Space X, Elon Musk and Rural Broadband

nice_guy80

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48289204

The SpaceX company has begun the roll-out of its orbiting broadband system.

A Falcon-9 rocket launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida late on Thursday, packed with 60 satellites capable of giving users on the ground high-speed connections to the internet.

Entrepreneur Elon Musk's firm aims eventually to loft nearly 12,000 spacecraft for its "Starlink" network.

SpaceX is one of several commercial outfits with permission to fly an internet mega-constellation.

I think its time for our government to take the obvious step and bring broadband to rural Ireland via Elon Musk and his proposed Starlink network

it couldn't be any more expensive than the current plan, and at least they've got started on it

lads in rural Kerry finally able to search for tractor parts via a satellite system in space. its the only way forward

listermint

No this plan is stupid for our requirements. It won't have the speeds a fibre network will it's actually a silly comparison for anyone with any semblance of cop on.

kneemos

listermint wrote: »

No this plan is stupid for our requirements. It won't have the speeds a fibre network will it's actually a silly comparison for anyone with any semblance of cop on.

How do you know how fast it is? It hasn't been launched yet.

Fr_Dougal

listermint wrote: »

No this plan is stupid for our requirements. It won't have the speeds a fibre network will it's actually a silly comparison for anyone with any semblance of cop on.

Spacex will be able to provide broadband service at speeds of up to 1 Gbps per end user.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/within-24-months-spacex-could-begin-providing-gigabit-internet-to-the-usa.html?amp

listermint

Yep first two posts prove that people are taken in by the sales pitch.

I'm out.

jester77

listermint wrote: »

No this plan is stupid for our requirements. It won't have the speeds a fibre network will it's actually a silly comparison for anyone with any semblance of cop on.

Once the satellites can communicate with each other instead of having to communicate via a ground station, then for someone living in the country side they will have better latency than fibre optic could provide. For city folk they probably will not see a lot of difference.

Beta Ray Bill

nice_guy80 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48289204

The SpaceX company has begun the roll-out of its orbiting broadband system.

A Falcon-9 rocket launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida late on Thursday, packed with 60 satellites capable of giving users on the ground high-speed connections to the internet.

Entrepreneur Elon Musk's firm aims eventually to loft nearly 12,000 spacecraft for its "Starlink" network.

SpaceX is one of several commercial outfits with permission to fly an internet mega-constellation.

I think its time for our government to take the obvious step and bring broadband to rural Ireland via Elon Musk and his proposed Starlink network

it couldn't be any more expensive than the current plan, and at least they've got started on it

lads in rural Kerry finally able to search for tractor parts via a satellite system in space. its the only way forward

Elon Musk is a Looper.

People think he's the Dog Ballix but it's other people's money he's investing in all this stuff, not his own.

He called a man rescuing kids in a cave a Peado
He also set out to destroy a man named Martin Tripp
Have a read of this story:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon-musk-tried-to-destroy-tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp

This is the Kind of person Elon Musk is!
An Absolute Psychopath!!!!

marno21

Take a look in the broadband forum where that notion has been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what they're taking about.

And the technical considerations are totally aside from the stupidity of putting that much control of national infrastructure in the hands of a private American company totally outside of the State's control

Mickeroo

jester77 wrote: »

Once the satellites can communicate with each other instead of having to communicate via a ground station, then for someone living in the country side they will have better latency than fibre optic could provide. For city folk they probably will not see a lot of difference.

Would they not be the same since both signals travel at the speed of light?

DesperateDan

marno21 wrote: »

Take a look in the broadband forum where that notion has been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what they're taking about.

And the technical considerations are totally aside from the stupidity of putting that much control of national infrastructure in the hands of a private American company totally outside of the State's control

AH is not the place for your logic

Ush1

marno21 wrote: »

Take a look in the broadband forum where that notion has been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what they're taking about.

And the technical considerations are totally aside from the stupidity of putting that much control of national infrastructure in the hands of a private American company totally outside of the State's control

The state won't own the infrastructure in the NBP.

DesperateDan

grahambo wrote: »

Elon Musk is a Looper.

People think he's the Dog Ballix but it's other people's money he's investing in all this stuff, not his own.

He called a man rescuing kids in a cave a Peado
He also set out to destroy a man named Martin Tripp
Have a read of this story:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon-musk-tried-to-destroy-tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp

This is the Kind of person Elon Musk is!
An Absolute Psychopath!!!!

