NBP part II

allanpkr

facts do not dissappear if you ignore them , nor do facts get changed if you try to twist them.
whatever has been said about the nbp facts are.
it was totally inclusive, if you had the means to build it.
it was to be built to a certain standard
it was to be maintained at this standard.
it was to be futureproof.
it was to be affordable.
once built it was to be an open market.

the process has actually been so open even at this late stage they were still taking data upto september.

Gary kk

So because of the lack of backhaul the wisp can't supply the connection they are advertising?

Gary kk

More importantly they know they can't supply it so is that not false advertising or something?

The high horse brigade

Gary kk wrote: »

More importantly they know they can't supply it so is that not false advertising or something?

There are some of them are more honest and advertise what they can provide

allanpkr

The high horse brigade wrote: »

There are some of them are more honest and advertise what they can provide

yes westnet, only sell what they can supply. great service.
today internet went down early in morning. by the time i realised ,email was sent to explain why....seconds later fixed.problem with power supply in swinford.

ArrBee

allanpkr wrote: »

im not sure i understand , are you saying wispas cant deliver that cause of backhaul to mast.
and if so as a person whose is not tech wise , could you explain what backhaul to mask means in laymans terms.

It means there needs to be a fibre network across the country to feed loads of masts to provide the shared bandwidth for multiple wireless connections.
Or they could take that fibre network and connect houses directly... 😜

wexfordman2

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What specific requirements?

You must know that it is possible to deliver 150Mb/s connections over fixed wireless at the present time.
Also given the rate of change in the industry, it will be possible to deliver much higher speeds in future years, through the new technology in development and test.

So, no, I am not aware of any specific requirements in the tender document that prevent the use of fixed wireless as a medium for the connections.
In fact it is the stated intent that a percentage of the NBP connections, even if it is fibre based, will be by fixed wireless.

What is not in the NBP of course is the concept that fixed wireless throughout rural Ireland for high speed broadband to all, is not at all practical.
That is where it fails as it would not generate profit if done correctly, due to the costs of masts etc..

Now maybe you understand.

Considering the evolution of mobile data speeds has in fairness been impressive, it comes at a huge cost to the network, most mobile networks have been completely refreshed on average 4 times over the last 20 years to attain the current speeds.

Seeing as we are talking about a 25yr timeframe for nbp, anyone suggesting a wireless based nbp should consider that just to keep up yo date, said wireless nbp network would need to be refreshed 5 times in that time frame looking at a similar evolution. So, funding a wireless nbp means funding 5 network rollout.

Johnboy1951

allanpkr wrote: »

you must know the nbp ,s quality control doesnt mean you can supply 150mb/s at 5 am in morning only. i dont know any wispa at the moment that can give 150mb/s at peak if 150mb/s is what you are paying for. please i hope you can prove me wrong.
HOWEVER your last comment that wispa fails on masts needed to give a definate supply to rural island at reasonable cost let alone numerous masts would also be allowed, makes your previous comment rather pandantic wouldnt you say.
so now you maybe understand.

hahahaha ...... if you do not wish to be corrected then do not make blatently incorrect statements, and brushing off the correction by calling it pedantic is just plain silly.

It is possible to provide 150Mb/s to each customer using fixed wireless at all times of day and night.
That none do so presently is not relevant.
That most seem to imply they can is not relevant either.
That it can be done is the only relevant fact to the NBP.

I maintain it cannot be done economically by any commercial enterprise, and thus there were no serious attempts by fixed wireless operators to tender for the NBP, and provide verifiable data on how that would be achieved.

Certainly in some locations, at the farthest reaches, fixed wireless is expected to be used, at least initially.

That is a decision for whoever gets the contract, and it will be a commercial decision based on costs, future upgrades and maintenance for up to 35 years.

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

hahahaha ...... if you do not wish to be corrected then do not make blatently incorrect statements, and brushing off the correction by calling it pedantic is just plain silly.

It is possible to provide 150Mb/s to each customer using fixed wireless at all times of day and night.
That none do so presently is not relevant.
That most seem to imply they can is not relevant either.
That it can be done is the only relevant fact to the NBP.

I maintain it cannot be done economically by any commercial enterprise, and thus there were no serious attempts by fixed wireless operators to tender for the NBP, and provide verifiable data on how that would be achieved.

Certainly in some locations, at the farthest reaches, fixed wireless is expected to be used, at least initially.

That is a decision for whoever gets the contract, and it will be a commercial decision based on costs, future upgrades and maintenance for up to 35 years.

lol. behave. i always like to learn i hope i never stop learning.
now lets see, you say they can provide 150mb/s ,i didnt say they couldnt, i said tney may charge for it but none do, supply it. you say thats irrelevent??? so lets get your point here, you say they can supply it, they charge for it, but customers dont get it. i can only presume they then must choose to not give what they charge for, isnt that fraud???
i said they would need a lot of masts and probably woildnt get permission. you said cost of masts makes it prohibited.??
sorry im still trying to find where i was corrected????? maybe thats irrelevent.
so yes im afrsid you might not like being corrected, but i say again, you were being pandantic.
look it up.

recyclebin

This thread is getting very pedantic between two posters. To summarise, wireless could be used but the cost and number of masts required would be astromical.

purpleisafruit

The other issue wireless will have is the anti-5G brigade with their nonsensical conspiracy theories affecting public policy in some cases
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/councillors-vote-to-oppose-5g-38575062.html

listermint

Marlow wrote: »

I am not. I am simply pointing a few facts out, that everyone ignores, because they do not fit into their rosy picture.

