NBP part II

allanpkr

in all seriousness. my wisp is westnet, they only ever advertised what they could offer. they were totally honest on bandwith. if i ever had a problem they came out within a day if they couldnt sort it their end. and i been with them for yrs. on fixed wireless. not perfect i dont get more than 3mb but im only paying for 2mb. i cant complain. but the market changes and as a good forward thinking business, they changed with progress, yes PROGRESS, they joined with siro and offer fibre broadband, if you live in towns , they offer broadband over the copper wire if you dont have fibre link, and still offer fixed wireless, be it very low mbs. my point is 2 things . 1. they were very honest on mbs offered. 2 they adapted there business to suit modern times. when i finally do get ftth , i will be using westnet. btw it was always unlimited. cant beat honesty and great service.

naughto

allanpkr wrote: »

in all seriousness. my wisp is westnet, they only ever advertised what they could offer. they were totally honest on bandwith. if i ever had a problem they came out within a day if they couldnt sort it their end. and i been with them for yrs. on fixed wireless. not perfect i dont get more than 3mb but im only paying for 2mb. i cant complain. but the market changes and as a good forward thinking business, they changed with progress, yes PROGRESS, they joined with siro and offer fibre broadband, if you live in towns , they offer broadband over the copper wire if you dont have fibre link, and still offer fixed wireless, be it very low mbs. my point is 2 things . 1. they were very honest on mbs offered. 2 they adapted there business to suit modern times. when i finally do get ftth , i will be using westnet. btw it was always unlimited. cant beat honesty and great service.

Have to agree with this there is no bulsh1e with westnet always found them very easy to deal with and there tec support is top noch.
Will get ftth of them when it’s available from them

dam099

Marlow wrote: »

And FTTH as deployed in Ireland using GPON is contended by design.
/M

I respect a lot of your contributions here over the years but thats a bit of a false equivalence.

2.5GB / 32 split means everyone could theoretically pull nearly 80Mb at the same time. As even a few people streaming would use quite a bit less than that there is usually enough bandwidth for everyone to say use a few 4k Netflix streams (a heavy enough use case for constant demand) and still have capacity for some users to burst up to 1Gb. Being on FTTH for nearly 18 months that has generally been my experience even at peak times.

From what I've read on here WISPs are doing well to have 500Mb a sector and may cram 100+ users on them, so an average of 5Mb per user. In family homes thats not enough for multiple users to do what they want to do so everyone ends up with not quite enough bandwidth at the peak times.

tsue921i8wljb3

Westnet are not a member of RISPA as far as I'm aware. I remember posting about their response to a Department consultation way back in 2016 on the merits of wireless vs fibre. I'll repost it here as it stands testament to their integrity as a company.

Westnet wrote:

Technology
Following from the above, there is a potential conflict between two considerations that the NBP must take into account: one is the SAG requirement for technology neutrality, and the other is the requirement that the investment be future-proof and scalable.
It is our view that the latter requirement clearly trumps the former. While it’s theoretically possible to deliver services over wireless platforms that comply with the 30-down/6-up requirement to meet the definition of NGA, it’s abundantly clear that such platforms can’t offer a fraction of the scalability of a true fibre-optic network.
Can a wireless network deliver next-generation broadband, if the definition of such is constrained to less than what’s commercially available in urban areas even today? Maybe. Can it deliver 50% annual growth year-on-year for the duration of a 20-year intervention? Not a chance.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101728647&postcount=2281

SkepticQuark

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

So you can't then.

SkepticQuark

BArra wrote: »

would like to know who these wisp companies who can deliver 30mb plus speeds consistently during peak usage hours also.

am with nova in cork who are as bad as imagine from reading these forums. dreadful speeds in the evenings and weekends

He can't provide the list. Though for the record it's the members of RISPA that are contending they can, while yes some claim "up to 100mbps" downloads in limited areas there are other members on that list charging 90 euro for 12mbps.

allanpkr

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Westnet are not a member of RISPA as far as I'm aware. I remember posting about their response to a Department consultation way back in 2016 on the merits of wireless vs fibre. I'll repost it here as it stands testament to their integrity as a company.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101728647&postcount=2281

thank for this didnt know they said this. but goes to show westnet are totally honest and as iv said b4 integrity and honesty go far, plus excellant service.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

their response to a Department consultation way back in 2016 on the merits of wireless vs fibre.

