NBP part II

allanpkr

THE NBP IS GOING TO HAPPEN MARLOW.

Marlow

westyIrl wrote: »

I could not have expressed my own opinion any better than this. Ptp for remote premises ok but good luck to ptmp/4g/5g etc. being any part of NBP imho.

I'd love to see, where they're going to find the spectrum for that sort of PtP links. Let alone the cost of building them. 5% of the NBP is still over 25000 premises.

/M

westyIrl

Marlow wrote: »

I'd love to see, where they're going to find the spectrum for that sort of PtP links. Let alone the cost of building them. 5% of the NBP is still over 25000 premises.

/M

I wouldn't have the knowledge you have on such Marlow. It's just that is the way I would like to see the NBP designed, i.e. as far away from contended ptmp links as possible as I just see them as a stop-gap measure with an expiry date. I'm not at all saying (or even believe) that is the way it will occur, unfortunately.

What spectrum would be required if they used unlicensed space such as, for the sake of this argument, Ubiquiti AirFiber or similar? Admittedly, 25k such connections doesn't seem realistic in any event. It will be very interesting to see how the dice falls when design level details are made known.

Jim

Marlow

westyIrl wrote: »

I wouldn't have the knowledge you have on such Marlow. It's just that is the way I would like to see the NBP designed, i.e. as far away from contended ptmp links as possible as I just see them as a stop-gap measure with an expiry date. I'm not at all saying (or even believe) that is the way it will occur, unfortunately.

What spectrum would be required if they used unlicensed space such as, for the sake of this argument, Ubiquiti AirFiber or similar? Admittedly, 25k such connections doesn't seem realistic in any event. It will be very interesting to see how the dice falls when design level details are made known.

Jim

Minimum 2 x 100 MHz channels and no further than 10km for 1 Gbit/s. Per link. More than likely twice the amount of spectrum though. And that is very specialised gear. License for specrum 1500 eur/year worst case. Also mastspace per antenna is 2k to 8k per antenna per year depending on size.

So the link now costs at least 3500k in rental yearly to the operator. Equipment cost in the 8-15k range to be written down over 3 or 5 years. Lets assume 3 years. Take 3k as an estimate per year.

Cost is now at 6500k yearly. Thats before you have brought bandwidth to site. That is a little over 540 EUR per month excluding VAT. You probably have to double or tripple that before you have the retail price, as money has to be set aside for service, bandwidth, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Residential broadband is NEVER going to be uncontended. And P2P for a residential/SOHO connection is a total loss. Not even profitable with government fundung. It is not feasable. And that proves my point in regards to competition related issues.

/M

Gonzo

allanpkr wrote: »

THE NBP IS GOING TO HAPPEN MARLOW.

It will happen, however when will it happen is like how long is a piece of string. Here we are 7 years later, not a spade in the ground, endless delays and vested interests from certain companies trying to screw it up or delay it for their own various reasons.

listermint

BandMember wrote: »

That is absolute bullshít and well you know it!!

You have a vested interest in this because of who you work for and are biased in your views because of this, but to go around spreading blatant lies like that is infuriating.

Then again, it's probably your cronies with similar vested interests that are fuelling that kind of alleged pub talk....

Its Enda Kenny 2015,

"I met a guy in the bar and he said...." and he was holding 2 pints in each hand.

clohamon

Marlow wrote: »

As I said. It was never an all inclusive consultation. How would they not expect it to backfire ?

They set the rules. So when data emerges, their subset needs to be adjusted. It was actually pointed out at a committee hearing not too long ago, that probably less than half of the NBP really need the NBP intervention, as others are covered with speeds as determined by the NGA requirements or are commercially viable and will be covered by operators anyhow in a foreseeable future.

With respect, the NGA criteria for wireless are semi-subjective under the SAG, and the Department have added some extra ones in section 3.2 of their own assessment criteria. If proposals/map-changes rely on unlicensed spectrum, that might be another problem. If any of them are currently in dispute with ComReg that might also be an issue.

If some Indiana Jones of a WISP manages to negotiate all the obstacles they'll probably end up in a "grey area" which also includes the compatibility test and 'objectives of common interest' now requiring an underlying 1 Gb/s capability.

