Broadband for All

DonegalMan

eircomtribunal wrote:

BT's Bill Murphy said in an interview on RTE that a similar scheme would be doable in the Republic for some 200 million.

At the risk of being excommunicated as a heretic, and leaving aside the indigestion any of us would get at the idea of the idea of handing money to any of the Telco's especially [shudder] Eircom [/shudder], should the Government not support something like this?.

Bearing in mind the damage that lack of Broadband is doing to the economy and the money the Government is throwing at MAN's and Group BB schemes, which will only give Broadband to a relatively small number of users, a once off payment of 200 million (maybe only 50% of it as I'm sure Bill Murphy's figure is an opening offer) seems a more sensible idea than what is currently going on.

Martin

Blaster99

It could have been half-intelligent to have done it in conjunction with the broadband for schools programme to kill two birds with a stone instead of handing money over to satellite ISP's which is of no real use to anyone.

But yeah it is a good idea to get it sorted once and for all. It would be ideal if it could be structured in such a way that companies will tender for it instead of just paying Eircom something overinflated.

SkepticOne

I think any money spent propping up the status quo is just throwing money at the problem. Certainly no money should be given to the monopolist. We need real sustainable solutions.

jwt

Any guesses whats going to happen to the money put aside by DCMNR for GBS and will be nowhere close to being used by the end of the GBS project, is going??????


Hmmmm I wonder which company in Ireland will get all that money to make up for investing at 50% of the rate of degradation of the network.

Money for old rope!


John

SkepticOne

Well Eircom certainly have the old rope, but should they be given the money?

Sponge Bob

Not without a Universal Service OBLIGATION THAT MEANS SOMETHING .Otherwise they get the funding and no SLA

SkepticOne

But a meaningful USO can't be imposed without compensating Eircom. Would this not be back to throwing money for old rope at the problem.

Sponge Bob

Chicken and Egg Time.

Unless Eircom guarantee that 80 % of Lines in Every exchange area to be enabled will pass on day one then there is no point in enabling an exchange.

If there is no point in enabling an exchange then there is no point in giving Eirocm any money , especially as Eircom will charge €100k per exchange , their standard price irrespective of number of lines in an exchange , and there are 700 exchanges to be done that are not in any upgrade program. = €70m

On the other hand, €70 million would only buy you 2 miles of Motorway to carry those rural people into towns where they are employed in the absence of any meaningful rural economy anymore.

Therefore, on a national level, it would hardly be a scandalous waste of money as long as

1. It is put out to tender like any proper procurement should be
2. There is a reasonable minimum SLA , 80% of lines withing the 4.5km distance must pass on Day one. 100% of lines within the distance must pass within 2 years .
3. Eircom are obliged to publically state when the entire exchange area will be compliant with the USO and to inform their customers .
4. Eircom are obliged to notify the customer whether a given line will support BB (printed on the bill)

What to do 'Beyond' the distances is more complex and should be a separate tender.

SkepticOne

Sponge Bob wrote:

What to do 'Beyond' the distances is more complex and should be a separate tender.

But won't you be paying over the odds for this if all the prime areas have been taken care of. There will be a premium to be paid for this because the company undertaking the work will only have these difficult to reach areas from which to make money.

It looks to me that it is the fringe areas that need to be examined first. If solutions can be found for some of these, then it may well turn out that you have also solved a lot of the non-fringe areas.

I think it is dangerous to frame tender documents in terms of the infrastructure privately owned by one company. Essentially, Eircom are the only company that can realistically deliver on this and they know it and will charge accordingly.

I think that under no circumstances should DCMNR pay Eircom to upgrade exchanges and copper lines for the following reasons:

1. Technology and vendor biased.
2. Poor state of the infrastructure - will end up rewarding Eircom for prior underinvestment.
3. Further entrenches Eircom as the monopolist - where will the incentive to upgrade speeds and services come from?
4. Will leave a proportion of hard to reach customers out in the cold. No company will be interested in supplying them and will only bid for huge amounts of money should a tender be submitted.

Sponge Bob

The only technology that is in any was accessible on a wholesale basis to other carriers is Bitstream DSL, therefore I confined my remarks to that.

Were Eircom to 'realistically' win a contract they would have to offer a Bitstream Wireless alternative to Bitstream DSL which is not something they do now. Eircom have exclusive access to 2 or 3 spectrum blocks for WLL / Rurtel and also a large slab of essentially unused 3.5Ghz spectrum.

Were Eircom to try to pull a fast one and to wilfully misinterpret their obligations I would set the competition authority on them and strip the entire network beyond towns with 1500 persons off them while imposing a rather large fine on the remainder .

eircomtribunal

Sponge Bob wrote:

1. It is put out to tender like any proper procurement should be
2. There is a reasonable minimum SLA , 80% of lines withing the 4.5km distance must pass on Day one. 100% of lines within the distance must pass within 2 years .
3. Eircom are obliged to publically state when the entire exchange area will be compliant with the USO and to inform their customers .
4. Eircom are obliged to notify the customer whether a given line will support BB (printed on the bill)

What to do 'Beyond' the distances is more complex and should be a separate tender.

