look from the outside is a crucial part of the design for me. That’s why you work with a good architect who can tie together your interior requirements and exterior suggestions into a well designed house.

Ush1

I'm all for regional towns getting broadband but every one off house in the country to get it is a nonsense.

Gary kk

Yurt! wrote: »

Because it's impossible to have close family relationships in a village or town, I get it.


One-off rural Ireland is a permanent money-pit. The "chape site" comes at a cost to the rest of the tax-payers in the country.

EDIT: I'm from the country btw, before you call me a flat-white drinking yuppie.

If you could pass on the link that shows the big money pit that is rural Ireland please share. I searched government sites but couldn't find that much detail

DesperateDan

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet.

Health and financial services, smart homes, cars and online learning are all growing in importance year on year. There are technologies out there that you can't even fathom right now that are going to be important in 10 years time. Just like nobody forecasted Netflix or video calling your doctor.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services.

My house is about 4km from the nearest small town. I pay for my own oil, boiler, the upkeep of my own well, and I pay a much higher standing charge for electricity than you do precisely because of this.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

It will also encourage more people to live rurally, which will contribute to the decline of countryside towns as towns need to be of a certain population density to be sustainable, so if you actually care about creating a counterbalance to Dublin, you should oppose the NBP and encourage people to move house to an area covered by commercial high-speed internet.

Who should encourage this, and how? It is literally impossible to move people from their homes situated a few km outside of towns, into those towns. The infrastructure and land is simply not there.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Eircom rolled out fibre to 350k one-off houses and the take-up rate is only 20%. There are many vacant and holiday homes in remote parts of the West, so the take-up rate for the NBP will mos likely be lower than 20%. €3 billion for <100,000‬ homes just so boggers can watch Netflix and porn is just ridiculous.

Right now the take-up rate might be 20%. This plan is thinking 50 years ahead of you. Do you think it will be possible to use the internet in 50 years in any capacity without a very fast internet connection? Many people smarter than you have spent years considering this, and the answer is no.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The whole "working from homes" excuse doesn't cut it either, you can work from home in an urban area. My sister-in-law does it.

The reason most people work from home is to avoid commuting, for a less stressful work life balance. The knock-on effects for productivity, and mental health are unquestionable. If your sister in law is in working from home but not enjoying the benefits of avoiding a long commute, she would be in a minority of people that work from home.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a problem with one-off housing. These types of homes aren't sustainable. Germany banned planning permission for homes more than 500 meters outside of urban areas because they had the common sense to foresee these issues down the road - Ireland didn't. Germany's rural population is only 20%, Ireland's is 37% and we still allow people to build one-off houses under "locals only" clauses and corrupt councilors doing their constituents a few favours for votes.

My house is over 100 years old. Houses like this are part of the fabric of the country, of course they are sustainable. Germany is enormous. Find us another island nation of a similar size, population density, economic standing and GDP and compare those. Otherwise you might as well compare our broadband roll out to Jupiter's.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Eventually, another essential technology will come along and we're stuck with the same problem.

This is pretty baseless, it's like saying some technology that beats electricity will come along. And just in case you thought 5g was the solution, it's not. I don't have phone reception or 2g. So you can turn on 5g up and down the country and the same people are without fast, usable broadband connections. You can install more controversial masts at huge cost and then you have the same inherent problems that 4g has which will only get worse over time - high latencies and as soon as many people connect, performance goes down.

Fibre is here to stay for decades to come.

Old diesel

Whats needed is to work out what Rural Irelands future could or should be.

This then would hopefully allow sensible decisions on what type of internet connectivity people in Rural Ireland should have.

Even the likes of Agri and tourism needs reliable Internet connectivity.

The Dept of agriculture want farmers to do things on line.

People booking a B & B in West Cork expect to be able to book online but this cant happen if the B & B has no reliable internet.

Guests of the B & B will also expect to have Internet access.

You don't need to have a massive 500 job business to justify decent connectivity.

snotboogie

Old diesel wrote: »

Whats needed is to work out what Rural Irelands future could or should be.

This then would hopefully allow sensible decisions on what type of internet connectivity people in Rural Ireland should have.

Even the likes of Agri and tourism needs reliable Internet connectivity.

The Dept of agriculture want farmers to do things on line.

People booking a B & B in West Cork expect to be able to book online but this cant happen if the B & B has no reliable internet.

