NBP part II

Pique

allanpkr

Pique wrote: »

that must be the wisps....lol

dashoonage

I just saw a fleet of Imagine vans for sale on donedeal!

celticbhoy27

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

What about this bit?

Commission in granting state aid has said speeds of at least 150 and 30 upload required. Adrian wreckler who I linked via Twitter has it well sumerised

Pique

Nah, this is the Wisps

Marlow

Interesting detail in Commission statement, mentions "download speeds of at least 150 Megabits per second and upload speeds of at least 30 Megabits per second". Criteria shifting upwards.

This is the only way, they can limit the amount of providers, that'll provide that without providing it on fiber. State aid under the EC can not specify technology used. I guess it was build to in remove or limit the opportunity to challenge this, which is a smart move on behalf of the commission.

It also means, that the department can't go back on their promise on 150/30. So they can not use the state aid for the 5-10% last premises, where they intended to use wireless, unless they opt for premium equipment. They will also here .. have to provide those speeds.

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

What about this bit?

The scheme targets areas where no broadband infrastructure offering download speeds of at least 30 Mbps is currently in place

This is the part, where premises already covered by two independant providers both offering NGA speeds (30 Mbit/s or more) may be loosing out.

The final intervention map should be able to shed light into that.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

Commission in granting state aid has said speeds of at least 150 and 30 upload required. Adrian wreckler who I linked via Twitter has it well sumerised

You're not really getting it. The network that will be built will support speeds of 150Mb/s. The network can only be built where current speeds are less than 30Mb/s. That is what the recent complaints by WISPs was about. Getting premises that they say are over 30Mb/s removed. It is unclear whether this has happened or not.

user1842

The WISPs will now need to decide will they challenge this in EU courts.

Good news is that any challenge will not stop the roll-out now.

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

This is the only way, they can limit the amount of providers, that'll provide that without providing it on fiber. I guess it was build to in remove or limit the opportunity to challenge this, which is a smart move on behalf of the commission.

It also means, that the department can't go back on their promise on 150/30. So they can not use the state aid for the 5-10% last premises, where they intended to use wireless, unless they opt for premium equipment. They will also here .. have to provide those speeds.





This is the part, where premises already covered by two independant providers both offering NGA speeds (30 Mbit/s or more) may be loosing out.

The final intervention map should be able to shed light into that.

/M

I have heard rumours of some form of agreement being offered by the Department for operators to sign. Did you hear anything about that?

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

I have heard rumours of some form of agreement being offered by the Department for operators to sign. Did you hear anything about that?

No.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

Marlow wrote: »

No.

/M

It was in relation to eir that I heard it. Probably about covering those urban premises that are currently in the intervention area.

celticbhoy27

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

You're not really getting it. The network that will be built will support speeds of 150Mb/s. The network can only be built where current speeds are less than 30Mb/s. That is what the recent complaints by WISPs was about. Getting premises that they say are over 30Mb/s removed. It is unclear whether this has happened or not.

I get it, Emmanuel Lemon Louse I've followed this bloody thing since inception. The map will not change to exclude areas imagine or any other wisp cover trust me

dashoonage

it fooking better not. ive two bloody WISP's one being imagine offering 100Mbs + in my are and despite my best efforts netither can deliver to me!

tsue921i8wljb3

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

I get it, navi I've followed this bloody thing since inception. The map will not change to exclude areas imagine or any other wisp cover trust me

That would be my opinion also but I'd like it confirmed by DCCAE.

Marlow

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

I get it, navi I've followed this bloody thing since inception. The map will not change to exclude areas imagine or any other wisp cover trust me

The issue with that is, that if the department ignores the submissions or not at least follows up to them with some requirements, then they will be in breach of the state aid decision.

And that can jeopardize the entire NBP at that point.

It will certainly put them in the hot seat, because there are a lot of providers in the country, that have had enough of being ignored by them and won't let them do it anymore. That's what the last submission showed.

When you suddenly have twice the amount of provider submitting, you've certainly p**** somebody off. And that somebody is going to make your life very very hard and difficult. So they better have everything above board unless they want another childrens hospital disaster.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

user1842 wrote: »

Even if the map changes it does not matter. The providers have to give the minimum speeds now to everybody.

No they don't.

