NBP part II

allanpkr

user1842 wrote: »

This question has been asked and answered many times in the thread.

Can a wireless operator offer a stable high speed connection = Yes

Do many wireless operators offer a stable high speed connection = No

Enough with the personal attacks.

wheres the personal attack??

KOR101

Can people stop feeding the trolls. It's as big a problem as the trolls themselves.

tsue921i8wljb3

Front page of the Business Post:



I can't make out the text.

recyclebin

They have been anti NBP for a while now. Hope they are wrong!

Zird

Remember when that smug gobshote Eamon Ryan told us 3g dongle broadband from Three was the way of the future ??? Shame on the Dubliners who returned him to Dail Eireann.

allanpkr

i think what i find most disheartening in this day and age, is the constant attitude of peoples ..its all about me , whats in it for me? whatever happened to the # for the good of the nation attitude #
from td/s to mp/s over the water , to most. its all about whats in it for them.
surely ftth is for the countrys future in years to come. to propel ireland forward as a modern country with the foresight to do what is great for country?
to give it in the next 5/7 years what all countrys will have in 20 years.
do you really want ireland to become the country it was in the 60s and 70s again ???

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Front page of the Business Post:

I can't make out the text.

Several broadband providers are preparing to challenge the National Broadband Plan (NBP) if the government signs off on the multibillion-euro rural internet scheme in the coming days, The Sunday Business Post understands.

A number of internet service providers have indicated their willingness to bring a challenge on state aid grounds if the government fails to take into account their existing and future commercial plans.

The providers want homes and businesses covered by their services to be removed from the NBP intervention area and the state plan to be scaled back accordingly.

It’s understood that wireless internet service providers believe they can cover as many as 137,000 premises currently included in the NBP.

The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE) has said all submissions will be assessed in line with its published criteria. It is unclear whether the operators meet these criteria, although many believe they do.

Speaking to The Sunday Business Post, operators said they felt their plans had been dismissed by government and that the NBP would be contested as a result.

One operator said they would not be forced out of business by the plan and would fight to have premises they serve removed from the NBP.

Another indicated their willingness to bring a challenge against the rural internet scheme if it receives EU state aid approval, adding that they were aware of others preparing to take the same action.

“I think there will be a number of companies that will challenge it... The department are neglecting to take us into account. A number [of internet providers] have discussed it with me and are minded to complain,” the operator said.

He added: “I’m in favour of the goal of the NBP [to provide broadband in areas not covered by commercial operators]. This is not Luddism, this is not protectionism, but they’re going to replace local services with one central behemoth at huge cost to the taxpayer.”

Responding to Fianna Fáil TD Jack Chambers last week, Communications Minister Richard Bruton declined to be drawn on whether his department would award the €3 billion contract to David McCourt’s National Broadband Ireland (NBI) on Tuesday.

“Since the government decision in May, work has continued on the due diligence necessary to conclude the NBP contract. This process is progressing towards contract award, which is expected before the end of the year. The bidder will commence the deployment of the network shortly after that,” he said.

The DCCAE received more than 30 submissions from operators in response to a recent consultation on the number of premises to be included in the scheme.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has confirmed that at least one submission, received from wireless operator Imagine, has been referred to the European Commission to determine whether state aid issues arise.

The state is precluded from providing aid in areas where commercial operators have delivered, or have concrete plans to deliver, broadband.

A spokeswoman for the commission said it was still liaising with the government in relation to the matter.

Operators have not received any response from the department to their submissions, other than a request that they identify commercially sensitive information which can be redacted before the documents are published online.

Many are also understood to be frustrated with what they consider to be a prohibitively short timeframe within which they were required to submit their response to the department.

The DCCAE twice extended the consultation period to afford operators more time to prepare their responses.

A €480 million contingency fund has been set aside to compensate McCourt’s company if other operators provide services to premises included in the intervention area.

Bruton told Fianna Fáil Public Expenditure Spokesman Barry Cowen that the mapping consultation would “reduce the risk” of contingency payments being made to NBI in the event of encroachment by commercial operators.

The Taoiseach, however, told the Dáil there had been no revision to the intervention area “to the best of his knowledge”.

===

Not sure, who they interviewed, but it is exactly what I predicted. And it is happening, because the Department mismanaged the entire process.

I have no issues with the NBP, if it was awarded in a reasonable manner. But the current format was obsolete by the time, they only had one bidder.

And even the constellation of that bidder has entirely changed from entering the bidding process to submitting their offer. Which is a complete breach of rules.

The department stumbles forward blindly anyhow and pushes on with it.

If the departmant wanted a solely fibre based solution and wanted to build a network for the future, they should have made the requirements for speeds, that were not achievable at that volume with wireless. The problem with that is, that it would also have meant to abolish all 1.7M VDSL lines .. well ... supervectoring might have saved some .. but it would have meant they would have had to cover a lot more premises.

