NBP part II

tototoe

https://m.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-now/biggest-investment-since-rural-electrification-3bn-national-broadband-plan-contract-to-be-signed-within-weeks-canney-38574655.html

Bit more details. Sounds like intervention area will change for some people!

user1842

tototoe wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-now/biggest-investment-since-rural-electrification-3bn-national-broadband-plan-contract-to-be-signed-within-weeks-canney-38574655.html

Bit more details. Sounds like intervention area will change for some people!

Im glad now my parents Imagine off-peak speeds are only 24Mb (peak about 5Mb). Imagine thus cannot suggest to take them off the intervention area.

tototoe

user1842 wrote: »

Im glad now my parents Imagine off-peak speeds are only 24Mb (peak about 5Mb). Imagine thus cannot suggest to take them off the intervention area.

I doubt speedtests at your parents or anyone elses house is going to qualify you for anything tbh.
The intervention area is for areas where commercial operators wont go. If the criteria for 30mb is met, who knows.

celticbhoy27

tototoe wrote: »

I doubt speedtests at your parents or anyone elses house is going to qualify you for anything tbh.
The intervention area is for areas where commercial operators wont go. If the criteria for 30mb is met, who knows.

TBH I think the map will change to add areas rather than remove. Imagine (no pun intended) the headache if they were to remove an area because imagine "cover" it only for premises to fail their install due to trees etc.

tsue921i8wljb3

I don't see how removing premises covered by wireless is in any way workable. Is it premises that are actually subscribed or merely premises in coverage areas. If the latter how is coverage verified? Do we take WISPs at their word, rely on desktop coverage predictors or send DCCAE inspectors up on the roof of every claimed premises.

How are speeds verified? Again, are we to take providers claims at face value or will there be scientific monitoring of connections?

Can't see it happening myself.

Gonzo

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

TBH I think the map will change to add areas rather than remove. Imagine (no pun intended) the headache if they were to remove an area because imagine "cover" it only for premises to fail their install due to trees etc.

another reason why Imagine and wireless should not be anywhere near the NBP. If Imagine take entire areas out of the NBP, not all of those homes are going to have proper line of sight. What would happen to those homes that have no provider other than Imagine and can't get Imagine because the signal is too weak or non-existent.

listermint

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

I don't see how removing premises covered by wireless is in any way workable. Is it premises that are actually subscribed or merely premises in coverage areas. If the latter how is coverage verified? Do we take WISPs at their word, rely on desktop coverage predictors or send DCCAE inspectors up on the roof of every claimed premises.

How are speeds verified? Again, are we to take providers claims at face value or will there be scientific monitoring of connections?

Can't see it happening myself.

If this happens il kick up a storm.

Any area could be deemed as covered by wireless it's a nonsense metric. Nonsense


You can get LTE from any of the telcos.

The Cush

Dept of Communications budget press conference
https://twitter.com/merrionstreet/status/1181581998558724097

20:15 mins - Richard Bruton: intend to sign contract soon, €120m set aside for the first year phasing in
22:45 mins - Sean Canney: hoping to sign "in the next couple of weeks or when ever it'll be"
37:40 mins - Q from Justine McCarthy re: intervention areas and contract signing
41:35 mins - Q from Peter (O'Dwyer?) re: €120m budget how many premises will be connected and does this include the 300 BCPs or is that a separate budget, also how many replies were received to the mapping consultation and were any of them referred to the Commission other than Imagine's submission (the second question wasn't answered)

tsue921i8wljb3

listermint wrote: »

If this happens il kick up a storm.

Any area could be deemed as covered by wireless it's a nonsense metric. Nonsense


You can get LTE from any of the telcos.

The difference is I doubt that any of the major telcos responded to the consultation claiming coverage in NBP areas.

Ultimanemo

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

or send DCCAE inspectors up on the roof of every claimed premises..

If they send them during the day the speeds will be good, if they send them at 9 pm it will be a different story

The Cush

The Cush wrote: »

Dept of Communications budget press conference

41:35 mins - Q from Peter (O'Dwyer?) re: €120m budget how many premises will be connected and does this include the 300 BCPs or is that a separate budget, also how many replies were received to the mapping consultation and were any of them referred to the Commission other than Imagine's submission (the second question wasn't answered)

The Dept/Minister appear reluctant to answer questions in relation to the mapping consultation

Peter's question today to the Minister at the press conference on the submissions to the mapping consultation, went unanswered

How many replies to the consultation did the Dept receive and were any of those other than the Imagine one referred to the Commission for their opinion as well?

