Smoke signals versus rural broadband - better bang for buck?

kneemos

The high horse brigade wrote: »

And your better solution is?.....

I just said. Why are GMC involved at all if all they're putting up is a token three hundred million?

suicide_circus

if you want to live in a city you need to be prepared to put up with noise, pollution, congestion, smaller house, small garden, neighbours seeing into your garden etc.

if you want to live in the sticks one of the things you may have to put up with is slightly worse internet.

The high horse brigade

kneemos wrote: »

I just said. Why are GMC involved at all if all they're putting up is a token three hundred million?

This process has taken years. Two of the biggest contenders expected to get this contract pulled out ie offered to put in zero up front, don't want the contract because they feel it's not worth it. Haven't you been following? Providing broadband to rural Ireland is loss making without heavy government investment

John_Rambo

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.

What sort of a waste of space postman delivers to 40 houses in a day? There are 18 houses in approx 1km on my road, takes the post man about 10 mins to cover the road. An post need vans regardless, I see delivering in the city in vans also and your argument on parcels is not applicable since they are all delivered by van even in the city.

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.

Its not copy and paste you are ignoring that many of the costs I listed are either completely covered by the home owner, the additional cost is covered, the cost is not related to the number of rural houses or the point is totally not applicable at all as its not something covered by the tax payer anywhere.

grahambo wrote: »

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)

IPTV, torrents, multiple users online together, cloud based working (accessing files, using cloud based software, conf calls, uploading large files) etc etc. 4G is far too unreliable and simply can't handle my needs never mind the needs of the house as a whole. I have a very indepth knowledge of communications and I know the limits of non-fibre based delivery systems very well, even 5G simply will be good enough to replace having fibre systems.

grahambo wrote: »

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.

Its irrelevant really if it costs more or not. A significant amount of the cost is shouldered by the person getting it be it in upfront connection costs or in higher rates but the fact is the wire have to be there and if they are there then the more rural housing the more cost effective it is compared to running lines all around for a few farms.

grahambo wrote: »

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

Plenty of businesses still use local servers and even if not working of the cloud needs a very good internet connection.

grahambo wrote: »

Farmers don't need fibre Broadband to run a farm, there is absolutely no way it can be argued that they need it.

Farmers need fast and very reliable internet services, the only way to do this is provide wired services and the sensible way to do this is though fibre.

grahambo wrote: »

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

Most don't use RDP, I know I don't I work on my local machine connected to cloud services when working remotely meaning upload and download speeds are crucial.

grahambo wrote: »

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!

1. No, but as I said I will have zero issue if I would meet the requirements in multiple ways. I have friends and others I know in the area in the process and getting permission granted with far weaker cases than I would have.

2: Why shouldn't I be allowed build a house on my own land and expect to have it served by a proper internet connection. I'd be perfectly happy to have a 100Mb/s fibre to the cabinet connection similar to what most can get at a minimum in urban areas with the last run over copper but it would be a poor investment to do this in rural areas as running the fibre to the home is easy (easier than in an urban area as no digging required etc) so it makes sense to do it. My neighbour 400 metres or so away can get a 1Gb connection if willing to pay for it so you can get a faster service in the rural area that is true.

grahambo wrote: »

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.

I would strongly disagree, I would see getting fast and reliable fibre BB to all or the vast vast majority of homes and businesses in the country is as vital a piece of infrastructure as any. It benefits the whole country and not just Dublin or Cork. The fact is all these investments in cities do nothing for those who live rurally and only further divides country and city.

grahambo wrote: »

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

Its 2.5 billion to begin with as the number is already fudged to look worse for some reason due to VAT being included. What return will you see on a luas in cork either? That's not the point of big projects like this, it is to provide citizens with vital infrastructure. There is also a strong argument that it will have great economic benefit for for rural Ireland and with remote working, smart farming and the opportunities for internet based businesses to open up anywhere in the country along with equal treatment of rural dwellers by providing them with BB its a no brainer for me.

Ask someone in rural Ireland their opinion on the LUAS or metro north while trying to argue against providing a basic requirement such as high speed BB and you won't be long getting a strong response. Large numbers of us living in the country are paying massive amounts of tax and we deserve things like good BB just as much as any person who chooses to live in an urban area.

John_Rambo

Snow Garden wrote: »

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

There hasn't been a study done per capita, you know this already cause you can't back up your point. However, it's a global problem and Ireland part of the globe.

