NBP part II

Marlow

clohamon wrote: »

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.

There is matter of fact 1.7M on VDSL also, which are excluded from the NBP and may not have other options. OpenEIR is replacing approx of 1.3M of those with FTTH in the next few years, but that wasn't on the cards beforehand and only came to light very recently. (1.4M in the IFN, but of those 80+k are NBP premises)

Those also have to considered in the bigger picture. So there are plenty of households, who won't see the 1 Gbit/s threshould any time soon. Hemce why the 1 Gbit/s threshould is more a nice to have opposed to a must.

/M

ArrBee

clohamon wrote: »

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.

Wow, that is interesting!
And I can see why it could complicate things...

ArrBee

Marlow wrote: »

There is matter of fact 1.7M on VDSL also, which are excluded from the NBP and may not have other options. OpenEIR is replacing approx of 1.3M of those with FTTH in the next few years, but that wasn't on the cards beforehand and only came to light very recently. (1.4M in the IFN, but of those 80+k are NBP premises)

Those also have to considered in the bigger picture. So there are plenty of households, who won't see the 1 Gbit/s threshould any time soon. Hemce why the 1 Gbit/s threshould is more a nice to have opposed to a must.

/M

I don't agree on both counts.

1. houses that were always outside the intervention area are governed by the market with the assumption that even though they only have decent internet today the expectation is that it will be viable to upgrade over time (as it was viable to supply in the 1st instance)
Also, it may be found that in 10years if there is an unwillingness to connect the .4million homes "left out" by your calculation above then there could be some leveraging of the NBP Network in the future. they wont be left behind.

2. For the NBP area I see a 1Gb threshold as more than a nice to have. We dont need it today, but it wont be long before we do. It needs to be built with this in mind.
To build an infrastructure that is not capable of upgrading to 1Gb in the near future will mean we will be back here for NBP2 far too soon to for the original investment to represent value.



I do get that if there was better core infrastructure or pricing models in place, WISPs might have filled the void to an acceptable level by todays standards and there wouldn't need to be an intervention.
I also get that the problem of todays internet needs can be solved using wireless technology.
But for the life of me, I can't see how that would scale up without becoming more costly and risky than building a fibre network.

wexfordman2

Marlow wrote: »

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

Comreg dont regulate mast sharing

Pique

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Comreg dont regulate mast sharing

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

No. That data is commercially sensitive and not shared by providers. The only data that was made mandatory to feed back was masts with mobile / cell infrastructure, which is why the map of those masts exists.

Comreg and the Department would literally have to engage and build up a relation with the providers to get to a point to get that data. Something that is never going to happen, as long as they keep buttering them under.

/M

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

No. That data is commercially sensitive and not shared by providers. The only data that was made mandatory to feed back was masts with mobile / cell infrastructure, which is why the map of those masts exists.

Comreg and the Department would literally have to engage and build up a relation with the providers to get to a point to get that data. Something that is never going to happen, as long as they keep buttering them under.

/M

Wait the location or the number of mast is commercially sensitive? Or both?

Pique

Commercially sensitive is a bit of a lame excuse. It could be gotten by crowd-sourcing (hundreds of people across the country asking for wireless internet access and asking where the transmitter is in relation to their house, like I know where 2 masts for 2 WISPS are from talking to their CS people).

Regardless, the thing I was getting at was it is no problem for a WISP to install a transmitter, be it on a mast or a high building, without seeking permission, approval or even registration of the mast with ComReg.

That's nucking futs. COMREG, the REGulator, doesn't require registration of the COMmunication transmitters? Insane.

Comreg wouldn't have to 'build up a relationship' with anyone if it were made law, which it should be already, and I'm amazed it's not.

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Wait the location or the number of mast is commercially sensitive? Or both?

You be amazed what sort of data is considered commercially sensitive by some operators. Some won't even show a coverage map on their website. I have even seen providers that require you to ring them to get complete pricing .... oh wait .. Sky won't give you the full picture unless you ring and ask.

/M

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

That's nucking futs. COMREG, the REGulator, doesn't require registration of the COMmunication transmitters? Insane.

Comreg wouldn't have to 'build up a relationship' with anyone if it were made law, which it should be already, and I'm amazed it's not.

Does not work that way. It would mean that Comreg actually would have to do some work that does not necessarily return revenue.