The same as I pointed out, that the call for data by the department would backfire, that i wouldn't only be a few regional providers submitting data and that it would put the department in a pickle. But hey .. i pointed it out previously ... before the latest statements in news and elsewhere.

You do not get rid of facts by silencing them.

/M

The only Rosey picture is the one you've painted of chunks of people being provided 150mb wireless BB consistently. Everyone and their granny knows he technology is possible. Everyone and their granny knows it doesn't work consistently when presented with anything other than happy path environmental scenarios

listermint

purpleisafruit wrote: »

The other issue wireless will have is the anti-5G brigade with their nonsensical conspiracy theories affecting public policy in some cases
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/councillors-vote-to-oppose-5g-38575062.html

Whatever about the proximity of wireless emitters to people I think the jury might be still out on that


But what are they on about 5g and carbon footprint.

allanpkr

recyclebin wrote: »

This thread is getting very pedantic between two posters. To summarise, wireless could be used but the cost and number of masts required would be astromical.

exactly what my original post explained.

ArrBee

recyclebin wrote: »

This thread is getting very pedantic between two posters. To summarise, wireless could be used but the cost and number of masts required would be astromical.

Not only that, but it was put forward in this thread that there is a requirement (perhaps it is an EU requirement rather than a documented requirement in the tender docs??) that by 2025 the network can provide 150Mb/s but upgradable to 1Gb/s
Everyone keeps talking about the 150Mb by 2025 while ignoring the harder to reach requirement that it be upgradable to 1Gb.

To deliver 1Gb wirelessly would mean even greater infrastructure costs.

tototoe

recyclebin wrote: »

This thread is getting very pedantic between two posters. To summarise, wireless could be used but the cost and number of masts required would be astromical.

How many masts are required for fixed wireless? Considering its completely different to 5g and can work on much longer distances, and the needs loads of masts thing is related to 5G more than fixed wireless?

Marlow

tototoe wrote: »

How many masts are required for fixed wireless? Considering its completely different to 5g and can work on much longer distances, and the needs loads of masts thing is related to 5G more than fixed wireless?

Not a lot. That was outlined in the meeting with the communications committee .. the reason for that is that the regional providers have a lot of masts that are not recorded by the department nor Comreg, which not are availble for the mobile providers.

Another reason, why the lack of consulting with them leads to incomplete data.

The issue is still that there is no fiber at probably over 3/4 of all irish masts.

/M

Pique

the regional providers have a lot of masts that are not recorded by the department nor Comreg

Good job ComReg. Isn't that one of the things they 'should' have a record of? I thought every commercial mast/transmitter would have to be registered with them.

Johnboy1951

allanpkr wrote: »

lol. behave. i always like to learn i hope i never stop learning.
now lets see, you say they can provide 150mb/s ,i didnt say they couldnt, i said tney may charge for it but none do, supply it. you say thats irrelevent??? so lets get your point here, you say they can supply it, they charge for it, but customers dont get it. i can only presume they then must choose to not give what they charge for, isnt that fraud???
i said they would need a lot of masts and probably woildnt get permission. you said cost of masts makes it prohibited.??
sorry im still trying to find where i was corrected????? maybe thats irrelevent.
so yes im afrsid you might not like being corrected, but i say again, you were being pandantic.
look it up.

None of the present behaviour of the wisps is technically relevant, because the NBP tender is about what can be done, is proposed to be done, and not what is being done.

You did not say they couldn't? Maybe you forgot you posted this ...

It specifies requirements that can only be delivered by FTTH.

Just accept the correction and move on.

The high horse brigade

Pique wrote: »

Good job ComReg. Isn't that one of the things they 'should' have a record of? I thought every commercial mast/transmitter would have to be registered with them.

What? You think Comreg should focus on regulating and not on making money?

Johnboy1951

purpleisafruit wrote: »

The other issue wireless will have is the anti-5G brigade with their nonsensical conspiracy theories affecting public policy in some cases
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/councillors-vote-to-oppose-5g-38575062.html

For me the main point of that was

therefore it opposes the roll-out of unregulated 5G in the County

Other than that it read like the usual nonsense one expects from such bodies

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

Good job ComReg. Isn't that one of the things they 'should' have a record of? I thought every commercial mast/transmitter would have to be registered with them.

No. The only ones mandatory for them to keep records of are the masts used by mobile operators. And that's just for the purpose of regulating mast sharing.

/M

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

None of the present behaviour of the wisps is technically relevant, because the NBP tender is about what can be done, is proposed to be done, and not what is being done.

You did not say they couldn't? Maybe you forgot you posted this ...