Sure he gets drunk, and sometimes says stupid things. He's done a hell of a lot more than almost anyone I can think of right now to make the world a better place though.

listermint

jester77 wrote: »

Once the satellites can communicate with each other instead of having to communicate via a ground station, then for someone living in the country side they will have better latency than fibre optic could provide. For city folk they probably will not see a lot of difference.

That is not how this technology works and it's certainly ridiculous to saw latency is better with a mesh satellite network. That's pure happy path thinking excluding problematic variables. But sure let's not let facts interrupt Elon on another sales pitch

JohnnyFlash

They should have given the money to the ESB and got them to roll it out on their network and using their competency in actually rolling out infrastructure to everywhere in the country.

jester77

Mickeroo wrote: »

Would they not be the same since both signals travel at the speed of light?

The speed of light is slower in air than in space. But really, the difference is not going to be noticeable to the majority of users. Maybe a hardcore gamer would notice.

Nice article describing latency in copper vs fibre.

listermint

jester77 wrote: »

The speed of light is slower in air than in space. But really, the difference is not going to be noticeable to the majority of users. Maybe a hardcore gamer would notice.

Nice article describing latency in copper vs fibre.

Jesus wept....

Latency is everything not just 'hardcore' gamers



Enough of this.

ToBeFrank123

If it saves us a couple billion its worth investigating at least. I doubt Musk would spend all that time and money on something that doesn't work.

It seems less loopy than spending 5k to connect houses up boreens in the middle of nowhere to be fair.

Space X have mastered a number of difficult technologies that even NASA struggled with so there's no doubting their engineering abilities.

I wish we could say the same about those in charge of broadband rollout in this country.

kneemos

marno21 wrote: »

Take a look in the broadband forum where that notion has been thoroughly debunked by people who actually know what they're taking about.

And the technical considerations are totally aside from the stupidity of putting that much control of national infrastructure in the hands of a private American company totally outside of the State's control

Should have consulted with the boards experts before investing billions.

marno21

Ush1 wrote: »

The state won't own the infrastructure in the NBP.

They won't but the actual cables will be on Irish soil. It's different with satellites

Del2005

marno21 wrote: »

And the technical considerations are totally aside from the stupidity of putting that much control of national infrastructure in the hands of a private American company totally outside of the State's control

Yes it's stupid to give an American company control of national infrastructure, instead we are paying the American's €3bn+ to give them the NBP. That's a much more sensible idea.

listermint

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If it saves us a couple billion its worth investigating at least. I doubt Musk would spend all that time and money on something that doesn't work.

It seems less loopy than spending 5k to connect houses up boreens in the middle of nowhere to be fair.

Yep. Handing over our national throughput of information to companies that are outside our legal system.

Top drawer definitely sounds less loopy alright.

listermint

kneemos wrote: »

Should have consulted with the boards experts before investing billions.

Ya perhaps on projects like his solar tiles


There is a raft of people who think just because Elon says it then it turns to gold

It's incredible handover of rational thought.

jester77

listermint wrote: »

Jesus wept....

Latency is everything not just 'hardcore' gamers



Enough of this.

Do you seriously think the average person that does some casual surfing is going to notice a difference between 25ms or 90ms when they are browsing

SeanaciousD

While it seems like a sensible goal at the outset, it quickly falls foul of the same issue that plagues any wireless network: contention.

1. Even when fully deployed (which could easily take much longer than expected with such a massive project) there will only be a fraction of those satellite over Ireland at any given point to serve these homes. 1.1m homes into ~30 satellites (3k satellites phase one, Ireland is only about 1% of the worlds area, probably much less) is going to give to same major contention problems that already plague rural 4G networks. Have a look at any thread here about Imagine to see how their rural users feel about this.

2. Either you propose leaving the future of ~1.1m Irish citizens in the hands of an American corporation that could really give a toss about us, or you want the Govt. to invest in infrastructure that would only cover 1% of Ireland at any given time. Either is laughable.

I think a lot of people fail to see fiber as a serious infrastructure project just like any major road, ESB or old copper wire telephone project was before it. It fits in the same category as these, and is every bit as important.

