NBP part II

dam099

ArrBee wrote: »

I dont have an answer to that.

3. Eir have some penalty for encroaching. (I doubt there is a mechanism for this to happen - but considerign they needed some form of approval to take the 300k out of the IA originally, maybe there is some consequence that can be applied for poaching more?)

The agreement they signed wasnt to allow them to offer the 300k, in a free market they are perfectly entitled to do that. The agreement was so they couldnt just announce they were going to do it and get them taken out of the intervention area and then not actually deliver it once they had achieved their aim of reducing the intervention area (and the competitive threat it poses).

It would probably suit NBI if they serviced some of those low hanging fruit and had them removed from the intervention area as they are possibly going to be costly to service for limited return (they will have to string fibre past miles of houses they are not allowed service just to get to those small pockets).

I wouldnt be shocked to see Eir wait until NBI have spent the money getting to them and then start offering service (weakening a competitor by having them overspend on infrastructure that is of little value).

allanpkr

well as eir decided to not push along my road , even if they did now i wouldnt use them for the broadband. also looking at all the complaints of eir i would be mad to use them. also had dealings with them , trying to cancel them after they screwed up (2 old people who were very ill ,) phone line after coneecting them with broadband they never wanted.

Marlow

ArrBee wrote: »

3. Eir have some penalty for encroaching. (I doubt there is a mechanism for this to happen - but considerign they needed some form of approval to take the 300k out of the IA originally, maybe there is some consequence that can be applied for poaching more?)

OpenEIR or any other provider for that matter can build into the NBP areas. That is not something the department can prevent. Nor will they prevent it. It saves them money.

And the only reason OpenEIR needed some form of approval for the 300k was, because they wanted to remove those premises from the NBP rollout. They could have rolled their service out anyhow. Approval or not. The approval was not for the rollout. It was for the removal.

NBI on the other can only build for the premises that are defined as part of the NBP contract and no other premises full stop. They will also not provide services to any other premises, as it would mean, that they would have to repay the funding that has been paid by the government for the stretch to bring connectivity to these premises.

There is no 2 ways about it. And the latter was made very very clear by NBI in their last orientation session.

/M

Johnboy1951

allanpkr wrote: »

well as eir decided to not push along my road , even if they did now i wouldnt use them for the broadband. also looking at all the complaints of eir i would be mad to use them. also had dealings with them , trying to cancel them after they screwed up (2 old people who were very ill ,) phone line after coneecting them with broadband they never wanted.

There is nothing wrong with the Openeir fibre roll out.

That you have had, like lots of others, difficulties with eir retail is immaterial to the value of the Openeir fibre.

All you need do is use a different ISP selling service on the Openeir fibre, and you never have to deal with eir retail again.

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with the Openeir fibre roll out.

That you have had, like lots of others, difficulties with eir retail is immaterial to the value of the Openeir fibre.

All you need do is use a different ISP selling service on the Openeir fibre, and you never have to deal with eir retail again.

which is exactly and i do mean exactly what i said i would do??!??!!

allanpkr

the reason eir applied to remove 300k from nbp was to make the nbp fail. it didnt work. as marlow said eir didnt have to apply to have them removed.it could just supply them with fibre. therefore to go through the formality and publicity of applying to have them removed , was a cynical ploy to cause the nbp to be too much trouble politically to proceed. same as them saying they could do it for 1 billion, also cynical attempt.

babi-hrse

We're already seeing some response by openeir expanding their network in some areas. These were areas that had nothing and were less than 800m from ftth on either side but left out. Works are now starting to bring them in.
I think this was a deliberate move by openeir to hold the nbp to ransom where they would only maybe have to string fibre along 10 poles in every direction to pull in another few thousands premises almost overnight. Now that they have lost I think they are just going to get on with it... These places weren't commercialy unviable I think it was just to hold areas to ransom.

Marlow

babi-hrse wrote: »

These places weren't commercialy unviable I think it was just to hold areas to ransom.

