NBP part II

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

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

Not necessarily. It could be a bizarre form of advertising by Imagine. It gets their brand mentioned regularly in the media at little extra expense.

clohamon

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Not necessarily. It could be a bizarre form of advertising by Imagine. It gets their brand mentioned regularly in the media at little extra expense.

I’d definitely attend the court hearing if Sean Bolger would testify in person.

Pique

clohamon wrote:

I’d definitely attend the court hearing if Sean Bolger would testify in person.

Well he might have a case to answer if advertising laws didn't allow lies be presented as facts under the banner of "marketing".

tsue921i8wljb3

clohamon wrote: »

I’d definitely attend the court hearing if Sean Bolger would testify in person.

Would be a good show alright!

KOR101

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Not necessarily. It could be a bizarre form of advertising by Imagine. It gets their brand mentioned regularly in the media at little extra expense.

@Marlow says the submissions were run by a law firm, and it does seem to be a planned move by many parties. But, really who knows about the legalities here.

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

@Marlow says the submissions were run by a law firm, and it does seem to be a planned move by many parties. But, really who knows about the legalities here.

I doubt Marlow is speaking for Imagine.

KOR101

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

I doubt Marlow is speaking for Imagine.

There is no doubt as you know very well.....

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.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111470468&postcount=800

theguzman

https://www.thejournal.ie/timmy-dooley-voting-dail-4858509-Oct2019/

Dimmy Tooley has been exposed as the absolute gob****e he is, hopefully this might that absolute cretin back in his box for a while now.

recyclebin

Dimmy Tooley, that's a good one lol

The Cush

In the SBP today

NBI to use subcontractors to set up rural broadband hubs

Communications Minister Richard Bruton has allocated €119 million to delivering the €6 billion rural broadband scheme next year

Hundreds of hubs designed to bring high-speed internet to rural Ireland will be delivered by subcontractors rather than directly by the winning bidder for the National Broadband Plan.

Communications Minister Richard Bruton has allocated €119 million to delivering the €6 billion rural broadband scheme next year.

Much of the funding that is being set aside for 2020 is likely to be spent rolling out 319 broadband connection points (BCPs) across the country.

Isn't this a bit of a non-story, haven't we always known that subcontractors would be doing the actual work?

Mortelaro

Are hubs new panel boxes like Éirs that you're connected into?

KOR101

Mortelaro wrote: »

Are hubs new panel boxes like Éirs that you're connected into?

No, they will be like SIRO's, I assume.


https://siro.ie/about-us/gigabit-hubs/

listermint

Nothing to do with broadband so to speak but Dooley's been taken off the FF front bench.


Small graces ...

clohamon

The Cush wrote: »

In the SBP today
Isn't this a bit of a non-story, haven't we always known that subcontractors would be doing the actual work?

I suspect this is because the 80 or so WiFi4EU hubs will all, by a miracle of coincidence, be BCPs, and that the European Commission insists on making direct payments to the WiFi contractors.

The value of the EUR 15 000 voucher will be paid directly to the installation companies by the European Commission within maximum 60 days.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

In the SBP today



Isn't this a bit of a non-story, haven't we always known that subcontractors would be doing the actual work?

Yes, a non-story. He seems desperate to land a blow on the process with every article he writes. This is another swing and a miss.

clohamon

RedC are currently doing polling for somebody on the following questions.

1. Should Government sign contract on "€3Bn NBP in the next few weeks"?
2. Should the Government call an election in November after Brexit?
3. Should Lisa Smith and child be brought back to Ireland?

Preliminary questions:

What county are you in ?
Are you likely to vote ?
Who did you vote for in Local elections 2019 ?
Who did you vote for in General Election 2016 ?
No of dependent children, education etc, etc.

I'm thinking it might be FG private polling.

Messer1

Could the NBP be double-counting or overstating the claimed 540k premises in the IA?

Population passed (NBP) = 1.1 mln
Persons per permanent rural home (CS0) = 2.85
Permanent rural homes = 386k
Farms (NBP) = 56k
Micro Biz & SMEs (NBP) = 44k
Total = 486k
Difference = 540k - 486k = 54k (holiday homes and what else ??)

If 75% farms and 25% biz are located at homes (and *IF* this was ignored in NBP), the total premises falls to 433k and the difference rises to 107k. Any ideas?

clohamon

Messer1 wrote: »

Could the NBP be double-counting or overstating the claimed 540k premises in the IA?