Let me put this to you: who says, that a regional provider can not provide the speeds as outlined per NBP in the timeframe as required.

Yes, I agree, that wireless won't scale to deliver Gbit/s in a PtMP scenario. But a regional provider can provide the 30 Mbit/s required now. They can also scale to 100 Mbit/s by 2025. And they can on top of that invest in other technologies going forward, that will enable them and build infrastructure to provide even faster. These may not be wireless.

The fact is, that by excluding these regional providers from the NBP consultation, then buttering them under with competition created by a tax money paid build out and the various other mishaps of the process and the lack of transparency shown, eligibility of funding for the project is drawn into question.

If there was no doubt ...if there was no political issues .. these contracts would have been signed last year. The reason it has been pushed out, is because it is such a political minefield.

Fact is that some of these regional already operate .. even though localised .. fibre optic access networks. Off their own !!

/M

SkepticQuark

Marlow wrote: »

Let me put this to you: who says, that a regional provider can not provide the speeds as outlined per NBP in the timeframe as required.

Yes, I agree, that wireless won't scale to deliver Gbit/s in a PtMP scenario. But a regional provider can provide the 30 Mbit/s required now. They can also scale to 100 Mbit/s by 2025. And they can on top of that invest in other technologies going forward, that will enable them and build infrastructure to provide even faster. These may not be wireless.

The fact is, that by excluding these regional providers from the NBP consultation, then buttering them under with competition created by a tax money paid build out and the various other mishaps of the process and the lack of transparency shown, eligibility of funding for the project is drawn into question.

If there was no doubt ...if there was no political issues .. these contracts would have been signed last year. The reason it has been pushed out, is because it is such a political minefield.

Fact is that some of these regional already operate .. even though localised .. fibre optic access networks. Off their own !!

/M

I've highlighted the relevant sections. The NBP isn't about what "future technology" might present itself 15 years from now that no doubt these providers would ask for money to provide, it's about 1 solution for the period of the contract. This is all too similar to magical "technological solutions" to borders that have yet to exist but we're to believe will exist when the current solutions fail. If they operate localised fibre optic networks then why didn't they put forward a bid for such a model, truth is they can't deliver to the scale required so they wouldn't have been part of a final bidding process. And getting multiple regional companies to agree to provide their own separate fibre networks sounds like a receipe for disaster.

allanpkr

i know marlow has blocked me, but hes so blinkered and always will be even when its done and dusted and ftth rolls out with the nbp. he will still somewhere be saying the same old bull to anyone that will listen. The World Knows ftth is always better than wisps.....and on otherside MARLOW....rather sad really.

Marlow

SkepticQuark wrote: »

sounds like a receipe for disaster.

Oh wait .. and you think the way how this .. 3rd attempt of a national broadband plan has been run ... is not a disaster ?

Or every previous attempt .. for that sake.

You do not worry, that it took Eircom PLC to go to EU level to get the 300k removed ? I mean the ignorance of the department ..

/M

Ultimanemo

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
They tried the wireless solution in NBS, it didn't last long

KOR101

Richard Bruton Dail, Tues Oct 8th...

As a State intervention, the National Broadband Plan must comply with the requirements of the European Commission’s Guidelines on the application of the State aid rules to broadband networks.

The Guidelines require, amongst other things, that Member States carry out a detailed mapping exercise and public consultation process in particular to identify as far as reasonably possible those areas where intervention is required.

Since July 2013, the Department has engaged in an ongoing and extensive process of mapping and monitoring of broadband availability in Ireland. This has been supported by a number of public consultations from 2014 to date. This process has included a review of operator networks in line with the assessment criteria published in 2015.

The Department recently consulted publicly to close the ongoing mapping exercise, seeking submissions from operators who wish to have their existing high speed broadband networks or who have developed plans to invest in high speed broadband networks over the next 7 years to be included on the Department’s High Speed Broadband Map. That consultation closed on 30 September.

In addition, the Department has identified approximately 46,000 premises in commercial areas of the Map where high speed broadband services have not materialised and have sought information in relation to these or other similar premises from operators or the public.