Snow Garden wrote: »

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

Yeah, I know but you're wrong or you're not paying attention. Rural obesity is a big problem caused by sedentary lifestyles and particularly by carbon locked lifestyles and an over dependency on cars. I see it all the time, in fact I know a few rural eight year olds and was shocked to learn they couldn't ride a bike!!! They're taxied everywhere in the car.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

What sort of a waste of space postman delivers to 40 houses in a day? There are 18 houses in approx 1km on my road, takes the post man about 10 mins to cover the road. An post need vans regardless, I see delivering in the city in vans also and your argument on parcels is not applicable since they are all delivered by van even in the city.

I probably shouldn't have used numbers.
Here's an even simpler question regarding the rural v urban postal service and how much it costs the tax payer.

Which is more expensive?

A van?
OR
A bike?

Note! Bikes are used in urban areas. Regular ones and cargo bikes, there will be e-bikes introduced soon. Just cause you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist!!

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

There hasn't been a study done per capita, you know this already cause you can't back up your point. However, it's a global problem and Ireland part of the globe.



Yeah, I know but you're wrong or you're not paying attention. Rural obesity is a big problem caused by sedentary lifestyles and particularly by carbon locked lifestyles and an over dependency on cars. I see it all the time, in fact I know a few rural eight year olds and was shocked to learn they couldn't ride a bike!!! They're taxied everywhere in the car.



I probably shouldn't have used numbers.
Here's an even simpler question regarding the rural v urban postal service and how much it costs the tax payer.

Which is more expensive?

A van?
OR
A bike?

Note! Bikes are used in urban areas. Regular ones and cargo bikes, there will be e-bikes introduced soon. Just cause you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist!!

The bike after one worker gets killed or maimed off one, that would pay for a lot of vans.

I read an article a while back that Royal Mail are on a trend of reducing post men cycling due to accidents and the inefficiently of it. Vans are a much more efficient and practical way to deliver mail. Even many that deliver on foot to do so with their van parked close by.

You also aren’t looking at the full picture. The van contributes to multiple jobs also, sales man, cvrt, petrol station, mechanic, tyre shop etc so the wider economy benefits far more along with a more efficient delivery especially with packages. A post man on a bike delivers mail and then a van has to cover his route to deliver packages so you need more post men which cost a lot more than a van.

Fr_Dougal

We’re living beyond our means.

Capt'n Midnight

joeguevara wrote: »

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Traditional satellite is a non-starter.

But people like SpaceX and Amazon will be launching ten's of thousands of the things in to Low Earth Orbit. So lots more bandwidth and lower latency.

5G sites can linked by fibre or by radio. Cheaper than running telegraph poles ?


There's more farmers over 80 than under 35. So don't expect 100% takeup or anywhere near it. And the gubermint have already said that the punters will be taking up the cost.

Capt'n Midnight

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

We’re living beyond our means.

No

Rural one off houses are living beyond our means.

They are also protesting the turbines and pylons needed to power the information superhighway.

The postal deliveries have caught my eye lately in my estate in comparison to the brothers one off house down home.

In the estate I reckon the postie is fit as a fiddle, I think they are dropped off by minibus and walk door to door with about 15-20 seconds (roughly) between each door. (One of them actually runs round the estate! and does it quicker :pac:) They've a couple of hundred houses done by lunch time.

Down home the postie spends all their time stopping and starting, up and down laneways and by roads. The door to door times are far longer and the wear on the van must be serious.

Wheeliebin30

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Traditional satellite is a non-starter.

But people like SpaceX and Amazon will be launching ten's of thousands of the things in to Low Earth Orbit. So lots more bandwidth and lower latency.

5G sites can linked by fibre or by radio. Cheaper than running telegraph poles ?


There's more farmers over 80 than under 35. So don't expect 100% takeup or anywhere near it. And the gubermint have already said that the punters will be taking up the cost.

Jesus Christ how many farmers do you think there is out of 550,000 people???

Capt'n Midnight

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Jesus Christ how many farmers do you think there is out of 550,000 people???

What are the demographics then for people who don't live in towns or villages

And how many of them can afford the current broadband offerings even if the roll out is fully state subsidised.


Remember the ESB already have infrastructure into the vast majority and can piggy back the fibre and more importantly can feed it into the premises using the path of the ESB cables.

TBH the ESB could stick WiFi or 5G on their poles and it'd be pretty much job done.


I can't honestly see how a new entrant could compete with that.

Gary kk

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.

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.