In his article in the SBP last Sunday he said



https://twitter.com/peterodwyer1/status/1180781625556262912

seanvanseanvan

There is no way that Imagine can legally challenge the NBP when their chief executive went before the PAC and lied

Marlow

seanvanseanvan wrote: »

There is no way that Imagine can legally challenge the NBP when their chief executive went before the PAC and lied

On their own: Not! But the fact is that the department and the minister are on a limp and are avoiding all transparency. And Imagine would not have been the only one to submit.

At this very moment the NBP is a card house waiting to collapse, because the entire process was completely mismanaged.

If they had played ball with everybody from the get go and not taken any shortcuts, they would not have ended up against the wall. There was a meeting in the Oireachtas with RISPA a few months ago, where it was pointed out that 295k of the premises in the NBP actually are served by regional providers delivering broadband within NBP standards. Funnily enough the figure of 284k premises challenged is nearly matching. Do your own 1+1.

/M

The Cush

The Cush wrote: »

Dept of Communications budget press conference

20:15 mins - Richard Bruton: intend to sign contract soon, €120m set aside for the first year phasing in
22:45 mins - Sean Canney: hoping to sign "in the next couple of weeks or when ever it'll be"
37:40 mins - Q from Justine McCarthy re: intervention areas and contract signing

"Min Canney suggested contract could be signed in weeks but suggestion shot down by his boss."

Justine McCarthy: … Minister Canny said that you're hoping to sign the National Broadband contract in a couple of weeks and the Taoiseach said in the Dáil last week it would be by the end of the year, so what is the target date …

Minister Bruton: … we're absolutely working to the end of year … to do that before end of the year. There are a number of things that have to be completed as you rightly say, the mapping has to be approved because not only do we have to be satisfied that anyone who looks to take on new areas, that they reach the threshold of high speed broadband, future proofed, reliable as was set out in the contract, that's the obligation they must meet, and the European Union also we have to satisfy them in relation to state aid, so there are steps apart from the due diligence, there are steps that we need to complete but I'm confident we'll complete those ...

https://twitter.com/peterodwyer1/status/1181632852020137985

The Cush

Marlow wrote: »

There was a meeting in the Oireachtas with RISPA a few months ago, where it was pointed out that 295k of the premises in the NBP actually are served by regional providers delivering broadband within NBP standards. Funnily enough the figure of 284k premises challenged is nearly matching. Do your own 1+1.

A reply to one of Adrian Weckler's tweets earlier

Fibre Fan
@thefibrefan

There are some rumours about another group claiming coverage in NBP areas, namely WISPs under the RISPA coalition. Double the potential threat of legal action. I suppose the contract can be signed and any court case would then follow.

https://twitter.com/thefibrefan/status/1181590761302827008

BandMember

Marlow wrote: »

There was a meeting in the Oireachtas with RISPA a few months ago, where it was pointed out that 295k of the premises in the NBP actually are served by regional providers delivering broadband within NBP standards. Funnily enough the figure of 284k premises challenged is nearly matching. Do your own 1+1.

If the RISPA's were providing a service that is equal to that required under the NBP, there would be no need for an NBP. They're not, they can't, so there is one.

westyIrl

BandMember wrote: »

If the RISPA's were providing a service that is equal to that required under the NBP, there would be no need for an NBP. They're not, they can't, so there is one.

Completely agree.. However what I think Marlow is rightly (imho) pointing out is that the Department brought the problem on themselves when they said wireless would have some role to play, if even in a relative handful of cases. It opened the door for WISPs who could meet that requirement who were previously ruled out. Not saying it's right or proper, just an own goal by the Dept. At least that's my laymans take on things.

allanpkr

the only way wisps should have any role in nbp is to join with likes of siro when offering broadband connection as some already do. listen wisps have had rural market for years , offering poor downloads speeds and some limiting your amount. anytime they could have changed and shown us what they can really do and offer. THEY DIDNT. now they suggest they can offer as good as fibre. wisps should join with siro and offer fibre broadband connection. The rest should stop crying that their cash cow of ripping off rural ireland is soon to be over.

KOR101

I suppose the contract can be signed and any court case would then follow.

I doubt work can start until all legal challenges have been sorted out.

