NBP part II

allanpkr

Im not sure does fttc still allow you to be in intervention area for nbp.

Messer1

allanpkr wrote: »

Im not sure does fttc still allow you to be in intervention area for nbp.

Definitely not in the IA.

allanpkr

See my problem is i find anyone who has half decent fast broadband a bit of ...im alright jack...when they propose any new way ,when it would delay the nbp any more than it would normally.

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

The tender has not yet been accepted. I take it that you haven't read the recommendations in the Oireachtas Committee's report about public ownership or the submission by the UL experts in public-private partnerships.

If you search for Oireachtas Committee on Communications you'll find the report and you can scroll to the opening statements to find the UL one. (Sorry, I cant post a link).

Unfortunately, what you are proposing, and I use the word proposing generously, boils down to not having a state intervention at all or in a best car scenario going back to square one.
The chances of ending up at the same place after a new tender seem high to me as the same questions and analysis will take place.

Could it be that you don't see the value in achieving what the nbp is trying to do?

Messer1

ArrBee wrote: »

Unfortunately, what you are proposing, and I use the word proposing generously, boils down to not having a state intervention at all or in a best car scenario going back to square one.
The chances of ending up at the same place after a new tender seem high to me as the same questions and analysis will take place.

Could it be that you don't see the value in achieving what the nbp is trying to do?

On the contrary, I made a detailed submission to the Oireachtas Committee proposing an approach to the NBP based on combining fibre, LoE* sat, VHTS, 5G and next gen FWA and argued that this would bring high-speed BB more quickly and at lower cost than the NBP's all-fibre soln. Ignored!
*LEO of course.

Dero

Messer1 wrote: »

On the contrary, I made a detailed submission to the Oireachtas Committee proposing an approach to the NBP based on combining fibre, LoE sat, VHTS, 5G and next gen FWA and argued that this would bring high-speed BB more quickly and at lower cost than the NBP's all-fibre soln. Ignored!

Thankfully ignored! LoE sat? Jesus wept.

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

On the contrary, I made a detailed submission to the Oireachtas Committee proposing an approach to the NBP based on combining fibre, LoE sat, VHTS, 5G and next gen FWA and argued that this would bring high-speed BB more quickly and at lower cost than the NBP's all-fibre soln. Ignored!

Username checks out.

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

On the contrary, I made a detailed submission to the Oireachtas Committee proposing an approach to the NBP based on combining fibre, LoE sat, VHTS, 5G and next gen FWA and argued that this would bring high-speed BB more quickly and at lower cost than the NBP's all-fibre soln. Ignored!

Perhaps I should have been clear on what I meant by "Could it be that you don't see the value in achieving what the nbp is trying to do"

I meant the value to end user and state projected forward decades into the future.
Not necessarily the value to business in the area of building or supplying services.

Orebro

Messer1 wrote: »

On the contrary, I made a detailed submission to the Oireachtas Committee proposing an approach to the NBP based on combining fibre, LoE sat, VHTS, 5G and next gen FWA and argued that this would bring high-speed BB more quickly and at lower cost than the NBP's all-fibre soln. Ignored!

Do you have connections with / represent WISP providers?

Messer1

Dero wrote: »

Thankfully ignored! LoE sat? Jesus wept.

Care to clarify??

Messer1

Orebro wrote: »

Do you have connections with / represent WISP providers?

No, and no connect with sat cos etither.

westyIrl

Messer1 wrote: »

Care to clarify??

LoE satellite doesn't exist. Its anagram may never exist commercially.

Orebro

Ah here, we're not back to this LoE for the NBP nonsense again are we? Every clown reading some tech site with Elon Musk quotes comes along and spouts about it.

Dero

westyIrl wrote: »

LoE satellite doesn't exist. Its anagram may never exist commercially.

Exactly. Suggesting that a non-existent solution (LEO) would bring broadband *more quickly* than a tried, tested and widely implemented technology (GPON/FTTH) is borderline lunacy.