Population passed (NBP) = 1.1 mln
Persons per permanent rural home (CS0) = 2.85
Permanent rural homes = 386k
Farms (NBP) = 56k
Micro Biz & SMEs (NBP) = 44k
Total = 486k
Difference = 540k - 486k = 54k (holiday homes and what else ??)

If 75% farms and 25% biz are located at homes (and *IF* this was ignored in NBP), the total premises falls to 433k and the difference rises to 107k. Any ideas?

Why don't you ask DCCAE about the methodology? ....and submit a PQ or an FOI if they don't reply.

Messer1

clohamon wrote: »

Why don't you ask DCCAE about the methodology? ....and submit a PQ or an FOI if they don't reply.

Of course. Just thought I'd seek views here in case I missed something obvious!

heavydawson

Messer1 wrote: »

Could the NBP be double-counting or overstating the claimed 540k premises in the IA?

Population passed (NBP) = 1.1 mln
Persons per permanent rural home (CS0) = 2.85
Permanent rural homes = 386k
Farms (NBP) = 56k
Micro Biz & SMEs (NBP) = 44k
Total = 486k
Difference = 540k - 486k = 54k (holiday homes and what else ??)

If 75% farms and 25% biz are located at homes (and *IF* this was ignored in NBP), the total premises falls to 433k and the difference rises to 107k. Any ideas?

Where are you getting the 75% / 25% figures from?

celticbhoy27

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1186595437865832448?s=09

ednwireland

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1186595437865832448?s=09

preaching to their voter base, labour have never had rural votes so they know pretending to care about this and potentially killing woouldnt affect their voter base.

(cynical arent i)

clohamon

ednwireland wrote: »

preaching to their voter base, labour have never had rural votes so they know pretending to care about this and potentially killing woouldnt affect their voter base.

(cynical arent i)

The current version of the NBP was devised and progressed under Labour ministers. (Pat Rabbitte and Alex White)
The decision to use gap-funding was apparently taken by the Minster for Public Expenditure and Reform, assisted by his Secretary General.
https://www.thejournal.ie/national-broadband-plan-cost-ownership-paschal-donohoe-4691981-Jun2019/

Messer1

heavydawson wrote: »

Where are you getting the 75% / 25% figures from?

Guesses. Sorry should have said that at outset.

user1842

I dont understand the public ownership model argument.

In reality this will be a network of just fibre cables hung on another companies network. NBI will be forever paying rent to Eir. I would rather the state regulate, then own this quasi network.

Messer1

user1842 wrote: »

I dont understand the public ownership model argument.

In reality this will be a network of just fibre cables hung on another companies network. NBI will be forever paying rent to Eir. I would rather the state regulate, then own this quasi network.

Two points:
1. NBI will be laying fibre alongside eir's fibre in order to get to the intervention area instead of simply plugging into eir's network. This came a huge surprise when disclosed to the Oireachtas Committee.
2. It will be taxpayers and subscribers who will be "forever paying rent to eir".

user1842

Messer1 wrote: »

Two points:
1. NBI will be laying fibre alongside eir's fibre in order to get to the intervention area instead of simply plugging into eir's network. This came a huge surprise when disclosed to the Oireachtas Committee.
2. It will be taxpayers and subscribers who will be "forever paying rent to eir".

I agree but how will owning this mess help the state?

Also I dont think point 1. above has been fully confirmed by NBI yet, or has it?

Messer1

user1842 wrote: »

Also I dont think point 1. above has been fully confirmed by NBI yet, or has it?

Was clearly stated by the NBP team to Committee. I assume it still applies unless there has been an unpublicised change of plan.

clohamon

Messer1 wrote: »

Two points:
1. NBI will be laying fibre alongside eir's fibre in order to get to the intervention area instead of simply plugging into eir's network. This came a huge surprise when disclosed to the Oireachtas Committee.

Analysys Mason explained (and produced a report) to the committee explaining why this was justifiable and less costly.
From observation, anyone who builds a new network that crucially depends on Eircom's goodwill and sense of fair play is an idiot.

Messer1 wrote: »

2. It will be taxpayers and subscribers who will be "forever paying rent to eir".

The pole and duct network will not be free regardless of who owns it. The only question is whether the regulated/contracted price of access is fair or not.

Messer1

user1842 wrote: »

I dont understand the public ownership model argument.

If not already seen, you might find reservations about the proposed contract expressed at the Oireachtas Committee by Professor Eoin Reeves, Head of Department of Economics and Dr. Dónal Palcic, Lecturer in Economics, University of Limerick about the 'gap funding model' adopted for the NBP to be helpful in understanding things.

Scroll in 30 min for start.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-06-19/