If there is to be no legal challenge, why bother making a submission. We need someone with legal knowledge of EU state aid cases to weigh in at this point.

listermint

BandMember wrote: »

If the RISPA's were providing a service that is equal to that required under the NBP, there would be no need for an NBP. They're not, they can't, so there is one.

The wisps should get involved rather than piss their money away on litigation. I've no doubt their are lawyers who would just love to take their money.

But perhaps they'd be better placed looking at their business in the context of working with the nbp. They should be positioning themselves for the hard to reach spots with higher premiums.


It's moronic. Like fax machine sellers pushing against email.

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

There was a meeting in the Oireachtas with RISPA a few months ago, where it was pointed out that 295k of the premises in the NBP actually are served by regional providers delivering broadband within NBP standards.

/M

This is a lie and you know it.

allanpkr

well , i dont think id see the day that the nbp is signed off on, then the wisps take it to court. thats a lose , lose situation for wisps. i can just see customers saying ok i could have had fibre to the home , but because of you i get second best broadband , where do i sign???

Also imagine the scenario, whereas some homes in rural ireland have ftth others dont. the homes without ftth are automatically of less value. therefore property tax would also have to have a different band. or would home owners take govn to european court also collectively saying there home has been devalued.??

recyclebin

Orebro wrote: »

This is a lie and you know it.

I don't think there is a difference between Marlows personal opinion and the one he has a commercial interest in. He obviously wants the NBP to fail to protect his vested interests in fraudband.

ArrBee

Do you think Imagine have permission to put their advertising boards up all over the place?
Is permission required to attach to ESB or OpenEir poles, or to assemble (small) billboards at the road side?

I wonder if it is legal to remove them?

SkepticQuark

Marlow wrote: »

On their own: Not! But the fact is that the department and the minister are on a limp and are avoiding all transparency. And Imagine would not have been the only one to submit.

At this very moment the NBP is a card house waiting to collapse, because the entire process was completely mismanaged.

If they had played ball with everybody from the get go and not taken any shortcuts, they would not have ended up against the wall. There was a meeting in the Oireachtas with RISPA a few months ago, where it was pointed out that 295k of the premises in the NBP actually are served by regional providers delivering broadband within NBP standards. Funnily enough the figure of 284k premises challenged is nearly matching. Do your own 1+1.

/M

Maybe you should name some of these magical WISPs you keep talking about.

ArrBee

recyclebin wrote: »

I don't think there is a difference between Marlows personal opinion and the one he has a commercial interest in. He obviously wants the NBP to fail to protect his vested interests in fraudband.

To be fair,
I get the impression that his message has always been:
wireless technology is sound but, like anything, its how you provision it that makes a difference to the end user experience. In that regard, not all WISPs are equal. We all know the Imagine approach, but not all are like that (apparently) and to tar them all with the same brush isn't helpful.
Nor is excluding them from the process.


Now, my opinion is a little different while still accepting what Marlow seems to be saying.
My opinion is more along the lines of:
While it may be possible for wireless solutions to meet some of the objectives of the NBP I don't think that it really feeds into the long term view.
I think that in order for wireless endpoint connections to evolve to higher speeds over 25+ years it would end up costing more in the long run and require so much core network capacity (probably over fibre) that would make the current plan more sensible.

Orebro

I bow to Marlows technical knowledge.

But I think what he says is a case of "here is what is technically possible", and giving the impression that the reality on the ground is the same. To suggest 295k of the NBP intervention area is serviced to NBP standards is a complete lie and needs to be called out.

They might be able to publish the figures on paper but the reality on the ground is that it is simply not true.

Marlow

Orebro wrote: »

This is a lie and you know it.

Just because you say it's a lie, that does not make it a lie. What technical insight do you have that proves, that it's a lie ?

/M

Marlow

SkepticQuark wrote: »

Maybe you should name some of these magical WISPs you keep talking about.

I have ... multiple times .. in this thread. With technical detail and capabilities. I am not going to repeat it just because you are too lazy to read back or remember, because you don't like the fact.

/M

listermint

Marlow wrote: »

I have ... multiple times .. in this thread. With technical detail and capabilities. I am not going to repeat it just because you are too lazy to read back or remember, because you don't like the fact.

/M

I'm a wisp user and am intrigued by the definition of broadband as you see it. Because there isn't a chance in hell it matches the standard in any consistent metric.

And on no plain does it give remotely fibre like qualities.