What's more is the speed of fiber is not limited by current technology, you can send 1Gbit/s or 1Tb/s down a single piece of fiber, it all depends on what equipment you use. So it will remain as relevant 100 years from now as electric lines or roads. Musk's Starlink is great but once the satellites are in the air that's where they stay, and no amount of software upgrades will make their physical hardware go any faster, which can't be changed.

I get that the NBP looks like a bad deal to many, but it only came out looking like it does because we found out 3G/4G/5G and indeed any wireless solution just isn't going to cut it and never will. Starlink falls into that category too. And if we scrap the NBP it now it will widen the rural/urban divide even further, not to mention taking probably another bloody decade to come to the same damn conclusion that wireless won't do and only fiber will work. Only this time we'll be behind the rest of Europe instead of ahead.

KildareP

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

They should have given the money to the ESB and got them to roll it out on their network and using their competency in actually rolling out infrastructure to everywhere in the country.

The money was on offer to the ESB.

ESB turned it down.

https://siro.ie/nbp-announcement/

listermint

jester77 wrote: »

Do you seriously think the average person that does some casual surfing is going to notice a difference between 25ms or 90ms when they are browsing

Enough with the notion of browsing.


This crap has to be stamped out. Most people are doing a hell of alot more than browsing with their connection today and they will be doing a hell of alot more with it sooner

Future proofing that is what we need not this nonsense about lowest use case scenario's.

kneemos

listermint wrote: »

Ya perhaps on projects like his solar tiles


There is a raft of people who think just because Elon says it then it turns to gold

It's incredible handover of rational thought.

His cars were a big success,although badly managed and going bankrupt.
Something about a space rocket also.

Don't know the guy ,but comes across as insufferable. I'd be far from a fan.
Willing to give a new idea the chance of success at least before writing it off.

listermint

kneemos wrote: »

His cars were a big success,although badly managed and going bankrupt.
Something about a space rocket also.

Don't know the guy ,but comes across as insufferable. I'd be far from a fan.
Willing to give a new idea the chance of success at least before writing it off.

Me too. 100%

But when people draw comparison with other superior technology for a certain application..I draw the line.

I've alot of time for Musk. He's energetic

BattleCorp

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It seems less loopy than spending 5k to connect houses up boreens in the middle of nowhere to be fair.

Farmers need Pornhub.

kneemos

listermint wrote: »

Me too. 100%

But when people draw comparison with other superior technology for a certain application..I draw the line.

I've alot of time for Musk. He's energetic

Not comparing,but it might be adequate for the most rural areas of the country.

listermint

kneemos wrote: »

Not comparing,but it might be adequate for the most rural areas of the country.

We shouldn't be looking for adequate. We should be looking to future proof and protect our IT focused economy once and for all.

kneemos

listermint wrote: »

We shouldn't be looking for adequate. We should be looking to future proof and protect our IT focused economy once and for all.

Most towns and villages and a lot of places in between already have broadband available.

Nobody wants the country depending on Musk's satellites,but for the uneconomically serviceable parts of the country it could be an option.

ToBeFrank123

listermint wrote: »

Yep. Handing over our national throughput of information to companies that are outside our legal system.

Top drawer definitely sounds less loopy alright.

Facebook, Google, Apple, Samsung, Huawei, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Microsoft and hundreds more companies are outside our legal system who control our data. You probably use the applications of several of those companies already!

Tinfoil hat brigade alive and well I see.

ToBeFrank123

listermint wrote: »

Ya perhaps on projects like his solar tiles


There is a raft of people who think just because Elon says it then it turns to gold

It's incredible handover of rational thought.

Your posts are a bit ridiculous.
Every single American company controls the data from around the world in the US.
Even Boards.ie is outside the Irish legal system from what I understand.

You need to give up on the paranoid nonsense. No-one cares what time you logged into facebook this morning and the picture of your neighbours dog you liked.

ToBeFrank123

marno21 wrote: »

They won't but the actual cables will be on Irish soil. It's different with satellites

It doesn't matter if they are on Irish soil, we won't own them.

That's like saying because a huge American factory worth billions is on Irish soil, we own it. We don't.

We are paying billions for infrastructure we won't own with FLB.

5K has been touted as the figure to connect some houses. If Starlink costs a fraction of that, which it probably will, its worth investigating. Even if there's a possibility Musk will spend his spare time checking out what Listermint liked on facebook or what jonny the farmer looked up on pornhub.