Yes, no and maybe.

A couple of observations:

a) Carolan had a budget .. and she was not to exceed that with the 300k. She managed to squeeze about 330k into said budget.

b) she also stated, that there are at least another 150k or so additional premises that are commercially viable (can't remember the figure), but she couldn't get the budget approved to cover them

[RANT]

c) OpenEIRs entire planning is a f****** joke. I mean, they have build out stretches beyond the 300k and then forgot to actually document them. And believe me ... I have pointed quite a few of those out to them, had to argue, shout and threaten, before they escalated them to network build .. and eventually listed them as passed. Sometimes a premise at a time. There are at least 8 clusters of 40+ premises like that in Co. Galway .. nevermind other places, where we spotted them.

d) some of the odd 10 houses left out between two fibre runs have to do with how their cabling runs. But the majority is pure an utter incompetence of the staff in planning.

e) and yes ... some of it was most certainly deliberate .. it has to be .. nobody can be that ignorant ...

[/RANT]

/M

babi-hrse

I knew of several estates that had it in the ground for over a year and had light in it. I had mentioned this to someone in oe fibre management when I happened to come across it and he was surprised as he said they were looking for uptake to be higher as it was expensive enough to roll out for it to be just sitting in the ground doing nothing.
A couple of weeks later it went to available soon then I think there was some issue and it came live after that. I really think there's a link when somebody puts it in and finishes splicing and testing whoever is supposed to see that it's done and passes it as available just didn't get the memo.
It happens quite a bit in gated estates. Actually now that I think about it I haven't come across a gated community (where the council are not responsible for the land inside) that didn't have issues. Maybe due to a key code for the gate being required to get inside the planners put it on the long finger.

user1842

The majority of openEir poles will have to be replaced in the intervention area. Beside my parents house, 1km outside a major west of Ireland town I counted 40 poles that needed replacing. 4 of the poles were actually totally broken, the rest totally over grown at 60 degree angles. They have not be touched since they were put up 40 years ago.

So NBI will ask openEir to replace them and openEir will say sure, in a few years. This is going to be a total disaster. I will take a picture later on.

plodder

user1842 wrote: »

The majority of openEir poles will have to be replaced in the intervention area. Beside my parents house, 1km outside a major west of Ireland town I counted 40 poles that needed replacing. 4 of the poles were actually totally broken, the rest totally over grown at 60 degree angles. They have not be touched since they were put up 40 years ago.

So NBI will ask openEir to replace them and openEir will say sure, in a few years. This is going to be a total disaster. I will take a picture later on.

What's to stop NBI from putting in their own poles in cases where the Openeir ones are defective?

Marlow

plodder wrote: »

What's to stop NBI from putting in their own poles in cases where the Openeir ones are defective?

They could place their own poles ... maybe ... but they can not interfere with existing OpenEir existing ones.

/M

user1842

Some pics, taken this morning of what is ahead of NBI:

Sorry if the rotation is off on some pics (cannot seem to correct this, as it is fine when I open the pic on my computer).

Ultimanemo

plodder wrote: »

What's to stop NBI from putting in their own poles in cases where the Openeir ones are defective?

One billion Euro

NBI will pay eir one billion Euro for using their poles and ducts

plodder

Ultimanemo wrote: »

One billion Euro

NBI will pay eir one billion Euro for using their poles and ducts

It's not a flat fee though, I think. They won't pay for any poles they don't use.

allanpkr

plodder wrote: »

It's not a flat fee though, I think. They won't pay for any poles they don't use.

of course, but i think point is eir will replace defective poles as they will get an income from any used. quite a good income as well.

Marlow

The department has now published the submissions to the last call for data before the signing of the NBP contract:

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Pages/Conclusion-of-NBP-Mapping-Exercise.aspx

All submissions are listed here in either full or redacted form, depending on what was classified as commercially sensitive.

