NBP part II

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

Erhh .. they have ..

Have you ever looked at the coverage for Net1, BBnet or Airwire on their Jet products ?

That's been build in the last 2 years or so and is offerings of 50 Mbit/s and more.

/M

So they're taking action against the NBP because?

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Again we've to take your word for that. I've seen no independent evidence about how those connections perform. No SamKnows data for example. In fact there was a complaint posted about one of those services in the past few months that seems to have been ignored.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111391572&postcount=62


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111394485&postcount=64

That is 1 !!! complaint. Out of how many possible customers ? With no follow up on top of that.

I mean .... be realistic here. I see that as a great statistic. If there are no complaints, the service must be good. Customers who are happy with the service rarely go online to tell people about it. Especially average users.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

That is 1 !!! complaint. Out of how many possible customers ? With no follow up on top of that.

I mean .... be realistic here. I see that as a great statistic. If there are no complaints, the service must be good. Customers who are happy with the service rarely go online to tell people about it. Especially average users.

Also .. average users don't use SamKnows either. Rarely anyhow.

/M

Yeah, you could be right. They could be fine products but without data we can't say for sure.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Yeah, you could be right. They could be fine products but without data we can't say for sure.

As I said ... generally .. you never hear anything about a service, until there are problems.

Unless the providers starts collecting customer reviews themselves that is. And those are considered biased.

Nobody bothers writing reviews about good service.

So the best way to gauge a service is approx customer base vs. complaints.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

As I said ... generally .. you never hear anything about a service, until there are problems.

Unless the providers starts collecting customer reviews themselves that is. And those are considered biased.

Nobody bothers writing reviews about good service.

/M

How are the DCCAE meant to evaluate the claims that these products meet NGA? Do they take the ISP at their word or have they some form of monitoring?

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

How are the DCCAE meant to evaluate the claims that these products meet NGA? Do they take the ISP at their word or have they some form of monitoring?

The DCCAE are not interested.

Why do you think those recent submissions have completely blown them out of the water and now they're firefighting ?

They have not properly engaged with the industry in decades. Not directly and not via Comreg. Even though they have a complete list of operators.

All Comreg is interested in, is licensing fees for licensed spectrum etc. Anything that does not generate revenue for the exchequer is ignored.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

The DCCAE are not interested.

Why do you think those recent submissions have completely blown them out of the water and now they're firefighting ?

They have not properly engaged with the industry in decades. Not directly and not via Comreg. Even though they have a complete list of operators.

All Comreg is interested in, is licensing fees for licensed spectrum etc. Anything that does not generate revenue for the exchequer is ignored.

/M

Do DCCAE not have to evaluate if the claims by regional operators are true? How are premises meant to be removed if they can't verify the claims?

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Do DCCAE not have to evaluate if the claims by regional operators are true? How are premises meant to be removed if they can't verify the claims?

The submissions that were done recently provided a fully and complete technical explanation at how these results were achieved.

Also .. planned network builds required a complete and comprehensive financial outline on how this would be financed and achieved.

If the DCCAE followed up on actual performance ... OpenEIRs network would be in a lot better shape these days.

I mean .. there are still A LOT of people of substandard VDSL connections. They may have 40-50 Mbit/s download, but he upload is sub 2 Mbit/s because the attenuation is absolute kack ... and those are not NBP tagged. And as of a result of the crap attenuation, the lines also drop frequently.

So .. lets take it to the next stage .. which also is not monitored by the DCCAE nor Comreg: fixing the network. If a cable hangs to the ground somewhere .. how long do you think it'll take OpenEIR to react to sort that out ? Even after they are notified ? As long as it works and is not a direct danger to people ... not at all.

The whole debacle over the MANs is another thing going on. There was a hearing in the Oireachtas earlier this year, that resulted based on a report that was over a year old .. if not more (would have to look it up now), that e-Net had to slash the pricing for circuits on the MANs by more than half. Let me tell you: those who are in contract with existing circuits had not gotten their prices reduced subsequently. That complaint is still with the DCCAE ... unsolved.

With such a track record on managing, monitoring and following up on things ... . my hopes for a solution that doesn't end up like Anglo Irish or Nama ... is in a very low place. Especially after all the delays, and B*S*, and blame game, that then backfired. We are not out of the woods here. And no ... this process has been anything else than stellar. The NBP so far ... is not an inch better than the NBS.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

More whataboutery! I am not asking about open eir or the MANs. So basically you want them to take your claims at face value. That's not going to happen though. Someone is going to have make a decision on these claims be it DCCAE, EU or a consultant like Analysys Mason.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

More whataboutery! I am not asking about open eir or the MANs. So basically you want them to take your claims at face value. That's not going to happen though. Someone is going to have make a decision on these claims be it DCCAE, EU or a consultant like Analysys Mason.

I only can give insight into the portion of the data that I have seen.

That portion would have been mapped using satellite data by an acknowleged consultancy, based on power levels, tech, frequency etc. and the results would have been produced in the form of premises passed based on eircodes or GPS coordinates.

The same consultancy company would have produces the data for similar government calls for data in the UK and using the same principles and thus can prove a track record on it's accuracy.

The data has to be accomodated by financial statements for future builds and sources of funding for such.

It is afterwards up to the DCCAE to follow up on that dataset .. ... which is the current call for updates.

From there on in, it is the DCCAE's responsibility to deal with the data, that they have been provided with. If they have to get an external consultant in to review the data and verify, that it is valid, then I don't see them signing the contract tomorrow. Nor do I expect them to get the EU to sign for EU aid on the project without such data.

The fact is, that because of the completeness of the data, it can not be ignored. Most likely the reason for the political trying to kick the bucket on at the moment.