Marlow

user1842 wrote: »

Even if the map changes it does not matter. The providers have to give the minimum speeds now to everybody.

Where did you get that notion ? Even if the line provided by NBI under the NBP is capable of 150/30 (maximum), that's still a contended product.

It certainly won't be uncontended unless you pay a premium.

And then there is the fact, that NBI does not fill the line with internet. The wholesale partner does. Every network differs on how it performs.

Or let me spell that out to you:

- for a premise to be NGA qualified, the provider needs to be able to prove 30Mbit/s currently and 100 Mbit/s by 2025 .. maximum.
- premises that are build using state aid, have to qualify for 150 Mbit/s, which is the maximum speed, but should be upgradeble to 1 Gbit/s speeds.
- your minimum speed is calculated based on the contention of the product that you buy and the maximum speed, that the line can carry, that you are paying for. And it requires, that you measure correctly as specified by the provider. It has to include what you test and what's already on the line.

/M

user1842

Marlow wrote: »

Where did you get that notion ? Even if the line provided by NBI under the NBP is capable of 150/30 (maximum), that's still a contended product.

It certainly won't be uncontended unless you pay a premium.

And then there is the fact, that NBI does not fill the line with internet. The wholesale partner does. Every network differs on how it performs.

/M

You are nit picking now and I think you know I meant a connection capable of the speeds outlined by the NBP.

tsue921i8wljb3

user1842 wrote: »

You are nit picking now and I think you know I meant a connection capable of the speeds outlined by the NBP.

There will be rural premises on FTTC at 35 to 40Mb/s left out of the NBP. Are you saying that they will have to be upgraded somehow to 150Mb/s because that is not the case. If you're not on the map you're out of luck.

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

The issue with that is, that if the department ignores the submissions or not at least follows up to them with some requirements, then they will be in breach of the state aid decision.

And that can jeopardize the entire NBP at that point.

It will certainly put them in the hot seat, because there are a lot of providers in the country, that have had enough of being ignored by them and won't let them do it anymore. That's what the last submission showed.

When you suddenly have twice the amount of provider submitting, you've certainly p**** somebody off. And that somebody is going to make your life very very hard and difficult. So they better have everything above board unless they want another childrens hospital disaster.

/M

Time to stand down on this Marlow, it's over.

Marlow

Orebro wrote: »

Time to stand down on this Marlow, it's over.

This is a discussion. You can't bully people, just because you don't like their opinion.

/M

heavydawson

Can anyone clarify if there's an appeals process to this decision? I can't believe this day has come. Is there a cabinet meeting next Tuesday?

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

This is a discussion. You can't bully people, just because you don't like their opinion.

/M

Stop would you. No one was been a bully there so don't turn it on him.

user1842

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

There will be rural premises on FTTC at 35 to 40Mb/s left out of the NBP. Are you saying that they will have to be upgraded somehow to 150Mb/s because that is not the case. If you're not on the map you're out of luck.

I meant premises on the map.

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

This is a discussion. You can't bully people, just because you don't like their opinion.

/M

No offence meant, apologies if you took some from my comment.

Anyway, looks like the EU has the public good and our backs on this one, the RISPA and other wireless blackguards can carry on making as much noise as they like, we can finally ignore them.

KOR101

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

There will be rural premises on FTTC at 35 to 40Mb/s left out of the NBP. Are you saying that they will have to be upgraded somehow to 150Mb/s because that is not the case. If you're not on the map you're out of luck.

Except does that change when the EU moves to a 100mb target? It may come down to what is practical. It isn't at the moment but may he after Eir's urban rollout.

tsue921i8wljb3

user1842 wrote: »

I meant premises on the map.

You said "even if the map changes it doesn't matter". The fact is, it does matter for those that may miss out.

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

Except does that change when the EU moves to a 100mb target? It may come down to what is practical. It isn't at the moment but may he after Eir's urban rollout.

It's just a target though. It's not currently enforceable.

KOR101

Also. Nothing that happened today was not predictable at the time they decided to make the submissions.

Marlow

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

It's just a target though. It's not currently enforceable.

Aye. Now. OpenEir is preempting it for most premises with the IFN. But there are 100-200k premises that may need intervention by the time we reach 2025.

And they are not covered by the NBP currently.

/M