Guests of the B & B will also expect to have Internet access.

You don't need to have a massive 500 job business to justify decent connectivity.

I was streaming YouTube on data in Baltimore a few weeks ago. WiFi in the Airbnb and in the bars and restaurants was also more than fast enough for YouTube and Netflix.

John_Rambo

Snow Garden wrote: »

34I coach underage teams and I have always noticed the country kids are generally fitter than the 'urban' estate kids. I guess they do more cycling and walking and mooching around the countryside. I even notice the estate kids are softer - for example I have had kids to my house who had never encountered nettles before!

You’re way off the mark here, barstool tall tales or rose tinted glasses! Go to a national cub or scout event and you’ll see the difference between the rural and urban kids.

Urban and city kids are fitter, stronger and slimmer from cycling, scooting, walking, running for public transport etc…

Rural obesity is becoming a national issue, it’s already an international issue as rural kids spend more time indoors and been transported around in cars instead of propelling themselves on bikes or on foot like their more outdoor orientated urban and city kids.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=26646

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2019/0508/21551597-obesity-rates-rising-faster-in-rural-areas-report/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01182-x

Yurt2

John_Rambo wrote: »

You’re way off the mark here, barstool tall tales or rose tinted glasses! Go to a national cub or scout event and you’ll see the difference between the rural and urban kids.

Urban and city kids are fitter, stronger and slimmer from cycling, scooting, walking, running for public transport etc…

Rural obesity is becoming a national issue, it’s already an international issue as rural kids spend more time indoors and been transported around in cars instead of propelling themselves on bikes or on foot like their more outdoor orientated urban and city kids.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=26646

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2019/0508/21551597-obesity-rates-rising-faster-in-rural-areas-report/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01182-x

Anecdotally, I find this to be true - and it continues into adulthood. The exception being kids that grow up on farms and help out - but the vast majority that grow up in one-off manialand aren't on a farm.

Anteayer

On the future proofing point. It's a bunch of optical fibers. The OLT (device in your house) and the active network equipment at the far end of the like can be replaced and upgraded. The wiring is just wiring - it's passive infrastructure.

The big cost is the physical installation and maintenance of optical fibre. The rest of it is upgradable in decades ahead. The wiring aspect of the network is likely to still be in use in 40 or more years time much like the copper infrastructure lasted decades.

If you look at telephone wiring in say Dublin or Cork cities, it could be from the 1950, yet be perfectly capable of carrying 100mbits VDSL which original installers never imagined it would be doing.

Beta Ray Bill

DesperateDan wrote: »

Health and financial services, smart homes, cars and online learning are all growing in importance year on year. There are technologies out there that you can't even fathom right now that are going to be important in 10 years time. Just like nobody forecasted Netflix or video calling your doctor.

True, but 4/3G signal which most of the country has right now, is enough for this kinda of activity (maybe not the online learning).
Even Netflix requires just 5.0Mbps for HD quality (4k is pointless)

DesperateDan wrote: »

My house is about 4km from the nearest small town. I pay for my own oil, boiler, the upkeep of my own well, and I pay a much higher standing charge for electricity than you do precisely because of this.

Point taken, but how many people live on "your road"?
That road needs to be maintained, along with signage, poles, etc.
You're standing electricity charge is probably no where near what it costs to maintain the lines.
Just cause you pay a bit more doesn't mean you;re covering the overall cost of maintenance

DesperateDan wrote: »

Who should encourage this, and how? It is literally impossible to move people from their homes situated a few km outside of towns, into those towns. The infrastructure and land is simply not there.

I wouldn't suggest this either. however as a consequence of not living in a town, you wont be getting high speed BB.
And that's just the way it is.

I'm buying a house this year, I looked at moving into a place called Turnapin which is in Santry in Dublin, only to discover that there is no Virgin Media coverage there. That immediately for me, marked that house as completely unsuitable.
It'll be like moving into a house with no running water or electricity.
It's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and without those things it's worth very little, so why are we spending €10,000 to run a fibre cable out to it!?

DesperateDan wrote: »

Right now the take-up rate might be 20%. This plan is thinking 50 years ahead of you. Do you think it will be possible to use the internet in 50 years in any capacity without a very fast internet connection? Many people smarter than you have spent years considering this, and the answer is no.