Just mark off water and waste water off the list good man

John_Rambo

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

The bike

WRONG!!! A van is in fact much more expensive to run than a bike.:)
Let that lesson sink in and apply it to other services and you can see exactly why one off rural living is hard on the tax payer and hard on the environment.

too easy mate.

Capt'n Midnight

Gary kk wrote: »

Just mark off water and waste water off the list good man

When did they stop subsidising the grants and inspections ?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/domestic_wastewater_treatment.html

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

WRONG!!! A van is in fact much more expensive to run than a bike.:)
Let that lesson sink in and apply it to other services and you can see exactly why one off rural living is hard on the tax payer and hard on the environment.

too easy mate.

Nonsense, which you can’t address (bar a post man) as you don’t have any valid arguments against the list of points I made.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When did they stop subsidising the grants and inspections ?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/domestic_wastewater_treatment.html

I’ve never heard of a septic tank being inspected and I know a lot of people with them nor anyone getting a grant. The tax payer will not subsidise my septic tank by a single cent while taxes I pay will go towards waste water treatment in urban areas. This is the reality not the nonsense claimed here by a few anti-rural posters.

The high horse brigade

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What are the demographics then for people who don't live in towns or villages

And how many of them can afford the current broadband offerings even if the roll out is fully state subsidised.


Remember the ESB already have infrastructure into the vast majority and can piggy back the fibre and more importantly can feed it into the premises using the path of the ESB cables.

TBH the ESB could stick WiFi or 5G on their poles and it'd be pretty much job done.


I can't honestly see how a new entrant could compete with that.

As easy as that yeah? If it was that easy why aren't they doing it? Siro pulled out of the NBS and reduced their urban FTTH to stick to the most profitable areas.

Stop mentioning the ESB. The ESB cannot do anything unless you start again costing us another few years, and then they would need to go thorough procurement and be the successful bidder.

Can we also stop spouting this 5g nonsense, wireless is harder to deliver than fibre

worded

Some good points here from Mac Williams on Rural Broadband

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/rural-broadband-plan-is-a-gift-of-billions-to-private-firm/

wexfordman2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Jesus Christ how many farmers do you think there is out of 550,000 people???

What are the demographics then for people who don't live in towns or villages

And how many of them can afford the current broadband offerings even if the roll out is fully state subsidised.


Remember the ESB already have infrastructure into the vast majority and can piggy back the fibre and more importantly can feed it into the premises using the path of the ESB cables.

TBH the ESB could stick WiFi or 5G on their poles and it'd be pretty much job done.


I can't honestly see how a new entrant could compete with that.

I completely agree with your last sentence, and I understand why you can't see it. You havnt an iota of what you are talking about.

No.sattelite system will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of home/business broadband services.

Wireless backhaul for 5g, wifi on esb poles.....you are utterly clueless.

Old diesel

Does anyone know what exactly Three are doing in Arranmore....

What technology??????.

Is it any good????.

Or are Three bluffing.

kneemos

wexfordman2 wrote: »

I completely agree with your last sentence, and I understand why you can't see it. You havnt an iota of what you are talking about.

No.sattelite system will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of home/business broadband services.

Wireless backhaul for 5g, wifi on esb poles.....you are utterly clueless.

They haven't trialed the low earth satellite system yet,so nobody knows if will work.

worded

Anyone give this a read and have a comment?

Some good points here from Mac Williams on Rural Broadband

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/rural-broadband-plan-is-a-gift-of-billions-to-private-firm/

Beta Ray Bill

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

IPTV, torrents, multiple users online together, cloud based working (accessing files, using cloud based software, conf calls, uploading large files) etc etc. 4G is far too unreliable and simply can't handle my needs never mind the needs of the house as a whole. I have a very indepth knowledge of communications and I know the limits of non-fibre based delivery systems very well, even 5G simply will be good enough to replace having fibre systems.

Agree with you that 4G will never be as good as fibre, but the other stuff there sounds like you're running a business from your home instead of using AWS

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Its irrelevant really if it costs more or not. A significant amount of the cost is shouldered by the person getting it be it in upfront connection costs or in higher rates but the fact is the wire have to be there and if they are there then the more rural housing the more cost effective it is compared to running lines all around for a few farms.

It actually is relevant, the people shouldering most of the cost (The Tax payer) will see no benefit at all.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Plenty of businesses still use local servers and even if not working of the cloud needs a very good internet connection.