Just accept the correction and move on.

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited ,humans race can do almost anything if cost wasnt an issue. but cost has to be an issue in everything . life is all about balance. now before all the cronies lol jump out the woodwork, iv already stated in a very early post i think 2.6 billion is good value for whole of ireland to be ftth and its future income for revenue.
again i say, if you say 150mb/s is obtainable by wisps at peak . Then why are customers not getting what they pay for?
no good just keep saying they can. they cant cause they would need 100,s of more masts which i said originally.
just accept your point was pandantic, in every possible way that word means.
did you look it up.??

allanpkr

tototoe wrote: »

How many masts are required for fixed wireless? Considering its completely different to 5g and can work on much longer distances, and the needs loads of masts thing is related to 5G more than fixed wireless?

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

tsue921i8wljb3

allanpkr wrote: »

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

They were probably switching you to 5GHz from 2.4GHz which are both frequencies that many WISPs use to deliver their service. In fact they are the same frequencies used by WiFi. It has nothing to do with 5G which is a technology, not a frequency.

The high horse brigade

allanpkr wrote: »

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

No they didn't, they changed you over to 5Ghz, not 5G.

Johnboy1951

allanpkr wrote: »

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited ,humans race can do almost anything if cost wasnt an issue. but cost has to be an issue in everything . life is all about balance. now before all the cronies lol jump out the woodwork, iv already stated in a very early post i think 2.6 billion is good value for whole of ireland to be ftth and its future income for revenue.
again i say, if you say 150mb/s is obtainable by wisps at peak . Then why are customers not getting what they pay for?
no good just keep saying they can. they cant cause they would need 100,s of more masts which i said originally.
just accept your point was pandantic, in every possible way that word means.
did you look it up.??

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited

I never admitted anything ...... I made statements of my opinion.
I made statements of facts.
Trying to colour things by the inappropriate words you use is more silliness.

I stated it CAN be done technically.
I stated an opinion it would not be done due to commercial concerns.

You need to learn more about the true meaning of the words you read.

As regards your silly questioning about 'pedantic' ....... maybe you are unaware you are in a technical forum and details matter ....... matter a lot.

This is not facebook!

But really this all started with your completely erroneous statement about the tender

It specifies requirements that can only be delivered by FTTH.

I am finished with your silliness.

clohamon

ArrBee wrote: »

Not only that, but it was put forward in this thread that there is a requirement (perhaps it is an EU requirement rather than a documented requirement in the tender docs??) that by 2025 the network can provide 150Mb/s but upgradable to 1Gb/s
Everyone keeps talking about the 150Mb by 2025 while ignoring the harder to reach requirement that it be upgradable to 1Gb.

To deliver 1Gb wirelessly would mean even greater infrastructure costs.

There's ambiguity concerning the requirements to change the map in 2015, vs. the requirements for the State intervention in 2019.

It's possible that the WISPS have received legal advice that they still only need to be capable of delivering 30Mb/s-down, 6Mb/s-up (and 50ms latency) to force the map to be changed. That seemed to be Marcus Matthew's view at the Comms Committee.

RISPA Opening Statement
RISPA has serious concerns about the NBP. Regarding the accuracy of the intervention area, a recurring issue throughout the NBP's procurement process has been the mapping of premises that do not have access to a minimum 30 Mbps broadband service.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

Mr. Marcus Matthews: The crux of it is that it [the technology] already meets the quality of service criteria specification.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: In that technical sense, in that instance.
Mr. Marcus Matthews: But that is what matters here.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

The bigger issue might be whether a service on unlicensed spectrum qualifies to change the map, and if not, whether WISPS are/were entitled to special treatment from ComReg (i.e. reserved spectrum)

ArrBee

clohamon wrote: »

There's ambiguity concerning the requirements to change the map in 2015, vs. the requirements for the State intervention in 2019.

It's possible that the WISPS have received legal advice that they still only need to be capable of delivering 30Mb/s-down, 6Mb/s-up (and 50ms latency) to force the map to be changed. That seemed to be Marcus Matthew's view at the Comms Committee.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/


https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

The bigger issue might be whether a service on unlicensed spectrum qualifies to change the map, and if not, whether WISPS are/were entitled to special treatment from ComReg (i.e. reserved spectrum)

Wasn't the requirement to change the map in 2015 essentially a commitment by Eir to run fibre (which has a 1Gb option) to each of the homes within a certain time frame?

clohamon

ArrBee wrote: »

Wasn't the requirement to change the map in 2015 essentially a commitment by Eir to run fibre (which has a 1Gb option) to each of the homes within a certain time frame?

Not exclusively fibre - sadly.

Some of Eircom's 300K is delivered with eVDSL, ie all copper. IIRC there was no cap on the percentage of eVDSL - though it was low, c.3k premises.

The NBP was/is technologically neutral. It was only because the sole wireless applicant, Imagine, failed the pre-qualification questionnaire on financial grounds* that there were only fibre bidders remaining.

*There were rumours that Imagine couldn't meet the reliability criteria also, particularly on the uplink.