I agree that faster connections will be required, but my point above still stands.
The house you are in now won't be livable/worth anything without a High speed connection, so no one will live there.

DesperateDan wrote: »

The reason most people work from home is to avoid commuting, for a less stressful work life balance. The knock-on effects for productivity, and mental health are unquestionable. If your sister in law is in working from home but not enjoying the benefits of avoiding a long commute, she would be in a minority of people that work from home.

I WFH once a week, due to family commitments
It makes sense if you are a 30 min commute from work. I wouldn't employ someone that lives out in the sticks and wants to WFH 4 days a week.
And Even at that 5.0 Mbps is acceptable for RDP sessions.

DesperateDan wrote: »

My house is over 100 years old. Houses like this are part of the fabric of the country, of course they are sustainable. Germany is enormous. Find us another island nation of a similar size, population density, economic standing and GDP and compare those. Otherwise you might as well compare our broadband roll out to Jupiter's.

They are not at all sustainable. The NBP is proof of that.
This is effectively a massive state subsidy, to those who live in a massive house on a big plot of land in the middle of no where. If the state wasn't subsidising it, it would never get built as it is just not cost effective.

DesperateDan wrote: »

This is pretty baseless, it's like saying some technology that beats electricity will come along. And just in case you thought 5g was the solution, it's not. I don't have phone reception or 2g. So you can turn on 5g up and down the country and the same people are without fast, usable broadband connections. You can install more controversial masts at huge cost and then you have the same inherent problems that 4g has which will only get worse over time - high latencies and as soon as many people connect, performance goes down.

Agreed 5G is not the solution. It would actually cost more. Something like 20,000 - 60,000 masts would be required to get the speeds that they want.

DesperateDan wrote: »

Fibre is here to stay for decades to come.

Fibre is the fastest and is defo here to stay, but they should not be rolling it out to houses in the middle of no where.

Anteayer

It is a massive subsidy to people who live off grid. That's not an issue if people are happy to vote for that kind of thing and in Ireland in general they seem to be. We've fought tooth and nail against any policy proposals that create sustainable development. So the €3bn cost is basically the reality of wanting to have our cake and eat it. There's a bill.

My view of if is we need to accept that these are the outcomes of decades of not bad policy but political choices that have been fully endorsed by the electorate.

I mean we've a democratic right to make terrible policy decisions. I just think we need to accept that these policies didn't get imposed from upon high. They're a direct consequence of what people voted and lobbied hard for.

Beta Ray Bill

Anteayer wrote: »

There's a bill.

Think this is the thing a lot of people aren't getting.

I'd be fine with a smaller bill that ran Highspeed BB to town and Villages with a population greater than 250-750 people (Depending on Location)

I'm not at all for running it out to houses that are are more than 1km outside the said Village boundary.

I think a big thing about this is Bang for Buck.
And we're not getting much bang for buck for this.
3 Billion to service 540,000 premises's is poor value - €5,555 per premises

It works out at roughly a €1,200 tax on each working person in the country, most of which will see absolutely no benefit at all.

Ush1

grahambo wrote: »

Think this is the thing a lot of people aren't getting.

I'd be fine with a smaller bill that ran Highspeed BB to town and Villages with a population greater than 250-750 people (Depending on Location)

I'm not at all for running it out to houses that are are more than 1km outside the said Village boundary.

I think a big thing about this is Bang for Buck.
And we're not getting much bang for buck for this.
3 Billion to service 540,000 premises's is poor value - €5,555 per premises

It works out at roughly a €1,200 tax on each working person in the country, most of which will see absolutely no benefit at all.

It's actually validating bad planning and erosion of our countryside. One thing the Brits get right is the zoning of land like the lake district etc.. Ireland you can literally walk for a few miles in any direction and you will come to either a road, field or house.

Beta Ray Bill

Ush1 wrote: »

It's actually validating bad planning and erosion of our countryside. One thing the Brits get right is the zoning of land like the lake district etc.. Ireland you can literally walk for a few miles in any direction and you will come to either a road, field or house.

This is changing though. Getting planning permission for a lone house at the side of the road in the middle of no where is now near impossible.
The only way you can get it is to say you're planning on looking after your parents when they are old, who live in a house less than 100ft down the road.

Councils are starting to recognise the actual cost of people living out in a big house on their own in the middle of no where.