They have no interest in that.

Comreg does not exist to regulate. They exist to get additional revenue into the exchequer.

/M

Marlow

Oh .. and here is the even funnier thing:

Comreg only does not know about a site, if it is purely utilizing license free spectrum or cabled connectivity for backhaul and then license free spectrum for distribution.

So if a site is fed with a licensed PtP link they know about it.

But this data does not get consolidated and published. They just ignore it. All they care about is the money they make of these links.

So they could... if they wanted .. actually map a lot of these sites. But they don't want to do it, because it does not generate more revenue for them. So the data is not available.

/M

The Cush

In the Dáil on Tuesday

Deputy Micheál Martin: My question relates to the national broadband plan. Imagine has said that it can service up to 45% of the national broadband map. The Taoiseach stated last week that Imagine was causing a delay or that its challenge to the Government's map had caused a delay in respect of the plans relating to broadband. He also stated that objections or observations had been lodged with the commission in respect of state aid issues. I am curious as to the timeline of the roll-out of broadband. Can the Taoiseach indicate, in terms of the delay that he has indicated is there, what is the likely timeline for Europe to rule on or resolve these issues?

Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Deputy Richard Bruton): The position is that as part of the process we reopened the map to allow people to make submissions, as we are required to do under state aid procedures. When we opened the map there was a request by several bodies to extend the time. We extended the time by five weeks to 30 September. We are now in the process of examining the submissions that have been made. The next step will be to complete the due diligence that covers legal and contractual matters and so on and to ensure that we are good to go ahead with the process and complete state aid as well. That mapping exercise will be a part of the procedure relating to state aid. We are continuing to push on and we are seeking to complete this as quickly as possible. As the Taoiseach stated, the intention is to have this completed before Christmas.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-10-15/speech/40/

The Cush

Minister for Communications up for priority PQs in the Dáil at 1030 this morning, a few questions on the paper relating to the NBP.

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.
actually

This is not facebook!

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




I am finished with your silliness.

this is a technical forum . i beg your pardon, when did you choose it to be so. this is a forum for anyone interested in the progress and tech of nbp or anything else about nbp. you just showed in that last comment you position yourself on high. try some commonsense in their with that attitude.

sctually i finjished with your total attitude that you feel you have to be right. even when your not .you kept saying they vcan pure nonsense they dont therefore they cant get off yor highhorse and relax. technolgy means nothing if they cant , whatever reason yes you was pandantic . get over yourself .end of discussion .

wexfordman2

Pique wrote: »

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

Well, from the perspective of licenced commercial services yes comreg know via several means.

1) licenced point to point links identify both end points.
2) All mobile operators submit detailed network information to comreg on a regular basis including site location and design information (bands, technologies, antenna types,.heights azimiths etc).


Mobile operators do share a huge amount of information between each other also, in some cases.pretty.much their entire access network information to facilitate sharing.


Un licenced equipment (eg 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz) as far as I am aware is "supposed" to be registered with comreg detailing site location and equipment type, but not sure how well this is enforced.

Marlow

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Un licenced equipment (eg 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz) as far as I am aware is "supposed" to be registered with comreg detailing site location and equipment type, but not sure how well this is enforced.

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

ArrBee

Marlow wrote: »

Does not work that way. It would mean that Comreg actually would have to do some work that does not necessarily return revenue.

They have no interest in that.

Comreg does not exist to regulate. They exist to get additional revenue into the exchequer.

/M

I fecking knew it!!!

Regulation of communications really does seem to be in name only.

9726_9726

Marlow wrote: »

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

They should be called ComRev, in truth!

wexfordman2

Marlow wrote: »

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

With regards the unlicensed spectrum and registration, i should have elaborated, it had specific criteria which would exclude consumer type devices, I am sure you are aware of this stuff Marlow.

https://www.comreg.ie/industry/licensing/5-8-ghz-registration/

With regards a process, it's there, its success or otherwise, I have no clue, I am simply outlining what I know of with regard to registration of "masts" and the regulators awareness of them, so to clarify.

1) comreg are provided with all details of commercial sites with equipment using licensed spectrum, be it mobile or fixed wireless.
2) There is a process and a requirement for submission of non licenced sites which are used for commercial networks

Based on both of the above, there is pretty much a fairly solid database within comreg of all "masts", and most mobile operators have fairly conclusive lists of not just their own, but their competitors sites.