At the end of the day, they are caught up between a rock and a very hard place, because they mismanaged the entire process.

/M

celticbhoy27

"One operator said they would not be forced out of business by the plan and would fight to have premises they serve removed from the NBP"

If the service they provided was fit for purpose they wouldn't be "forced" out of business

Pique

"The providers want homes and businesses covered by their services to be removed from the NBP intervention area and the state plan to be scaled back accordingly."

They can fcuk right off.

Like oil-lamp sellers threatening legal action over rural electrification.

Marlow

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

If the service they provided was fit for purpose they wouldn't be "forced" out of business

That's an assumption. There can be other factors, that can make it unviable for an operator to be forced out of business.

And that's exactly the reason, why it is illegal to provide state aid, if an operator, who supplies to the specification required, is in place already.

/M

Pique

OK here's a question.

Seeing as the WISPs did not tender for the NBP contract which was specified (IIRC) as initially 30Mbps. And seeing as how the preferred bidder has promised to provide a min of 150Mbps, my question is this:

How can a challenge be made that a service exists to challenge a 150Mbps when most WISPs can barely seem to manage their promised speed during peak hours?

Like I said, having oil-lamp sellers block electrification.

An 'existing service' is not sufficient reason to block advances. How the hell would anything ever be improved with that notion?

How is that logic applied by the EU however, I wonder? I suspect and hope that they have a reasonable enough view that balances the WISPs right to provide competition with the State's right to not be restricted by NIMBYism.

The results of this strawpoll are highly unscientific, but interesting nonetheless.
https://strawpoll.com/7d6dywc3

As there was no restriction on the numbers of answers provided per person, we can assume the total users was at minimum 24. Nobody gets more than 30Mbps, and nobody gets their supposed max speed in the evenings. 1 person is satisfied with their service (and I presume isn't praying for the NBP) so a 4% satisfaction rate amongst WISP customers.

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

How can a challenge be made that a service exists to challenge a 150Mbps when most WISPs can barely seem to manage their promised speed during peak hours?

Because the tender has not changed. The tender is STILL for 30 Mbit/s now and 100 Mbit/s by 2025. And state aid is provided under that tender. The rules for that state aid have to take tender specification into account.

That the current bidder provides more, is bonus.

/M

rodge123

I wonder would a challenge by the operators stall the funds from the EU and therefore stall goverment pushing ahead with deployment or could they push ahead if fairly confident that operators won’t win legal challenge.

Operators know election coming in few months time and lot of other parties not as committed to get signed in current format as FG. They may be hoping to just delay by few months so current gov won’t sign and in hope new government will change plan therefore giving them a another 10 years of €*^%#^^ us!

Marlow

rodge123 wrote: »

Operators know election coming in few months time and lot of other parties not as committed to get signed in current format as FG. They may be hoping to just delay by few months so current gov won’t sign and in hope new government will change plan therefore giving them a another 10 years of €*^%#^^ us!

You know that's pretty presumptuous.

The department has been delaying the entire process for over a year.

The call for data should for example also have been done a year ago. Actually .. the data they called for should have been collected much earlier in the process and on a regular basis. But because they dragged the process along, they just got hit with a shovel.

And yes ... no business will accept .. in any sort of trade .. that they get buttered under with state aid funded competition, when they can deliver to the requirements outlined for said state aid funding. So this had to happen at some point and the department should have predicted that.

The problem here does not lie with the operators. It lies with the department.

/M

rodge123

Marlow wrote: »

Because the tender has not changed. The tender is STILL for 30 Mbit/s now and 100 Mbit/s by 2025. And state aid is provided under that tender. The rules for that state aid have to take tender specification into account.

That the current bidder provides more, is bonus.

/M

And imagine do not currently come close to meeting those min requirements for a lot of customers and won’t sign a commitment agreement because they know they can’t meet them with their current business model

Marlow

rodge123 wrote: »

And imagine do not currently come close to meeting those min requirements for a lot of customers and won’t sign a commitment agreement because they know they can’t meet them with their current business model

I don't disagree.

But as per specification, they do. So that would require a fact finding mission by the department to prove that. Until they have done that, it has to be assumed, that they do. And thus state aid is illegal for those premises. Well .. it's not that simple .. but that's to put it in simple terms.

Or the department would have to come up with a law, that specified the broadband requirements by more than speed.

/M

Pique

Marlow wrote: »

Because the tender has not changed. The tender is STILL for 30 Mbit/s now and 100 Mbit/s by 2025. And state aid is provided under that tender. The rules for that state aid have to take tender specification into account.

That the current bidder provides more, is bonus.

/M

But as they didn't enter the tendering process, and the tendering process has long since closed, and they largely aren't capable of meeting those speeds even now, years after the tender was opened, especially not to every one of their customers with any semblance of consistency, how can a challenge be taken seriously?