Former Observer

The guy seems fairly dim when you hear him speak in fairness. He's probably just one of those fake CEOs companies create for marketing value.

SeanaciousD

kneemos wrote: »

Most towns and villages and a lot of places in between already have broadband available.

Nobody wants the country depending on Musk's satellites,but for the uneconomically serviceable parts of the country it could be an option.

The issue is here is "Most" and 1.1m homes don't really correlate.

There are areas the NBP declared "uneconomically serviceable", i.e islands. In that case fiber will be brought to the island to a single radio mast with homes connected through fixed wireless access. Works for islands, not the mainland. Why? Hills mean you can't guarantee percentage of houses passed without each house being surveyed for coverage. Expensive. Not to mention land owners may refuse to have a mast raised on their land, which they're well within their rights to refuse.

Rural Ireland and even rural anywhere is not really the target of Starlink, Musk is banking on high frequency traders paying top dollar for the lower long distance latency. It's actually a great piece of technology for ships too, but rest assured we are not the target market.

Ultimately for me its the very likely issues of contention, future-proofing, and lack of the Irish public being important to the project that makes me prefer that the fiber rollout goes ahead.

kneemos

SeanaciousD wrote: »

The issue is here is "Most" and 1.1m homes don't really correlate.

There are areas the NBP declared "uneconomically serviceable", i.e islands. In that case fiber will be brought to the island to a single radio mast with homes connected through fixed wireless access. Works for islands, not the mainland. Why? Hills mean you can't guarantee percentage of houses passed without each house being surveyed for coverage. Expensive. Not to mention land owners may refuse to have a mast raised on their land, which they're well within their rights to refuse.

Rural Ireland and even rural anywhere is not really the target of Starlink, Musk is banking on high frequency traders paying top dollar for the lower long distance latency. It's actually a great piece of technology for ships too, but rest assured we are not the target market.

Ultimately for me its the very likely issues of contention, future-proofing, and lack of the Irish public being important to the project that makes me prefer that the fiber rollout goes ahead.

84% of households were using fixed broadband in 2017.
Kinda makes you wonder why we need a NBP.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/isshh/informationsocietystatistics-households2017/

rivegauche

€3 billion is on the line. There are a lot of people who are looking to earn off the back of this and will shout down anyone who suggests we should carry out a sanity check on the merit of this project.

SeanaciousD

kneemos wrote: »

84% of households were using fixed broadband in 2017.
Kinda makes you wonder why we need a NBP.

What's missing from that statistic is what percentage of those are under 30Mbps? Worse still how many have an upload speed greater than 30Mbps? I'd bet it's even higher than 1.1m.

Fixed line includes ADSL, which is straight up abysmal for uploading anything. For a lot of people it completely removes the possibility of working from home. Unfortunately copper wire broadband has reached its physical limit. A new fixed line infrastructure is needed. For everyone.

rivegauche

SeanaciousD wrote: »

What's missing from that statistic is what percentage of those are under 30Mbps? Worse still how many have an upload speed greater than 30Mbps? I'd bet it's even higher than 1.1m.

Fixed line includes ADSL, which is straight up abysmal for uploading anything. For a lot of people it completely removes the possibility of working from home. Unfortunately copper wire broadband has reached its physical limit. A new fixed line infrastructure is needed. For everyone.

Should the people who don't need connection speeds of 30Mbps pay to provide sunk infrastructure for those who "feel" they do?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Former Observer wrote: »

The guy seems fairly dim when you hear him speak in fairness. He's probably just one of those fake CEOs companies create for marketing value.

He's probably on the spectrum.

He came across as terribly awkward on that Joe Rogan podcast. Like a geek trying to fit in with a jock.

ToBeFrank123

SeanaciousD wrote: »

What's missing from that statistic is what percentage of those are under 30Mbps? Worse still how many have an upload speed greater than 30Mbps? I'd bet it's even higher than 1.1m.

Fixed line includes ADSL, which is straight up abysmal for uploading anything. For a lot of people it completely removes the possibility of working from home. Unfortunately copper wire broadband has reached its physical limit. A new fixed line infrastructure is needed. For everyone.

~30mbps is fine for most people, particularly granny up a boreen who uses broadband a couple times of year. She doesn't need 100mps or 1gb so she can watch Game of Thrones online.