‘Grey NGA areas’
An area should be considered a ‘grey NGA’ area where only one NGA network is in place or is being deployed in the coming 3 years and there are no plans by any operator to deploy a NGA network in the coming 3 years. In assessing whether other network investors could deploy additional NGA networks in a given area, account should be taken of any existing regulatory or legislative measures that may have lowered barriers for such network deployments (access to ducts, sharing of infrastructure, etc.). The Commission will need to carry out a more detailed analysis in order to verify whether State intervention is needed since State intervention in such areas carries a high risk of crowding out existing investors and distorting competition. In this respect, the Commission will carry out its assessment on the basis of the compatibility conditions established in these Guidelines.

Marlow wrote: »

As It is also the reason they keep pushing the date for signature of the contract. They can't justify it .. neither budget wise, nor with data that has turned up against it .. especially in the last year. Either way .. that's just my opinion. But if it was a rock solid case, the contracts would have been signed last year. Fact.

AFAIK, NBI were about to be made preferred bidder this time last year until the Naughten/McCourt meltdown. Since then we've had to wait for the Smyth Report, a new Minister to get up to speed, the re-evaluation of all alternatives, the local elections, and the Comms. Committee's investigation (which also neatly closes off the outstanding Dáil resolution). The point being that the delays were all external to the contract and the budget hasn't changed in the last year.

Overall it looks like DCCAE are proofing their position against attack and in the process hoovering up a lot of technical information which might be helpful if NBI decides to put the last 1-2% outliers out to tender in each of the 100 areas.

allanpkr

must be a fact then as we can all see if marlow ,puts FACT at end of statement it must be so....or is it make it so. lolol marlow

ItHurtsWhenIP

Marlow wrote: »

Not to bid ... that is correct. Even though one with nearly national coverage (and no .. it wasn't Imagine) tried. But with the ability to reduce the amount of premises convered under the NBP, certainly.

And to challenge the NBP, if it creates government funded competition to them, most certainly.

I'm just pointing the crux of it out ... and why the NBP is not as secured as people think.

/M

There has been a lot of veiled references in Marlow's posts to the WISP he/she has ties with. This latest reference leads me to believe it to be Ripplecom. That company whose boss doesn't like it's customers watching Netflix. :rolleyes:

allanpkr

we wait for a reply or will it be a case of silence speaks a thousand words.

KOR101

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote: »

There has been a lot of veiled references in Marlow's posts to the WISP he/she has ties with. This latest reference leads me to believe it to be Ripplecom. That company whose boss doesn't like it's customers watching Netflix. :rolleyes:

@Marlow has been a great contributor to this and other threads. Many of us on here know which company he works for, and while I think he's wrong on the NBP, I wouldn't impune his motives.

Pique

KOR101 wrote:

@Marlow has been a great contributor to this and other threads. Many of us on here know which company he works for, and while I think he's wrong on the NBP, I wouldn't impune his motives.

I'm sorry but if someone with a vested interest in a WISP decries the NBP on the basis that 50 individual wisps weren't taken seriously (when most of them have repeatedly overpromised and underdelivered) without blatantly stating in each comment that they had vested interests, then their opinions have the complete stink of bias and impartiality and those comments should be reviewed in that light.

Its completely disingenuous for someone like that, be it marlowe or anyone else, to point out perceived inadequacies in the NBP process.

The NBP has been on the cards for almost a decade and yet nearly every WISP customer has repeated complaints about speed, reliability and consistency. We have suffered it through gritted teeth though as the alternative was 2mbps on copper.

If those wireless providers had invested in additional infrastructure to alleviate those issues, the NBP wouldn't be happening, simple as that. If those investments were not technically possible or affordable well then that's the price of progress. If they were possible and affordable and were not done then it's not just incompetence but profiteering.

You can't sell oil lamps and be pissed when electricity is being rolled out.

ItHurtsWhenIP

KOR101 wrote: »

@Marlow has been a great contributor to this and other threads. Many of us on here know which company he works for, and while I think he's wrong on the NBP, I wouldn't impune his motives.

I've been away from boards for a couple of years, only returned a couple of months ago and had been lurking "catching up". I found it strange that the name of the company in question had never been suspected/mentioned. So that's why I called it out when I was certain.

I've seen it mentioned a few times earlier that Marlow's contributions have been valued by others. I was not intending to impugn him personally ... OK I admit using "veiled references" isn't the nicest way of saying it, but I wasn't aware the connection was well known. Apologies.