Not in rural areas, for small operations its more cost effective to use AWS, everyone knows this.
If you had a big company you might have a case, but if you have a big company you need employees which means you need to be central (IE in a town or city, not 10 miles away from the nearest village)

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Farmers need fast and very reliable internet services, the only way to do this is provide wired services and the sensible way to do this is though fibre.

For what though? Why do you need a fibre link to run a farm?

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Most don't use RDP, I know I don't I work on my local machine connected to cloud services when working remotely meaning upload and download speeds are crucial.

This is a very old way of working, most companies now use virtual desktops.
Even in the office.
I don't have a PC, I have a "work station"

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

I would strongly disagree, I would see getting fast and reliable fibre BB to all or the vast vast majority of homes and businesses in the country is as vital a piece of infrastructure as any. It benefits the whole country and not just Dublin or Cork. The fact is all these investments in cities do nothing for those who live rurally and only further divides country and city.

Cork growing does benefit Dublin.
Anyone that lives in the capital knows that Dublin growing way to fast.
We need some of these large multi nationals setting up shop elsewhere in the country.
You can't even get staff in Dublin the problem is so bad.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Its 2.5 billion to begin with as the number is already fudged to look worse for some reason due to VAT being included. What return will you see on a luas in cork either? That's not the point of big projects like this, it is to provide citizens with vital infrastructure. There is also a strong argument that it will have great economic benefit for for rural Ireland and with remote working, smart farming and the opportunities for internet based businesses to open up anywhere in the country along with equal treatment of rural dwellers by providing them with BB its a no brainer for me.

There is no way it will have an economic benefit.
This is something that, without state aid, would never get built as it is not financially viable and we'll never see a return on it.

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Ask someone in rural Ireland their opinion on the LUAS or metro north while trying to argue against providing a basic requirement such as high speed BB and you won't be long getting a strong response. Large numbers of us living in the country are paying massive amounts of tax and we deserve things like good BB just as much as any person who chooses to live in an urban area.

First off fibre Broadband is not a basic requirement.
There are lots of places even in capital cities that do not have it.
It's complicated and it's expensive.

Cities generate the most amount of revenue in the country.
therefore they should get the most investment.

3 Billion would be better spent on
High Speed Rail between our big cities
More Light Rail in all our cities
Electrifying existing rail lines
Better Roads
New Prisons <======= Badly Needed
Etc

Rather than bringing 130MB BB to farmers.

The Broadband Plan will is just to expensive, it's that simple.
FG are already on their 2nd strike (Serious Garda corruption issues, and the p***take that is the NCH), and then you have to add brexit into the mix. One more strike and they're out.
Make no mistake, this is about votes, FG reckon that this NBP will get them re-elected this year (I'm certain there will be a general election this year)

The high horse brigade

grahambo wrote: »

blah, blah, blah

I'm alright Jack!....

Let's hear how you would do it better and cheaper?

Beta Ray Bill

The high horse brigade wrote: »

I'm alright Jack!....

Let's hear how you would do it better and cheaper?

I wouldn't do it!

The high horse brigade

grahambo wrote: »

I wouldn't do it!

So you're alright then so, exactly what I expected

Capt'n Midnight

wexfordman2 wrote: »

I completely agree with your last sentence, and I understand why you can't see it. You havnt an iota of what you are talking about.

No.sattelite system will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of home/business broadband services.

Wireless backhaul for 5g, wifi on esb poles.....you are utterly clueless.

I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.

The high horse brigade

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.

How many do you think Ireland would need? And at what cost? How many have they deployed so far? What kind of performance are they delivering? .....

You do realise a satellite has less backhaul than a small rural exchange?

Fibre is the only sane way of delivering rural broadband. It's a plan that actually works. Fibre already does 10G is completely in its infancy. In years to come you can just change the optics either end for faster speeds.

wexfordman2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.