This info is easily available to those in the industry, although no doubt there are a number of wisp sites that are not registered, either with comreg or indeed planning authorities, few and far between I would suggest.

recyclebin

I know it's not directly related the the NBP but Sky have settled there case with Comreg and Eir over the 170 euro connection fee. Anyone know what the outcome was? Comreg will release details soon either way.

tsue921i8wljb3

recyclebin wrote: »

I know it's not directly related the the NBP but Sky have settled there case with Comreg and Eir over the 170 euro connection fee. Anyone know what the outcome was? Comreg will release details soon either way.

Beatdown for Sky.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111525587&postcount=20

clohamon

wexfordman2 wrote: »

This info is easily available to those in the industry, although no doubt there are a number of wisp sites that are not registered, either with comreg or indeed planning authorities, few and far between I would suggest.

.....and difficult to see how any WISP could claim to cover an area for NBP mapping purposes without providing enough antenna information to verify the claim? (see below) Presumably that would apply both to claims made in the early stages for existing coverage, and to planned investments.
https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Documents/88/consultations/Annex%201%20Assessment%20Criteria.pdf

2.b Wireless platforms:
1. Please provide the following data in a spreadsheet on a per sector basis:
a. sector ID
b. site ID
c. site coordinates and projection system
d. sector azimuth
.
.
j. tower or structure height (above ground level)
k. transmit antenna height (reference base of antenna)
.
.
t. spectrum licence conditions including ComReg licence
reference number

recyclebin

Some of these Wisps are all cloak and daggers, smoke and mirrors. They do nothing for the good reputation of any of the more honest ones out there.

Orebro

The two WISPs I've dealt with don't seem to give a hoot about how many subscribers they cram into a single service, which is obvious with the evening speeds.

clohamon

Minister re-iterates the criteria and indicates that evaluation will be carried out by the Department (i.e. not the European Commission).
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2019-10-16a.25&s=broadband+OR+mobile+OR+%22National+Broadband+Plan%22+speaker%3A46#g26.q

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) I thank the Minister for outlining the nature and extent of that consultation. It is well recognised from different media reports that Imagine intends to cover approximately 234,000 premises in the intervention area. I understand Eir has already announced its intention to cover in the region of 80,000 homes in the intervention area. The Minister indicated that there have been 180 responses, but taking those two alone, we can estimate that of the order of 214,000 homes, farms and businesses will now be covered by commercial operators. The assumption must be that they would have to be excluded from the 540,000 premises already mapped. As a result of state aid rules, the Government will not be in a position to support the provision of broadband to those premises. That leaves 214,000 or so. If one divides that number into the €3 billion cost of the provision of the service, one arrives at a figure of approximately €13,000 per home. Will the Minister comment on that?

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) I will not comment on a hypothetical situation of the sort the Deputy outlined. As stated, any submission by any company - and I will not name companies - will be thoroughly evaluated. Companies will be evaluated against the criteria set out, including the need to hit the 30 Mb threshold, that they themselves are future-proofed and that they can guarantee to deliver to all those within the areas to which they lay claim high-speed broadband that is future-proofed and that will not be subject to diminution. They must also show that they have financial plans which show they are capable of delivering. Those are the criteria. I will not comment on individual applications and how they will be evaluated. That must be done properly. It will be done by the Department but the process is not yet complete.

recyclebin

Has Timmaaaay got shares in Imagine? What a tool!

tsue921i8wljb3

I think we all know what is likely to happen in relation to this consultation. DCCAE pretty much said it in their documentation that "It is not expected that there will be a material change to the broadband map in terms of numbers of premises."

When they ignore Imagine and the WISPs it will come down to whether either of them have the balls for legal action.

westyIrl

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

When they ignore Imagine and the WISPs it will come down to whether either of them have the balls for legal action.

Or have the pockets. It would be a financial decision more than anything else and it would be just Imagine delaying the inevitable in any case. i.e. where it would cost more in legal action than profits from retained customers, they'll fold.

Orebro

#boycottImagine

KOR101

westyIrl wrote: »

Or have the pockets. It would be a financial decision more than anything else and it would be just Imagine delaying the inevitable in any case. i.e. where it would cost more in legal action than profits from retained customers, they'll fold.

They've already made that calculation otherwise they would not have bothered with the submission.