I do still have an issue with the company though. If it is being run by somebody who thinks "their" network shouldn't be used for Netflix, then they really should not have any hand, act or part in anything related to the NBP.

The high horse brigade

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote: »

There has been a lot of veiled references in Marlow's posts to the WISP he/she has ties with. This latest reference leads me to believe it to be Ripplecom. That company whose boss doesn't like it's customers watching Netflix. :rolleyes:

Wrong btw

ItHurtsWhenIP

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Wrong btw

So this isn't a WISP (not Imagine) with "nearly national coverage"?

The high horse brigade

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote: »

So this isn't a WISP (not Imagine) with "nearly national coverage"?

I don't think near national wireless coverage was ever mentioned. What's your point? I don't think it's fair to reveal who his affiliations are to. I certainly won't be telling you because I don't think it matters. He's always given a clear account of how things are.

ItHurtsWhenIP

The high horse brigade wrote: »

I don't think near national wireless coverage was ever mentioned.

It's in his post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111348994&postcount=569

Pique

Marlow wrote:

Not to bid ... that is correct. Even though one with nearly national coverage (and no .. it wasn't Imagine) tried. But with the ability to reduce the amount of premises convered under the NBP, certainly.

It was mentioned.

And why is it such a secret if it's common knowledge amongst some people?

I'm not trying to add to any witch hunt but transparency would be nice.

allanpkr

The high horse brigade wrote: »

I don't think near national wireless coverage was ever mentioned. What's your point? I don't think it's fair to reveal who his affiliations are to. I certainly won't be telling you because I don't think it matters. He's always given a clear account of how things are.

not fair to reveal, why the hell not. why should it be a secret? that just makes it come across sinister. these arent state secrets, they are just w isps. clear acc ? i dont think so. he may be techn astute but his opinions he offered on nbp as facts were interspursed with untruths and downright lies.
i come on here to read unbiased truthful facts and opinions on nbp when i see what can only be described as #fake news# makes me angry.marlow should be better than that.

Standard Toaster

Jesus, give it a rest will ya. Go make yourself a cup of tea and relax. Best not to get angry over trivial things.

Tip: You keep mentioning Marlow but they have you blocked, so they're not seeing your posts.

Ultimanemo

allanpkr wrote: »

i come on here to read unbiased truthful facts.

You can't, everybody will have a different opinion that suits them, I am on wireless ISP so I would say NBP is very important for the country, If I had FTTH,I would say it is total waste of money.

The high horse brigade

ItHurtsWhenIP wrote: »

It's in his post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111348994&postcount=569

I think you need to read it again, it says near national coverage

allanpkr

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Jesus, give it a rest will ya. Go make yourself a cup of tea and relax. Best not to get angry over trivial things.

Tip: You keep mentioning Marlow but they have you blocked, so they're not seeing your posts.

marlow has me blocked yes but wasnt replying to marlow????? lol i am having tea and i am very relaxed but thks for caring.

allanpkr

Ultimanemo wrote: »

You can't, everybody will have a different opinion that suits them, I am on wireless ISP so I would say NBP is very important for the country, If I had FTTH,I would say it is total waste of money.

thats where you and i differ if i had ftth but many did not, it wouldnt matter . the nbp is a must for future proof of ireland and my kids and my future grandchildren .and your future kids. iv never been of the ilk # im alright jack #.

Orebro

This carry on about WISPs not being part of the NBP is akin to the local builders complaining they’re not part of building the National Children’s Hospital. There’s a reason Jack the builder doesn’t submit tenders for projects this size.

Ultimanemo

allanpkr wrote: »

thats where you and i differ if i had ftth but many did not, it wouldnt matter . the nbp is a must for future proof of ireland and my kids and my future grandchildren .and your future kids. iv never been of the ilk # im alright jack #.

Yeah, people are different.

recyclebin

If Marlow works for, or has a vested interest in a WISP then they should come out and say it. They don't have to reveal which one but they can't keep knocking the NBP and not expect to be called out on it if they have a vested interest in it not going ahead.

KOR101

Roll on Monday......

dashoonage

KOR101 wrote: »

Roll on Monday......

howya tuesday!

clohamon

Podcast of U/L academics re-visiting their NBP criticisms (18:00) and Eircom privatisation (43:00)

https://shows.pippa.io/the-irish-economics-podcast/episodes/ep-6-infrastructure-investment

Claim that NBP budget increased substantially after Eircom left the process is not substantiated.