I ask this earnestly because to me the oil-lamp analogy is the most apt.
One could also imagine if the old N-roads were private, and the construction of motorways was objected to on a similar basis.

The idea that they can claim to be providing it to 'some' customers, in 'some' locations and 'plan' to invest more in the future in order to expand is the biggest spoof I've heard in a while. If the EU buy that story, then I've a bridge I think they might be interested in buying.

KOR101

I think it is possible to sign now because the contract and map were always designed to be flexible for map changes. Not ideal but possible. And then no reason work can't begin while any challenge works it's way through courts.

Gary kk

Can't see the EU given any thing to the wisp. Sure they might delay the process. Pretty sure it was determined at the start it would have to be fiber. As far as i know wireless is not fiber.

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

But as they didn't enter the tendering process, and the tendering process has long since closed, and they largely aren't capable of meeting those speeds even now, years after the tender was opened, especially not to every one of their customers with any semblance of consistency, how can a challenge be taken seriously?

They didn't have to participate in the tender process.

If we went by your logic, Virgin, SIRO and OpenEIR could also not challenge the tender process or premises there in, as they never were or opted to leave the tender process.

If a provider provides broadband meeting the tender requirements, then this has to be taken into account by the tender process. At least up to the point, where the contract is actually signed. As long as the contract is not signed, all changes in technology have to be factored in.

/M

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Can't see the EU given any thing to the wisp. Sure they might delay the process. Pretty sure it was determined at the start it would have to be fiber. As far as i know wireless is not fiber.

It's not about the EU giving anything to WISPs. It is about, that state aid can not be provided for premises, that are covered by a provider (any provider, disregardless of distribution tech) meeting the criteria. Being part of the tender or not.

This is not about getting money. This is about legally not being able to fund competition to existing providers, that meet the criteria. Something the department blatantly has ignored. Even OpenEIR had to bring the 300k to EU level, before the department took that investment into account and removed the premises.

/M

Gary kk

I guess if one would choose to demand a change in the tech then the other could demand a change in the min requirements

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

I guess if one would choose to demand a change in the tech then the other could demand a change in the min requirements

If you change the minimum requirements in a tender, you have to restart said tender from scratch and open it for invitation again.

/M

Gary kk

Was it not determined at the start that it had to be fiber

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Was it not determined at the start that it had to be fiber

If it had to be fiber as a requirement, then they couldn't even roll out the last 5-10% in wireless. It would be a violation of the tender.

Also, if you made the requirement of it being fiber, then you would also not be able to consider Virgins rollout and OpenEIRs FTTC rollout and would have to include those premises in the tender, too.

It was aimed at a fiber solution as much as possible. But it could not be specified as a requirement.

/M

Gary kk

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/topics/Broadband/national-broadband-plan/Pages/Key-Procurement-Documents--.aspx

Go to number 13.

Sorry and 12

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/topics/Broadband/national-broadband-plan/Pages/Key-Procurement-Documents--.aspx

Go to number 13.

Sorry and 12

Those are tech reports. Recommendations. Not requirements. Which have been taken into consideration during the tender process. However, they do not invalidate existing and planned infrastructure commissioned during the tender process. Infrastructure, which has to be accounted for, when state aid is applied.

That is what the call for data from the department recently was for. And that is what has backfired now, because the department underestimated, how much they had not accounted for. Not the operators fault. More the departments fault.

/M

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

Those are tech reports. Recommendations. Not requirements. Which have been taken into consideration during the tender process. However, they do not invalidate existing and planned infrastructure commissioned during the tender process. Infrastructure, which has to be accounted for, when state aid is applied.

That is what the call for data from the department recently was for. And that is what has backfired now, because the department underestimated, how much they had not accounted for. Not the operators fault. More of the departments fault.

/M

Oh and what would you say the the final result of the the tech reports was.

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Oh and what would you say the the final result of the the tech reports was.

You are ignoring various things here:

- there is the tender. The tender specifies, what is called for (30 Mbit/s now and 100 Mbit/s later).

- there is the tender process in which the participants negotiate with the department of what contract, they are arriving at. Part of that are the documents, that you pointed at. And yes, the participants of the tender have to incorporate that into their bid. And even wireless operators were part of that initially.

- there then is the bid of the final tender participants.

However ... state aid is a different matter. State aid can only be applied, where no service already is applied, that meets the original tender requirements.

And only the original tender requirements can be considered for this requirement, because the provider of the service may not have been part of the tender, thus not subject to subsequent negotiations.

That is why no state aid can be given for premises, that already have service meeting the original tender requirements.

It's state aid and tender rules. You can not bend them as you see fit.

/M

Gary kk

In sub 12 of the link i have shared it clearly outlines why wireless can't keep at pace with ftth. It also states that it must be future proof with speeds of 1gb been provided to some resident in the mid 2020. Kidda guess we have already passed the above sentence in certain parts of the country.

Key words here are future proof and 1gb