Fresh water
Waste pipee
Telephone lines
Road maintenance
Refuse collection
Post
Electricity
Gas
Schools
etc
etc
etc

It's tens of times more to service these houses out in the middle of no where.

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

True, but 4/3G signal which most of the country has right now, is enough for this kinda of activity (maybe not the online learning).
Even Netflix requires just 5.0Mbps for HD quality (4k is pointless)

3/4G is a waste of time for the needs of home BB. We have perfect 4G reception and it comes nowhere near to meeting our requirements never mind those who have only 3G or worse.

grahambo wrote: »

Point taken, but how many people live on "your road"?
That road needs to be maintained, along with signage, poles, etc.
You're standing electricity charge is probably no where near what it costs to maintain the lines.
Just cause you pay a bit more doesn't mean you;re covering the overall cost of maintenance

This is an often made point that is very poorly thought out. Pretty much every single road in the country side is there to serve a farm house or give access to land. There were no roads built in rural areas to build houses so all the maintenance is needed regardless of one off houses or not and as I’ve said before take out all the one off houses and tax payers that live there and you are maintaining roads at the same cost for the benefit of far fewer people making it less cost effective.

Same goes for electricity, it’s needed all over the county side even where there are no houses it’s ran to sheds from farmers so take out all the one off house users and all the supply and maintainence is needed for far far fewer people.

The same goes for fiber, it’s needed for the farmers and business in rural areas so it makes perfect sense to also serve the other houses along the way.

grahambo wrote: »

I WFH once a week, due to family commitments
It makes sense if you are a 30 min commute from work. I wouldn't employ someone that lives out in the sticks and wants to WFH 4 days a week.

You have your own ideas for not hiring someone who wants to work from home most of the time (likely old fashioned have to show up in the office ones) but many employers aren’t like this and are very happy to have their employees work mostly or even 100% from home.

grahambo wrote: »

Fibre is the fastest and is defo here to stay, but they should not be rolling it out to houses in the middle of no where.

I don’t think people even realize how rural the areas open eir have ran fiber to already though far far more rural that 1km outside a town. Essentially they covered enough areas to make it unviable for anyone was bar the NBP. Our house is at the end of a single lane roadway off another local road only slightly wider and openeir covered 500 metres of the road (the single lane road) and then stopped leaving the 6 houses (7 if you include my house in the planning stages) on the last 500 metres of the road. Even if we wanted to pay personally to run the fiber the rest of the way there was no avenue to do this instead we have to wait for the NBP (which I pray will just get approved ASAP) to run the fiber the rest of the way I can nearly see it from the house it’s that close.

grahambo wrote: »

This is changing though. Getting planning permission for a lone house at the side of the road in the middle of no where is now near impossible.
The only way you can get it is to say you're planning on looking after your parents when they are old, who live in a house less than 100ft down the road.

Its actually fairly easy once you are from the area originally even easier if it’s family owned land. It’s not even been a topic for discussion yet in my own build prep as it’s just seen as thing I will easily meet.

grahambo wrote: »

Councils are starting to recognise the actual cost of people living out in a big house on their own in the middle of no where.

Fresh water
Waste pipee
Telephone lines
Road maintenance
Refuse collection
Post
Electricity
Gas
Schools
etc
etc
etc

It's tens of times more to service these houses out in the middle of no where.

All wrong.

Fresh water: mostly private group rather schemes or wells which are metered and pay water charges so unlike urban dwellers we actually pay for our water (been paying water charges for 10 years in my area and metered for most of that).

Waste: septic tank fully funded by the house owner

Telephone lines: already in place and needed for farms regardless of one off houses also pay more and aren’t allowed take up many city offers due to lack of BB and lack of suppliers.

Road maintainence: Needed anyway for farms and smaller roads are often partly maintained by locals believe it or not. Resurfacing often requires a contribution from the locals also, you won’t see a urban dweller out maintaining a road or paying towards it on top of mountains of tax rural people already pay also

Refuse collection: if it’s even available this is run by private operators many areas don’t have it, we bring our own waste and recycling to a depot ourselves for example and are perfectly happy to do so as it’s much cheaper than collections.

Post: required by farmers etc anyway and minimal extra cost I would think.

Electricity: required all over the county side regardless of one off houses and extra costs already coverd in higher costs for rural users.