Yes broadband is important but its not worth spending 5 billion on.

cgcsb

listermint wrote: »

No this plan is stupid for our requirements. It won't have the speeds a fibre network will it's actually a silly comparison for anyone with any semblance of cop on.

It's a lot more logical than a government committing it's self to connect every single household to fibre internet, in a state with an already completely unsustainable settlement patter, at unknown cost.

SeanaciousD

rivegauche wrote: »

Should the people who don't need connection speeds of 30Mbps pay to provide sunk infrastructure for those who "feel" they do?

Ireland 1920's: Why should the people who don't need electricity pay for the infrastructure to distribute it across Ireland? Oil Lamps are working fine for me.

Ireland 1970's: Why are we spending over 2% of our entire GDP rolling out telephone lines to rural Ireland? Sure they say they don't need it letters do the job for them.

I'm being cheeky, but I hope this points out the flaw in that argument. Rural taxpayers paid just as much as anyone in Dublin to build the Luas but they'll never see the benefit of that infrastructure.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

~30mbps is fine for most people, particularly granny up a boreen who uses broadband a couple times of year. She doesn't need 100mps or 1gb so she can watch Game of Thrones online.

Yes broadband is important but its not worth spending 5 billion on.

You managed to be ageist and dismissive of rural Ireland in two sentences. I know plenty of older people that already own 4K TV's, and even my uncle would love to use 4K streaming but sadly for him his telephone line only does 10Mbps, and 4G drops below 5Mbps in the evening, not to mention he has kids. That example right there is a very real example, not your granny down the boreen tripe.

cgcsb wrote: »

It's a lot more logical than a government committing it's self to connect every single household to fibre internet, in a state with an already completely unsustainable settlement patter, at unknown cost.

The actual partners for rolling out the infrastructure are KN group (who pretty much already do it all for SIRO and Eir) and Nokia for the hardware. If you think they are unsustainable partners and the cost is unknown I really don't have anything else to add here.

cgcsb

SeanaciousD wrote: »

Ireland 1920's: Why should the people who don't need electricity pay for the infrastructure to distribute it across Ireland? Oil Lamps are working fine for me.

Ireland 1970's: Why are we spending over 2% of our entire GDP rolling out telephone lines to rural Ireland? Sure they say they don't need it letters do the job for them.

All fine examples of how these projects were pushed through at great expense and yielded little economic advancement. Rural electrification was supposed to enable us to remain a rural people selling sweaters to each other, because big industrial cities were 'too English'. This is the same logic that seen every road in the state tarmaced instead of focusing on improving major routes like every other country. The same logic gave us the telephone network. All this was in parallel to unplanned one off housing development. And now for our latest trick, we're going to repeat exactly the same exercise to continue the delusion of a rural homely people dancing at the cross roads. Only this time the results will be different somehow.

We've already taking this DeValeraesque ruralisation fantasy way too far, it's time to stop and work on making our towns liveable places.

SeanaciousD wrote: »

I'm being cheeky, but I hope this points out the flaw in that argument. Rural taxpayers paid just as much as anyone in Dublin to build the Luas but they'll never see the benefit of that infrastructure.

Not only cheeky, but highly inaccurate. The tax/spend ratio by region in this country is vary unfair to Dublin and the South West.

SeanaciousD wrote: »

You managed to be ageist and dismissive of rural Ireland in two sentences. I know plenty of older people that already own 4K TV's, and even my uncle would love to use 4K streaming but sadly for him his telephone line only does 10Mbps, and 4G drops below 5Mbps in the evening, not to mention he has kids. That example right there is a very real example, not your granny down the boreen tripe.

Oh your uncle?? why didn't you say so, here's €50k to connect that solitary household to the internet, no worries boss. Perhaps a few kms of tarmac also? oh and no worries about that oul septic tank destroying the nearby river, we'll clear that up too.

SeanaciousD wrote: »

The actual partners for rolling out the infrastructure are KN group (who pretty much already do it all for SIRO and Eir) and Nokia for the hardware. If you think they are unsustainable partners and the cost is unknown I really don't have anything else to add here.

The government recently changed their official figure from €3bn to €2bn. :pac: i.e. they haven't a breeze. Also there's no accounting for what new houses will be built down what boreens. New houses will also demand a free connection.

listermint

kneemos wrote: »

84% of households were using fixed broadband in 2017.
Kinda makes you wonder why we need a NBP.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/isshh/informationsocietystatistics-households2017/

Horse****.