/M

Marlow

Oh .. and to achieve that sort of detail we're talking a 5-6 digit outlay for access to satellite/lidar data, consultancy fees etc.

So those that have submitted data have had substantial commitment to arrive there.

It is not something you just put together somewhere in your garage using ham radio mapping software ... even though that is pretty good software, too.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

So you and your merry men have paid some UK consultancy firm in order to preserve your status quo. I barely made it into the eir 300k rollout, which would never have happened without the NBP, a couple of hundred metres and I'd be out. It boils my blood that you and your ilk are attempting to deny my neighbours and people like them the opportunity of future proof connections. I'll never give a penny to any of the companies involved in this action and I encourage everyone else to boycott all RISPA members from here on in.

Marlow

This had nothing to do with RISPA. At all.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

This had nothing to do with RISPA. At all.

/M

Why is Marcus Matthews giving quotes to the Irish Times? Stop PM ing me. The data will come out on who submitted.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Why is Marcus Matthews giving quotes to the Irish Times? Stop PM ing me. The data will come out on who submitted.

Don't know. It may as well be false news.

The figure mentioned is the figure from the Oireachtas meeting half a year ago. Or hints pulled out of interviews shortly after said meeting and only reported now.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

Don't know. It may as well be false news.

The figure mentioned is the figure from the Oireachtas meeting half a year ago.

/M

LOL! You're actually making a fool of yourself.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

The data will come out on who submitted.

I have no problem with that. The sooner, the better. Stops all the arguing then.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

What's even more bizarre is, if your company isn't involved in this complaint why are you here defending it? You've literally nothing to gain by it.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

What's even more bizarre is, if your company isn't involved in this complaint why are you here defending it? You've literally nothing to gain by it.

Because i have a personal interest in how my tax money is spend. And this is mismanagement of tax money in it's current form and shape.

This contract is going to a finance company, who has not fronted any of their own money. They have completely changed their composition from entering the process to the point where they submitted their offer. Something, that is completely against rules of ANY tender.

They also were previously the owner of eNet, which has for a long period been subject to FOI requests and a legal investigation into their practices. All which have no been resolved.

Nevermind, that none of the NBP process has been transparent or complete enough, that it can be seen as being objective.

My opinion here is .. as I have stated previously ... in a personal interest .. and has nothing to do with my involvement in the industry.

/M

allanpkr

i can only hope that if by checking data of submissions ,it is not just done on technical possibilities but on actual on the ground true data.
as someone on here keeps mentioning the technical ability id there. but it doesnt get to customer cause of numourous reasons.
so what customer gets is or should be measurement of service provided .NOT technical ability provided.

Ultimanemo

Marlow wrote: »

Because i have a personal interest in how my tax money is spend. And this is mismanagement of tax money in it's current form and shape.

This contract is going to a finance company, who has not fronted any of their own money. They have completely changed their composition from entering the process to the point where they submitted their offer. Something, that is completely against rules of ANY tender.

They also were previously the owner of eNet, which has for a long period been subject to FOI requests and a legal investigation into their practices. All which have not been resolved yet.

Nevermind, that none of the NBP process has been transparent or complete enough, that it can be seen as being objective.

My opinion here is .. as I have stated previously ... in a personal interest .. and has nothing to do with my involvement in the industry.

/M

I believe you, check the other guys

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

Because i have a personal interest in how my tax money is spend. And this is mismanagement of tax money in it's current form and shape.

This contract is going to a finance company, who has not fronted any of their own money. They have completely changed their composition from entering the process to the point where they submitted their offer. Something, that is completely against rules of ANY tender.

They also were previously the owner of eNet, which has for a long period been subject to FOI requests and a legal investigation into their practices. All which have not been resolved yet.

Nevermind, that none of the NBP process has been transparent or complete enough, that it can be seen as being objective.

My opinion here is .. as I have stated previously ... in a personal interest .. and has nothing to do with my involvement in the industry.

/M

Would the wisp be looking for state aid to upgrade?

The Cush

Not happening today

Minister for Communications Richard Bruton has denied reports of a further delay to the National Broadband Plan (NBP) amid speculation he had been due to bring the plan to Cabinet this week.

“My officials are working with the European Commission to complete the State aid element...we’re also completing the due diligence element with the contractor,” Mr Bruton told reporters.

“When that process is completed I will go to Cabinet but not before,” he said, suggesting this would be “some time before the end of the year”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/bruton-denies-national-broadband-delay-1.4079759

Gary kk

Stop with the tax stuff please that can really be thrown back in anyone / everyones faces

clohamon

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

I don't see how the providers could make a submission to the department's mapping consultation without disclosing enough data to verify the coverage claims.

Marlow

clohamon wrote: »

I don't see how the providers could make a submission to the department's mapping consultation without disclosing enough data to verify the coverage claims.

They can't and they haven't.

/M

clohamon

Marlow wrote: »

They can't and they haven't.

/M

So did they make any submissions or have they by-passed the Department entirely?

westyIrl

Marlow wrote: »

They can't and they haven't.

/M

So all that was lodged were mere claims, or was nothing lodged? Well that should make the Department's job much easier.

Surely such data could be treated in confidence for the purpose of the exercise.


Jim

Marlow

I don't know, where ye all get those ideas from.

But if anyone had read the stuff posted here and in the news articles, then you know how many providers have submitted data.

And that the submission was made based on a call of data from the department and thus .. to the department.

And all I outlined was, how detailed the submission had to be to confirm it's credibility.

So I don't see, why these questions are asked, when nobody reads the answers anyhow.

/M

westyIrl

I think what we're getting at Marlow is that while data has been submitted there is nothing there to verify the coverage claims so unless the DCCAE check on the ground, premises could be stated as covered by an operator where in fact they may not be covered at all.

Another mapping exercise? Dear Jesus