Also, the full decision on the NBP state aid of the European Commission can be found here:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/201951/282707_2118156_159_2.pdf

/M

user1842

Anyone want to read Imagine's submission and give us the summary. I honestly could not be bothered.

rodge123

user1842 wrote: »

Anyone want to read Imagine's submission and give us the summary. I honestly could not be bothered.

Had a very quick browse and well they are lying through their teeth from what I can see in few passages!
Claiming their own network analysis data shows that the majority of their customers can get min 30Mb when required, and that still spare cell capacity.
Not bothered reading anymore, can feel my blood pressure rising!

allanpkr

well, imagine that! 30mb with more if needed. i can only see imagine doing only one thing, taking nbp to court so they can prove their figures are totally correct. cant wait lmao...

Mortelaro

Marlow wrote: »

The department has now published the submissions to the last call for data before the signing of the NBP contract:

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Pages/Conclusion-of-NBP-Mapping-Exercise.aspx

All submissions are listed here in either full or redacted form, depending on what was classified as commercially sensitive.

Also, the full decision on the NBP state aid of the European Commission can be found here:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/201951/282707_2118156_159_2.pdf

/M

Moot though as its signed now?

celticbhoy27

Mortelaro wrote: »

Moot though as its signed now?

Yeah it's just a transparency exercise. Read the submissions if you're genuinely interested but they mean squat diddly now

Marlow

Mortelaro wrote: »

Moot though as its signed now?

They had to publish them. It is a requirement. Also, those who submitted can still take action, if the assessment for not taking them into account is deemed to have been based on the wrong criteria.

So .. as such, moot ... until/if somebody brings it to court.

/M

joe_99

Marlow wrote: »

The department has now published the submissions to the last call for data before the signing of the NBP contract:

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Pages/Conclusion-of-NBP-Mapping-Exercise.aspx

All submissions are listed here in either full or redacted form, depending on what was classified as commercially sensitive.

Also, the full decision on the NBP state aid of the European Commission can be found here:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/201951/282707_2118156_159_2.pdf

/M

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Documents/88/submissions/open_eir_Technical_Redacted_Submission.pdf

A lot of detail in Eirs submission. Not redacted at all either.

allanpkr

Marlow wrote: »

They had to publish them. It is a requirement. Also, those who submitted can still take action, if the assessment for not taking them into account is deemed to have been based on the wrong criteria.

So .. as such, moot ... until/if somebody brings it to court.

/M

No-one is going to court. NO-ONE

Ultimanemo

rodge123 wrote: »

Had a very quick browse and well they are lying through their teeth from what I can see in few passages!
Claiming their own network analysis data shows that the majority of their customers can get min 30Mb when required, and that still spare cell capacity.
Not bothered reading anymore, can feel my blood pressure rising!

This is my speed most evenings, today is actually above average, direct cable connection with no internet activity

Orebro

Ultimanemo wrote: »

This is my speed most evenings, today is actually above average, direct cable connection with no internet activity

The WISPs really went to town with submissions - not sure who they think works in the Dept but not many of them would understand this.

Marlow

Orebro wrote: »

The WISPs really went to town with submissions - not sure who they think works in the Dept but not many of them would understand this.

I was actually surprised to see that submission, as not all ISPs in that list have submitted individually. But the data is rather conservative and only deals with existing coverage within the parameters of NGA compliant coverage.

Especially because premises with near line of sight have not been taken into consideration and the radius of coverage is also a lot smaller, than what usually is covered.

/M

rayfitzharris

I've posted this in the imagine thread also. Every so often people post good results, which is great for them but I feel it's worthy reminding potential new customers of the reality for a lot of others too..

Don't worry it's got nothing to do with trying to guard my contention ratio, as you can see that would be like trying to protect a rotten turnip.

rayfitzharris

And before the "blame WiFi" gang arrives, Here's the uncontended picture taken a few hours later, same network/distance from ap/phone etc..