Gas: not provided in rural areas, people pay for their own oil

Schools: rural schools are booming, don’t know what additional cost you would claim they have since it’s much cheaper to build a school outside an urban area. Secondary schools are rarely if ever outside towns so can’t even be argued.

John_Rambo

Nox… This is just a small sample of how dispersed housing is hard to service and police. It’s very simply explained.

A postman posts to 400 houses per day on a bicycle in an urban area.

B postman posts 40 houses per day in a van in a rural area.

The van needs to be purchased, taxed, insured, serviced, maintained, cvrt’d and filled with fuel.

The bike needs to be purchased and maintained at a fraction of the cost.

Which post service is more costly on the taxpayer? The expensive 40 house delivery or the cheaper 400 house delivery.

Ush1

Not to mention emergency services, hospitals, garda stations etc...

Snow Garden

John_Rambo wrote: »

Nox… This is just a small sample of how dispersed housing is hard to service and police. It’s very simply explained.

A postman posts to 400 houses per day on a bicycle in an urban area.

B postman posts 40 houses per day in a van in a rural area.

The van needs to be purchased, taxed, insured, serviced, maintained, cvrt’d and filled with fuel.

The bike needs to be purchased and maintained at a fraction of the cost.

Which post service is more costly on the taxpayer? The expensive 40 house delivery or the cheaper 400 house delivery.

Pretty useless postman that can only manage 40 houses in my rural area but in any event, there is less and less post being delivered these days.

Now why don't you respond to Nox's 'All wrong' post where he showed that most service costs are born by the rural householder.

John_Rambo

Snow Garden wrote: »

Pretty useless postman that can only manage 40 houses in my rural area but in any event

Exactly! It's bad value. Dispersed housing, harder to deliver.

Snow Garden wrote: »

there is less and less post being delivered these days.

Very wrong. Online purchasing is on the up with An Post recording record delivery numbers.

Snow Garden wrote: »

Now why don't you respond to Nox's 'All wrong' post where he showed that most service costs are born by the rural householder.

Copy and paste Snow Garden!! Same rules apply!! Urban areas are easier and cheaper to service, if you don't think this is true you're deluded.

Snow Garden

John_Rambo wrote: »

You’re way off the mark here, barstool tall tales or rose tinted glasses! Go to a national cub or scout event and you’ll see the difference between the rural and urban kids.

Urban and city kids are fitter, stronger and slimmer from cycling, scooting, walking, running for public transport etc…

Rural obesity is becoming a national issue, it’s already an international issue as rural kids spend more time indoors and been transported around in cars instead of propelling themselves on bikes or on foot like their more outdoor orientated urban and city kids.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=26646

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2019/0508/21551597-obesity-rates-rising-faster-in-rural-areas-report/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01182-x

Aragh stop, all those articles say is that obesity is rising higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Urban areas still way ahead!

I stand by what I said - urban kids tend to be more overweight in Ireland than rural kids.

Your link showed why...

The global problem of overweight and obesity has been seen chiefly as an urban issue, partly because access to food services is much greater and easier in cities than in rural areas. City dwellers have an array of options for purchasing highly processed foods and beverages, which are high in salt, saturated fat and sugar, and which are often termed ‘ultra-processed obesogenic foods’. Many low-income communities in urban areas consume predominantly ultra-processed foods and beverages sold at fast-food and small retail outlets, often because they live in so-called ‘food deserts’ — low-income areas where these are the only available foods. Rural areas, on the other hand, have been seen as a different type of food desert, where people mainly consume produce from their own farms and gardens, and have less access to ultra-processed and packaged food.

Now if we push broadband everywhere and the rural kids get addicted to gaming, then we're in trouble!

Snow Garden

John_Rambo wrote: »

Copy and paste Snow Garden!! Same rules apply!! Urban areas are easier and cheaper to service, if you don't think this is true you're deluded.

Here you go since you deliberately avoid it

All wrong.

Fresh water: mostly private group rather schemes or wells which are metered and pay water charges so unlike urban dwellers we actually pay for our water (been paying water charges for 10 years in my area and metered for most of that).

Waste: septic tank fully funded by the house owner

Telephone lines: already in place and needed for farms regardless of one off houses also pay more and aren’t allowed take up many city offers due to lack of BB and lack of suppliers.