Messer1

Dero wrote: »

Exactly. Suggesting that a non-existent solution (LOE) would bring broadband *more quickly* than a tried, tested and widely implemented technology (GPON/FTTH) is borderline lunacy.

SpaceX plans to launch up to 60*4 LEO sats before end this year and up to 60*24 next year. Starlink needs about 6 launches for 'minor coverage' and an additional 12 for 'moderate coverage'. About 24 launches will initiate worldwide coverage. Additionally, it has sought FCC approval to increase the number of orbital planes from 24 to 72 to broaden coverage so as to include southern US states ahead of next year's hurricane season.

The high horse brigade

Messer1 wrote: »

SpaceX plans to launch up to 60*4 LEO sats before end this year and up to 60*24 next year. Starlink needs about 6 launches for 'minor coverage' and an additional 12 for 'moderate coverage'. About 24 launches will initiate worldwide coverage. Additionally, it has sought FCC approval to increase the number of orbital planes from 24 to 72 to broaden coverage so as to include southern US states ahead of next year's hurricane season.

So how many are we getting?

Messer1

The high horse brigade wrote: »

So how many are we getting?

All going well, initial service for Ireland should start in 2022. The FCC license requires SpaceX to have 5,900 sats in orbit by end 2024. By that time, about 20 sats could be servicing Ireland at any one time.

plodder

Messer1 wrote: »

All going well, initial service for Ireland should start in 2022. The FCC license requires SpaceX to have 5,900 sats in orbit by end 2024. By that time, about 20 sats could be servicing Ireland at any one time.

Fundamentally, what's the difference between these satellites and terrestrial radio based networks like 5G, in terms of bandwidth limitations? With fibre, when you run out of capacity in one cable, you can just run another one alongside it. You can't do that with anything radio based.

theguzman

€200 million allocated to the NBP according to RTE News in the Brexit Budget. A good sign.

Messer1

plodder wrote: »

Fundamentally, what's the difference between these satellites and terrestrial radio based networks like 5G, in terms of bandwidth limitations? With fibre, when you run out of capacity in one cable, you can just run another one alongside it. You can't do that with anything radio based.

You add more satellites to the constellation. This is what all the LEO sat operators plan to do.

plodder

Messer1 wrote: »

You add more satellites to the constellation. This is what all the LEO sat operators plan to do.

Sooner or later you must run into an upper limit of bandwidth that the air can carry though. The satellites are >340km up. It's not like terrestrial networks where you can compensate to some extent with smaller cells. They are all competing to some extent for the same bandwidth, I assume. I don't believe you can keep adding satellites ad-infinitum, in the same way that you effectively can with fibre cables on the ground.

Messer1

plodder wrote: »

Sooner or later you must run into an upper limit of bandwidth that the air can carry though. The satellites are >340km up. It's not like terrestrial networks where you can compensate to some extent with smaller cells. They are all competing to some extent for the same bandwidth, I assume. I don't believe you can keep adding satellites ad-infinitum, in the same way that you effectively can with fibre cables on the ground.

You use "spot beams" to aim signals at specific areas. This enables frequencies to be used multiple times. The next gen VHTS currently being built will have massive bandwidth eg up to 1 Tbps. I assume they will have spot beaming capabilities.

theguzman

plodder wrote: »

Sooner or later you must run into an upper limit of bandwidth that the air can carry though. The satellites are >340km up. It's not like terrestrial networks where you can compensate to some extent with smaller cells. They are all competing to some extent for the same bandwidth, I assume. I don't believe you can keep adding satellites ad-infinitum, in the same way that you effectively can with fibre cables on the ground.

Satellite Internet is something for somewhere like the Sahara Desert, I had it around 15 years ago, the latency is woeful and the capacity is simply not there; there is no alternative or solution other than fibre; Fire is 100% the way forward. Those low earth orbit satellites will lose orbit and eventually crash and burn up in the atmosphere. They are governed by the laws of physics and cannot provide the necessary bandwidth required for remote dwellers here or elsewhere. Whoever would suggest Satellite as an option is quite simply raving and talking out their arsehole.