I know you are talking about LEO, but it will still never come near the requirments of the NBP

1) Speeds and througputs will not meet the requirements (in principle and in spirit) the NBP has set.
2) LAG will remain a problem, it will not match those of fibre.
3) It is in no way futureproof in comparison to a fibre solution.
4) The state would have little to no legal or regulatory input into the system
5) It leaves a large section of the coutnry at the behest of a single private commercial entity WITH NO ASSETS in the country whatsoever.
6) It is a national security lapse to do so.

riclad

People can run a business from home if they have broadband, and work from home,theres 1000,s of empty houses in rural area,s ,
some people might move and work in rural area,s if theres broadband .
They are installing fibre ,it can be upgraded as tech and networks get faster.
I think its a good investment.
By the way running fibre to rural area ,s will be cheaper than installing 5g networks.
5g will need a cell tower every mile, it does not have the range of 3g,
it be very expensive to build a 5g network and it will take 5 years at least to do so.
The thing i find strange is company x is getting paid billions to build the network
and they will own it 100 per cent.
In some countrys they put down pipes 1ft wide,
any company can put fibre in those ducts if the y provide broadband to the houses they pass by, so it encourages competition .
In the usa if fibre pass,es through a town maybe one in 4 potential customers will
pay for broadband .
Not everyone wants it or will pay for it.
Once a duct piple is put in the ground it requires very little maintenance ,
it ,ll be there for 100 years.
i know someone living in a 5 bed house, near longford they were told they could not recieve satellite broadband or it will be
no better than using a 3g dongle they have now.
Countrys like south korea have very fast broadband everywhere ,over 100meg per second, it has proven to be a very good investment in terms of economic investment .

Capt'n Midnight

The high horse brigade wrote: »

How many do you think Ireland would need? And at what cost? How many have they deployed so far? What kind of performance are they delivering? .....

You do realise a satellite has less backhaul than a small rural exchange?

Fibre is the only sane way of delivering rural broadband. It's a plan that actually works. Fibre already does 10G is completely in its infancy. In years to come you can just change the optics either end for faster speeds.

Oh dear.

I posted a link to the rocket with 60 already on board, so soon..

LEO so they whizz around. This also means we are the only people who can use them while they are over a good chunk of the Atlantic so more uncontended bandwidth.


Back in the day BT used to have to offer satellite BB to anyone up north who was too far away to get DSL. This is the same idea. It's not ideal but when the cost of providing ONE building, that may or may not subscribe, is the same as delivering it to a small village


Fibre to the home is nice. But it isn't cheap. Look at how many companies have walked away from the task. That alone makes me suspicious that a new entrant can do what established network companies that have existing infrastructure can't. And you need to be within about 500m of a distribution point. The last mile is still the issue.

5G ?
Stick up a mast at a crossroads that has 12 houses and a pub and move on.

A tiny company gets to decide how to spend billions ? when it would be cheaper to just buy it with a fraction of the cash and then govt gets compete control.


Overall this smacks of Dustin's campaign to bring the Dart to Dingle.

The high horse brigade

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh dear.

I posted a link to the rocket with 60 already on board, so soon..

LEO so they whizz around. This also means we are the only people who can use them while they are over a good chunk of the Atlantic so more uncontended bandwidth.


Back in the day BT used to have to offer satellite BB to anyone up north who was too far away to get DSL. This is the same idea. It's not ideal but when the cost of providing ONE building, that may or may not subscribe, is the same as delivering it to a small village


Fibre to the home is nice. But it isn't cheap. Look at how many companies have walked away from the task. That alone makes me suspicious that a new entrant can do what established network companies that have existing infrastructure can't. And you need to be within about 500m of a distribution point. The last mile is still the issue.

5G ?
Stick up a mast at a crossroads that has 12 houses and a pub and move on.

A tiny company gets to decide how to spend billions ? when it would be cheaper to just buy it with a fraction of the cash and then govt gets compete control.


Overall this smacks of Dustin's campaign to bring the Dart to Dingle.

Smacks of the I'm alright Jack attitude we see on here. Like I said fibre is the only sane way of delivering futureproof dependable rural broadband.

lawred2

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Smacks of the I'm alright Jack attitude we see on here. Like I said fibre is the only sane way of delivering futureproof dependable rural broadband.

Why should boreens in Ireland be served with 'dependable rural broadband' at great expense to everyone else?

The high horse brigade

lawred2 wrote: »

Why should boreens in Ireland be served with 'dependable rural broadband' at great expense to everyone else?

Because broadband has become as essential as running water, flushing toilets and electricity.

The very fact that you used the word boreen says all about your attitude also. There are hundreds of thousands of rural homes not on boreens that cannot get decent services and lots of them weren't built in the last 10-20 years are older than that

facehugger99

The whole fiasco is a massive waste of tax-funds.

We should be discouraging one-off housing, not spending billions hooking them up to fibre. The take-up rate is shocking low for those homes which have been connected. A lot of them are frequently lived-in holiday homes who are not going to pay for year-round broadband.

The Government, against all the advice are once agin spending our money trying to buy themselves votes.