Road maintainence: Needed anyway for farms and smaller roads are often partly maintained by locals believe it or not. Resurfacing often requires a contribution from the locals also, you won’t see a urban dweller out maintaining a road or paying towards it on top of mountains of tax rural people already pay also

Refuse collection: if it’s even available this is run by private operators many areas don’t have it, we bring our own waste and recycling to a depot ourselves for example and are perfectly happy to do so as it’s much cheaper than collections.

Post: required by farmers etc anyway and minimal extra cost I would think.

Electricity: required all over the county side regardless of one off houses and extra costs already coverd in higher costs for rural users.

Gas: not provided in rural areas, people pay for their own oil

Schools: rural schools are booming, don’t know what additional cost you would claim they have since it’s much cheaper to build a school outside an urban area. Secondary schools are rarely if ever outside towns so can’t even be argued.

Now listen fatty, I know servicing rural areas is more expensive but it's not even half as bad as you think. Roads yes but ESB poles rarely need replacing. On the other hand, I am on a water scheme and I have a septic tank which I pay to get emptied. I don't have a telephone line or use gas.

John_Rambo

Snow Garden wrote: »

Here you go since you deliberately avoid it



Now listen fatty, I know servicing rural areas is more expensive but it's not even half as bad as you think. Roads yes but ESB poles rarely need replacing. On the other hand, I am on a water scheme and I have a septic tank which I pay to get emptied.

Right so! We agree, Nox is wrong!

City dweller here, so wrong again on the overweight issues.

Beta Ray Bill

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

3/4G is a waste of time for the needs of home BB. We have perfect 4G reception and it comes nowhere near to meeting our requirements never mind those who have only 3G or worse.

What are your requirements exactly?
XBL, PSN, Torrents?

My oul lad lives in Coolock and does and awful lot with stocks and shares online. (he's retired)
He's also a tight ar*e and didn't want to pay for BB off Eir or Virgin.
He successfully tethered off his Tesco Mobile phone for 3 years!!!! (Note: Tesco is the crappiest of services)

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Same goes for electricity, it’s needed all over the county side even where there are no houses it’s ran to sheds from farmers so take out all the one off house users and all the supply and maintenance is needed for far far fewer people.

Agree that Electricity is needed.
But that being said there is no way you can argue that it's as cost effective to run a line to a Farm miles away from anywhere when put in comparison to the cost of running a line to a housing estate.
Also, I do believe food production should be subsidised.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

The same goes for fiber, it’s needed for the farmers and business in rural areas so it makes perfect sense to also serve the other houses along the way.

Not it isn't!
No one runs server locally anymore with a big pipe out to the net, It's all done on AWS or similar
You do not need a big pipe to the net to run an internet business anymore.
Farmers don't need fibre Broadband to run a farm, there is absolutely no way it can be argued that they need it.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

You have your own ideas for not hiring someone who wants to work from home most of the time (likely old fashioned have to show up in the office ones) but many employers aren’t like this and are very happy to have their employees work mostly or even 100% from home.

Agreed, it depends on the office.
However 4G on a mobile network connection is more than enough for RDP sessions.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

I don’t think people even realize how rural the areas open eir have ran fiber to already though far far more rural that 1km outside a town. Essentially they covered enough areas to make it unviable for anyone was bar the NBP. Our house is at the end of a single lane roadway off another local road only slightly wider and openeir covered 500 metres of the road (the single lane road) and then stopped leaving the 6 houses (7 if you include my house in the planning stages) on the last 500 metres of the road. Even if we wanted to pay personally to run the fiber the rest of the way there was no avenue to do this instead we have to wait for the NBP (which I pray will just get approved ASAP) to run the fiber the rest of the way I can nearly see it from the house it’s that close.

In fairness that is sh*t, you got screwed there and the fact they wont even let you pay for the rest yourself sucks ass.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Its actually fairly easy once you are from the area originally even easier if it’s family owned land. It’s not even been a topic for discussion yet in my own build prep as it’s just seen as thing I will easily meet.

2 points here:
1: Have you actually applied for planning permission yet? (This change is recent by the councils)

2: Assuming you get PP, why should you be allowed to build your own 5 bed house out in the sticks and have NBBP bring a fibre connection to your door, while I haven't a hope in hell in getting Planning permission and have copper from my house to the switch/router down the road? At this rate you'll have BB faster than me, and I live in Dublin bay North!