Messer1

theguzman wrote: »

Satellite Internet is something for somewhere like the Sahara Desert, I had it around 15 years ago, the latency is woeful and the capacity is simply not there; there is no alternative or solution other than fibre; Fire is 100% the way forward. Those low earth orbit satellites will lose orbit and eventually crash and burn up in the atmosphere. They are governed by the laws of physics and cannot provide the necessary bandwidth required for remote dwellers here or elsewhere. Whoever would suggest Satellite as an option is quite simply raving and talking out their arsehole.

15 years ago! Of course they will eventually de-orbit. Design life is 5-7 years. I recommend you send your advice to Starlink, Google, Amazon etc to save them flushing tens of billions through their a*holes.

Orebro

Messer1 wrote: »

You use "spot beams" to aim signals at specific areas. This enables frequencies to be used multiple times. The next gen VHTS currently being built will have massive bandwidth eg up to 1 Tbps. I assume they will have spot beaming capabilities.

Gosh man, it's a real mystery your committee submission got ignored.

plodder

Messer1 wrote: »

You use "spot beams" to aim signals at specific areas. This enables frequencies to be used multiple times. The next gen VHTS currently being built will have massive bandwidth eg up to 1 Tbps. I assume they will have spot beaming capabilities.

I read somewhere, and I don't know how accurate it was, but it sounds reasonable, that the capacity of each satellite is around 20Gbit/s which is only a couple of strands of fibre. While I think these will be a big improvement on the previous geo-stationary generations with regard to latency, I just don't see them playing a significant role in broadband for this country. The Australian outback maybe or remote rural areas of the US or developing world perhaps.

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

SpaceX plans to launch up to 60*4 LEO sats before end this year and up to 60*24 next year. Starlink needs about 6 launches for 'minor coverage' and an additional 12 for 'moderate coverage'. About 24 launches will initiate worldwide coverage. Additionally, it has sought FCC approval to increase the number of orbital planes from 24 to 72 to broaden coverage so as to include southern US states ahead of next year's hurricane season.

Ahhh here.
First you pretend that the issue is ownership. The state should own the infrastructure.
Now you're saying that the state should pay for a supply contact for capacity on satellites.
Latency will be an issue for any satellite solution. Throughput is not the only KPI.
I don't see any wireless solution being more than a way to plug the holes left by lack of physical infrastructure.
Ie in the middle of nowhere.

Question is. Do you consider rural Ireland the middle of nowhere?
And. Do you think Irish internet availability should be equal or divided by location?

Messer1

plodder wrote: »

I read somewhere, and I don't know how accurate it was, but it sounds reasonable, that the capacity of each satellite is around 20Gbit/s which is only a couple of strands of fibre. While I think these will be a big improvement on the previous geo-stationary generations with regard to latency, I just don't see them playing a significant role in broadband for this country. The Australian outback maybe or remote rural areas of the US or developing world perhaps.

I concur on the 20 Gbps. You have to multiply that by the number of sats in line-of-sight over Ireland at any moment - about 20 in 2024 and 40 in 2027 for Starlink alone. So up to 800 Gbps. Add Amazon etc to that.

theguzman

Messer1 wrote: »

I concur on the 20 Gbps. You have to multiply that by the number of sats in line-of-sight over Ireland at any moment - about 20 in 2024 and 40 in 2027 for Starlink alone. So up to 800 Gbps. Add Amazon etc to that.

800Gbps will be enough for 800 homes in 2027, it is a solution for extremely remote locations who deserve good bandwidth, using it in Ireland would be a waste of the technology and by 2027 the NBP will be built and everyone will be on fibre.

Messer1

theguzman wrote: »

800Gbps will be enough for 800 homes in 2027, it is a solution for extremely remote locations who deserve good bandwidth, using it in Ireland would be a waste of the technology and by 2027 the NBP will be built and everyone will be on fibre.

What will a home need a Gbps for given that the FCC for example guides 25 Mbps for an intensive user home?