As part of the consultation, over 180 submissions have been received from a variety of stakeholders, including 30 from large and small telecoms operators, and the remainder from local authority broadband officers and members of the public.

Operator submissions will be assessed against the Department’s published assessment criteria. Operators submitting planned investments were required to sign a declaration that they would enter into a Commitment Agreement with the Department if their plans satisfied the assessment criteria and were accepted by the Department as being concrete and credible.

Following the conclusion of the Department’s assessment, the non-confidential versions of all submissions will be published, as soon as possible, on the Department’s website together with the outcome of the assessment.

The outcome of the consultation will form part of the continuing engagement of the Department with DG Competition as part of the compliance with State Aid Rules.

Ultimanemo

Probably someone posted this before

https://www.independent.ie/business/budget/news/broadband-contract-to-be-signed-in-weeks-38576671.html

It says:

Imagine denies challenging the process and said it was merely responding to a Government request on where its own broadband services were targeted.

Marlow

KOR101 wrote: »

The outcome of the consultation will form part of the continuing engagement of the Department with DG Competition as part of the compliance with State Aid Rules.

And this consultation seemingly now has drawn 284k premises into question. Go figure. That is more than a third of the premises.

/M

KOR101

KOR101 wrote: »

Operators submitting planned investments were required to sign a declaration that they would enter into a Commitment Agreement with the Department if their plans satisfied the assessment criteria and were accepted by the Department as being concrete and credible.

I think this is the key part. :pac:

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

And this consultation seemingly now has drawn 284k premises into question. Go figure. That is more than a third of the premises.

/M

Have Rispa received professional legal advice that justifies their opinion that they have a case under State Aid rules?

Marlow

KOR101 wrote: »

I think this is the key part. :pac:

It is. For areas they are "planning" on and if they are the only provider. If an area is covered by 2 providers offering NGA speeds, then that is a different story entirely.

And this is where the last call for data may have buggered them.

/M

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Have Rispa received professional legal advice that justifies their opinion that they have a case under State Aid rules?

The submissions made on the last consultation have nothing to do with RISPA and from what I know it is more than twice the amount of regional providers than the amount of members of RISPA who submitted. Unfortunately the department does not want to be transparent on the issue. I know, that all submitted documents were ran past a very prominent large law firm before being submitted.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

The submissions made on the last consultation have nothing to do with RISPA and from what I know it is more than twice the amount of regional providers than the amount of members of RISPA who submitted. Unfortunately the department does not want to be transparent on the issue. I know, that all submitted documents were ran past a very prominent large law firm before being submitted.

/M

So you're saying each company submitted individual consultation documents but you all knew what each other was submitting because you had them legally vetted beforehand.

Hypothetically let's say you are successful and the project collapses. What is to stop them restarting it with a minimum mandated speed of 1Gb from day one? Get eir back to the table. They are never going to deal with you. You must realise that by now.

SkepticQuark

Marlow wrote: »

Oh wait .. and you think the way how this .. 3rd attempt of a national broadband plan has been run ... is not a disaster ?

Or every previous attempt .. for that sake.

You do not worry, that it took Eircom PLC to go to EU level to get the 300k removed ? I mean the ignorance of the department ..

/M

Might want to tell the readers what technologies those previously failed attempts used.

If I was in my dream world, privately owned companies wouldn't have a sniff of public infrastructure in the first place so none of this would have been a problem. The current NBP approach hands control to a consortium in a messy bidding process yes, but for **** sake I'd rather have fibre on every Eir pole within 10 years than be having WISPs come back to us in 10 years saying they need more cash to yet again close the gap to urban broadband. What you're seemingly proposing, correct me if I'm wrong, is the equivalent of adovacting for an electricity network done by a collection of electricians that all claim to have already served parts of the country with their own electricity. If that's actually what you're proposing IDK why I should take anything you say as credible.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Hypothetically let's say you are successful and the project collapses. What is to stop them restarting it with a minimum mandated speed of 1Gb from day one? Get eir back to the table. They are never going to deal with you. You must realise that by now.

Gee ... if they restarted the process requiring 1 Gbit/s it would be really planning for the future.

It also would mean that the 400k+ premises that are not included by OpenEIR IFN and all the premises that were excluded because they are covered by Virgin would have to be included.