Looks obviously you are rural and will benefit from it, so you are all for it and I accept that there is no way I'll change your mind.
But for the rest of us that are not benefiting, it's a real kick in the teeth.

3 billion could be better spent elsewhere.
It was only announced yesterday that Cork city will be getting a light rail system and upgraded heavy rail system for 1 billion. This is fantastic value for money that will benefit the entire region.

The NBBP will provide High speed BB for people but it's basically a state subsidy, we're never going to see a return on that 3 billion.
It's basically:
Something you're getting, and we're not

Snow Garden

John_Rambo wrote: »

Right so! We agree, Nox is wrong!

City dweller here, so wrong again on the overweight issues.

I give up. Respond to Nox's post to show where exactly where is he wrong and indeed where he is correct.

You're not even reading your own links! It said that obesity rates are rising faster in urban areas but rural areas are only catching up. Don't you get that?

Here, this link will help.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-and-urbanization/

1. More High-Calorie Foods
Urban centers have more multinational supermarkets and fast-food chains, offering a ready supply of processed foods, high-calorie snacks, sweets, and sugary beverages, (1) and fewer open markets and farm stands.

2. More Passive Transportation
Urban centers have more roads, cars, and car travel, and less walking or biking for transportation or leisure. (2)

3. Less Open Space
Urban centers have more densely populated neighborhoods, and less outdoor recreational space.

4. More Mass Media
Urban centers offer more exposure to mass media marketing of food and beverages, (3) which can shift people’s preferences away from traditional diets.

5. Less Work-Related Physical Activity
Urban centers have more sedentary jobs (such as manufacturing and desk jobs) and fewer active jobs (such as farming).

John_Rambo

Snow Garden wrote: »

I give up. Respond to Nox's post to show where exactly where is he wrong and indeed where he is correct.

You're not even reading your own links! It said that obesity rates are rising faster in urban areas but rural areas are only catching up. Don't you get that?

Here, this link will help.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-and-urbanization/

Your cleverest response so far.

PS... this is from the same website; "Growing numbers of adults and kids in the U.S. have obesity, and the problem is worse in rural areas, according to a recent national survey"

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/obesity-u-s/

Rubberchikken

this has all the signs of a future tribunal.
only one company in the running. god only knows what connections there are between it and shysters in this government.
leo listenibg to mo one talking any sense but willing to shove this plan down rural dwellers throats just for possible votes fir his lazy ass colleagues. god this country*sigh*

The high horse brigade

Rubberchikken wrote: »

this has all the signs of a future tribunal.
only one company in the running. god only knows what connections there are between it and shysters in this government.
leo listenibg to mo one talking any sense but willing to shove this plan down rural dwellers throats just for possible votes fir his lazy ass colleagues. god this country*sigh*

Do you have a better plan? This plan is not perfect but it's the best we have after both Eir and Siro withdrew from the race.

Snow Garden

John_Rambo wrote: »

Your cleverest response so far.

PS... this is from the same website; "Growing numbers of adults and kids in the U.S. have obesity, and the problem is worse in rural areas, according to a recent national survey"

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/obesity-u-s/

Ok....show me a link where obesity rates are higher in rural areas in Ireland per capita?

My original point was that I notice kids from urban areas to be more overweight than rural kids.

kneemos

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Do you have a better plan? This plan is not perfect but it's the best we have after both Eir and Siro withdrew from the race.

As Howlin said the other day if GMC are putting up two or three million up front and paying the rest from their profits,why can't the Government just do it themselves and keep all of the profit?

orourkeda1977

How are the remote rural culchies going to **** off the indonesian belch porn

The high horse brigade

kneemos wrote: »

As Howlin said the other day if GMC are putting up two or three million up front and paying the rest from their profits,why can't the Government just do it themselves and keep all of the profit?

First he said it was too expensive, now he wants the government to foot the whole bill of 6bm. FFS, he'd want to make up his mind!

And the full figure is for GMC 200m up front and 2.4bn investment by them over the length of the project

kneemos

The high horse brigade wrote: »

First he said it was too expensive, now he wants the government to foot the whole bill of 6bm. FFS, he'd want to make up his mind!

And the full figure is for GMC 200m up front and 2.4bn investment by them over the length of the project

2.4 billion that will come from profits, it's not an investment.

The high horse brigade

kneemos wrote: »

2.4 billion that will come from profits, it's not an investment.

And your better solution is?.....