If you choose to live in the arse end of nowhere you shouldn't get broadband.

lawred2

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Because broadband has become as essential as running water, flushing toilets and electricity.

The very fact that you used the word boreen says all about your attitude also. There are hundreds of thousands of rural homes not on boreens that cannot get decent services and lots of them weren't built in the last 10-20 years are older than that

1000Mbit broadband has not become as essential as running water, flushing toilets or electricity. That is a ludicrous statement.

The high horse brigade

lawred2 wrote: »

1000Mbit broadband has not become as essential as running water, flushing toilets or electricity. That is a ludicrous statement.

Who mentioned 1000mbit? 30mbit is the requirement scaling to 150mbit by 2025. Fibre is just the medium being used because it is capable of long distances.

lawred2

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Who mentioned 1000mbit? 30mbit is the requirement scaling to 150mbit by 2025. Fibre is just the medium being used because it is capable of long distances.

You can't 'scale' to 150Mbit without ftth

The high horse brigade

facehugger99 wrote: »

If you choose to live in the arse end of nowhere you shouldn't get broadband.

My uncles house, my grandfather's house was built in the 30s, what do you want him and his family to do?

The high horse brigade

lawred2 wrote: »

You can't 'scale' to 150Mbit without ftth

Exactly, which is why every other technology was excluded.

I'm not saying the NBP is perfect, far from it. I'm just trying to dispel the myths that there are other technologies that can do it better or cheaper than fibre. Fibre is the only game in town for this

lawred2

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Exactly, which is why every other technology was excluded.

I'm not saying the NBP is perfect, far from it. I'm just trying to dispel the myths that there are other technologies that can do it better or cheaper than fibre. Fibre is the only game in town for this

Which is exactly why it's an outrageous waste of money. Just because it's the only show in town doesn't mean that it should be done.

The high horse brigade

lawred2 wrote: »

Which is exactly why it's an outrageous waste of money. Just because it's the only show in town doesn't mean that it should be done.

So I'm alright Jack, great for you!

It's 2 billion (when you strip out the VAT and the contingency plan money) spread over 25 years. It's pennies for what the country is getting TBH. Our children's children will benefit from it

SirGerryAdams

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

pOrNhuB iS a huMaN rIgHt

But really, I'm from a field outside a small village, outside another village and our broadband at home is fine. I think some media and politicians think we're all still using dial-up in the sticks. We we have a choice of six providers, have no trouble streaming or accessing other content.

I know there's awful coverage in some places, but those are the trade-offs we make for living in very remote places. Even where I'm based in Dublin, the broadband sometimes dips at certain times.

Also, I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, but I don't trust Granahan McCourt (GMC), and neither apparently does the Department of a public Expenditure.

I'm not from a remote place but the internet is awful. I get download speeds of .7mb. I can't even watch a youtube video. I live in Dublin and work there. I could work remotely if I had fast internet.

You know, people complain investment is centred around Dublin yet complain because broadband will be put outside of Dublin. The flexible work force of the future needs fast internet. This will turn out to be a great decision.

I know why people are against it, because they won't benefit from it. I bet there's no one in rural Ireland against this. Most ones against it are probably living in the cities and are pissed because they'd rather get that 2bn spent on them instead. I have no doubts that if tomorrow the metro was announced to cost 2bn extra then people would say "it's worth it to get it done, it's badly needed"

SirGerryAdams

facehugger99 wrote: »

We should be discouraging one-off housing, not spending billions hooking them up to fibre.

Sorry but some people would like to have a quality of life in a bigger house and some privacy.

lawred2

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Sorry but some people would like to have a quality of life in a bigger house and some privacy.

Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought

Ush1

lawred2 wrote: »

Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought

Not only that but the ministers advisors were against it also. They've lost my vote anyway.

SirGerryAdams

lawred2 wrote: »

Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought

You pay for your luas and metro yourself then.

Since when have all decisions been commercially based? If it was, Bus Eireann would have been disbanded years ago.

Ush1

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

You pay for your luas and metro yourself then.

That's the point, Dublin obviously can pay for these things itself. It doesn't need propping up.

SirGerryAdams

Ush1 wrote: »

That's the point, Dublin obviously can pay for these things itself. It doesn't need propping up.

I think the 25 counties can cover 2bn over 25 years too.

The Cush

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I think the 25 counties can cover 2bn over 25 years too.

Let's not forget there's also over 10,000 Dublin premises in the NBP intervention area.