'broadband' can mean 1mb upload and download speed.

There's no credibility in posting stuff like that.

listermint

cgcsb wrote: »

It's a lot more logical than a government committing it's self to connect every single household to fibre internet, in a state with an already completely unsustainable settlement patter, at unknown cost.

No one has said they are rolling fibre out to every single household.

Why the need to spread mistruths?

Is this the method you deploy to cast shade on the plan.

If you are going to argue against it then at least use factual arguments

SeanaciousD

cgcsb wrote: »

All fine examples of how these projects were pushed through at great expense and yielded little economic advancement. Rural electrification was supposed to enable us to remain a rural people selling sweaters to each other, because big industrial cities were 'too English'. This is the same logic that seen every road in the state tarmaced instead of focusing on improving major routes like every other country. The same logic gave us the telephone network. All this was in parallel to unplanned one off housing development. And now for our latest trick, we're going to repeat exactly the same exercise to continue the delusion of a rural homely people dancing at the cross roads. Only this time the results will be different somehow.

We've already taking this DeValeraesque ruralisation fantasy way too far, it's time to stop and work on making our towns liveable places.

It's very clear from this statement that you're dismissive and backwards thinking towards rural Ireland. I'm sure if you had it your way rural primary schools wouldn't even have broadband, sure what do they need it for? I know for a fact I wouldn't be where I am now if my school hadn't gone through the effort of getting satellite broadband decades ago at great expense.

The notion that rural Ireland has nothing to contribute to urban Ireland nor that it doesn't need a good communications infrastructure is backwards, and frankly, bull.

cgcsb wrote: »

Not only cheeky, but highly inaccurate. The tax/spend ratio by region in this country is vary unfair to Dublin and the South West.

I have no doubt that Dublin provides a lot of the taxpayer money for infrastructure and I have no objection nor do most on using it for urban projects. But once again, rural Ireland does pay into it and as such they should see a benefit. Right now they get nothing but promises they won't be left behind while it becomes more clear every year the gap is widening.

cgcsb wrote: »

Oh your uncle?? why didn't you say so, here's €50k to connect that solitary household to the internet, no worries boss. Perhaps a few kms of tarmac also? oh and no worries about that oul septic tank destroying the nearby river, we'll clear that up too.

Cheeky, but thank you for showing your true colours on what you think about what you think rural people are like.

1.1m homes isn't a solitary house. Technology gets adopted by everyone at all ages either quickly or slowly. The bandwidth used by homes is only going to increase over time, and there are use cases that exist already today where peoples broadband's needs aren't met by the services they have available to them. Broadband is more and more becoming a critical service. The state has to step in.

cgcsb wrote: »

The government recently changed their official figure from €3bn to €2bn. :pac: i.e. they haven't a breeze. Also there's no accounting for what new houses will be built down what boreens. New houses will also demand a free connection.

I'm sure they have about as much clue as they do the children's hospital, that doesn't meant it shouldn't be done.

The world we live in now is called the information age for a reason. Internet access is now a service just as important as electricity or water, and you'd be pissed too if you were too far away from town that your electricity couldn't power your TV, or your shower only put out drips after 6 in the evening. Do you call that kind of service "good enough" for broadband too?

I don't.

rivegauche

SeanaciousD wrote: »

Ireland 1920's: Why should the people who don't need electricity pay for the infrastructure to distribute it across Ireland? Oil Lamps are working fine for me.

Ireland 1970's: Why are we spending over 2% of our entire GDP rolling out telephone lines to rural Ireland? Sure they say they don't need it letters do the job for them.

I'm being cheeky, but I hope this points out the flaw in that argument. Rural taxpayers paid just as much as anyone in Dublin to build the Luas but they'll never see the benefit of that infrastructure.

The analogy you make is flawed. You compare this boondoggle to electrification. The national broadband scheme will be seen as equivalent to Concorde which was someone's idealised view of the future. It wasn't what the world needed but it took decades for proponents to finally give up on it as hubris prevented a lot of people who were highly invested in its success to admit it wasn't what the world needed.

M5

rivegauche wrote: »

Should the people who don't need connection speeds of 30Mbps pay to provide sunk infrastructure for those who "feel" they do?

I pay for my well and subsidise your water
I pay for my septic tank and subsitise your sewage treatment

100s of things you pay for through general taxation that you dont get direct use/value of