OpenEirs VDSL rollout is 1.7M approx. 1.4M premises are going to be covered by the IFN, but of these 80k+ are NBP premises. So only about 1.3M VDSL premises are covered by the IFN rollout.

So we are now talking 540k+400k+ some more .. so lets 1M+ premises that would have to be covered by said tender. Just hypothetically.

/M

Marlow

SkepticQuark wrote: »

Might want to tell the readers what technologies those previously failed attempts used.

Oh well .. NBS ... 4G/LTE .. which would be well capable if you had the bandwidth, the capacity at each mast and you did not have variable contention ( mobile data users )

But hey .. who cares about those issues, when the problem goes away until election day. Another very well (mismanaged) consultation.

/M

SkepticQuark

Marlow wrote: »

Oh well .. NBS ... 4G/LTE .. which would be well capable if you had the bandwidth, the capacity at each mast and you did not have variable contention ( mobile data users )

But hey .. who cares about those issues, when the problem goes away until election day. Another very well (mismanaged) consultation.

/M

And more masts, and less trees, and less hills etc. etc. Clearly the only thing to blame for 4G being not viable to close the gap between rural and urban is the government.

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

Gee ... if they restarted the process requiring 1 Gbit/s it would be really planning for the future.

It also would mean that the 400k+ premises that are not included by OpenEIR IFN and all the premises that were excluded because they are covered by Virgin would have to be included.

OpenEirs VDSL rollout is 1.7M approx. 1.4M premises are going to be covered by the IFN, but of these 80k+ are NBP premises. So only about 1.3M VDSL premises are covered by the IFN rollout.

So we are now talking 540k+400k+ some more .. so lets 1M+ premises that would have to be covered by said tender. Just hypothetically.

/M

Which would make it more desirable, at least for eir. The more premises, the better for them.

That is an interesting comment you made. Why then challenge the network that could start to deliver 1Gb to some rural areas within 18 months or "really planning for the future" as you put it.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

That is an interesting comment you made. Why then challenge the network that could start to deliver 1Gb to some rural areas within 18 months or "really planning for the future" as you put it.

Because it won't. Read the proposal. The cost to the taxpayer doing it is completely unproportionate, the solution includes 5% or more wireless, which may compete with existing wireless providers and the entire consultation has been compromised.

If they had stuck to their guns and done a straight run ... no problem. What has happened ... completely unacceptable to any tax payer.

/M

Marlow

SkepticQuark wrote: »

And more masts, and less trees, and less hills etc. etc. Clearly the only thing to blame for 4G being not viable to close the gap between rural and urban is the government.

Here is a little thing worth to know: Regional providers have access to mast sites and repeaters that most traditional mobile carriers don't have access to. These are not necessarily known to the department .. especially because these regional providers were excluded from these consultations.

There are A LOT more established sites, than what the department works of.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

Because it won't. Read the proposal. The cost to the taxpayer doing it is completely unproportionate, the solution includes 5% or more wireless, which may compete with existing wireless providers and the entire consultation has been compromised.

If they had stuck to their guns and done a straight run ... no problem. What has happened ... completely unacceptable to any tax payer.

/M

So at least 95% (and likely more than that) is XGS-PON. That will not deliver gigabit?

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

So at least 95% (and likely more than that) is XGS-PON. That will not deliver gigabit?

Proposal was 150 Mbit/s now. 500 Mbit/s within a few years. Tech was not specified as XGS-PON. eNet trials to show capability were some crude GPON solution.

What is being rolled out is everybodies guess at this point. There is no call for XGS-PON. These are investors. Not telecoms people. What has 20 years of investment companies owning Eircom PLC brought us ?

Only what is required and contractually agreed is going to be build. Not an inch more.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

Proposal was 150 Mbit/s now. 500 Mbit/s within a few years. Tech was not specified as XGS-PON. eNet trials to show capability were some crude GPON solution.

What is being rolled out is everybodies guess at this point. There is no call for XGS-PON. These are investors. Not telecoms people. What has 20 years of investment companies owning Eircom PLC brought us ?

/M

It is XGS-PON. It was confirmed in one of the Analysys Mason documents released by the Department.

They will offer gigabit from day one as confirmed by oscarBravo here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110721989

To be honest there's not much point in us arguing about this. You have made your decision and what will happen will happen. I'm not going to influence whatever transpires.