Did somebody guess your password?!
BT was paid to bring 100% population bb coverage almost immediately and soon 100% area bb coverage to NI.
The sum it was paid to do this is in all probability less than our incumbent gets as a hidden grant through extortionate line rental pricing on an ongoing basis. The extreme line rental is made possible through funding by the Dep of Social and Family affairs line rental subsidies at €90 per annum.

Hence: Eircom should simply be expected and "USO-nated" to give us full population bb coverage.

P.

SkepticOne

I think the general principles of subsidy should be:

1. Vendor neutrality -There should be no bias towards one particular company.

2. Technology neutrality - There should be no bias towards one particular technology e.g wireless, DSL.

3. Town and community level - It should be organised at the community level. This gives companies of a variety of sizes the chance to compete. Some of these companies will grow and compete with incumbents in neighbouring communities.

4. Community consultation - the community itself should be the ultimate arbiter of who wins the contract.

Moriarty

(Playing devil's advocate for a moment..)

SkepticOne wrote:

I think the general principles of subsidy should be:

1. Vendor neutrality -There should be no bias towards one particular company.

Are we to just ignore that only one specific company already has a national network which could be easily leveraged to provide what we want?

SkepticOne wrote:

2. Technology neutrality - There should be no bias towards one particular technology e.g wireless, DSL.

That would make sense if all solutions were equally viable and provided equal levels of quality and dependability. They don't. Ignoring direct provision of fibre (and cable, because it doesnt look like that'll ever significantly impact on nationwide coverage), DSL is probably the single best way to provide broadband to large numbers of people. Wireless comes a poor second. People shouldn't be lumbered with second rate technology just to deny the incumbent more business. Similaritys between that and nose/face destruction could be drawn.

Sponge Bob

I often made the point that 20% of all line rental comes from the taxpayer (pensioners etc) and that Comreg are negligent in not taking that ongoing subsidy into account when doing USO costings.

I also pointed out that the subsidy is decided by Comreg and Eircom not the Taxpayer and that no tendering has been done at any stage .

SkepticOne

Moriarty wrote:

(Playing devil's advocate for a moment..)

Are we to just ignore that only one specific company already has a national network which could be easily leveraged to provide what we want?

Well playing devil's advocate to your devils advocate...this ownership of infrastructure by one specific company is a large part of the problem. Hence, there needs to be diversity of infrastructures and platforms because, otherwise, you end up paying this one company over the odds for substandard service.

That would make sense if all solutions were equally viable and provided equal levels of quality and dependability. They don't. Ignoring direct provision of fibre (and cable, because it doesnt look like that'll ever significantly impact on nationwide coverage), DSL is probably the single best way to provide broadband to large numbers of people. Wireless comes a poor second. People shouldn't be lumbered with second rate technology just to deny the incumbent more business. Similarities between that and nose/face destruction could be drawn.

But once you decide it can only be, say, DSL you are shooting yourself in the foot. Eircom, knowing that they have control over the infrastructure overwhich DSL is provided can effectively kill off any advantages it might have had.

The same is true for any technology where the infrastructure is owned by a single specific company.

Any technology has its strengths and weaknesses. DSL is grand if the infrastructure is in good conditition, the people are relatively near the DSLAMS, there are few split lines etc.

There have been reports, however, that many parts of the old wired network are not in pristine conditition. You would have people in these towns wait until Eircom, with total lack of incentive, sorts out these lines or the regulator with no real interest orders Eircom to do so.

This is why it is not for you, Moriarty, to decide what technology is appropriate but rather, imo, for the community.

I say that it is for these reasons - as well as to avoid the stupidity of tendering in such a way that only one company will qualify - that any tender process should be a) technology neutral b) vendor neutral.

I agree with Sponge Bob that the fact that Eircom are, in effect, already recieving a subsidy should be also taken into account.

Moriarty

SkepticOne wrote:

Well playing devil's advocate to your devils advocate...this ownership of infrastructure by one specific company is a large part of the problem. Hence, there needs to be diversity of infrastructures and platforms because, otherwise, you end up paying this one company over the odds for substandard service.

Diversity of infrastructure is of no more use if it's also held in private hands, creating duopolys. That's not even taking into account that 'alternative' (aka wireless) infrastructure is expensive and of limited use. Instead of solving the underlying problems we're just throwing good money after bad, repeating the same mistakes once again.

SkepticOne wrote:

But once you decide it can only be, say, DSL you are shooting yourself in the foot. Eircom, knowing that they have control over the infrastructure overwhich DSL is provided can effectively kill off any advantages it might have had.

The same is true for any technology where the infrastructure is owned by a single specific company.

Which is why we are meant to have regulation. Fix the regulation and we begin to address the underlying problems instead of wasting money wallpapering up the cracks for another 3-5 years.

SkepticOne wrote:

Any technology has its strengths and weaknesses. DSL is grand if the infrastructure is in good conditition, the people are relatively near the DSLAMS, there are few split lines etc.

There have been reports, however, that many parts of the old wired network are not in pristine conditition. You would have people in these towns wait until Eircom, with total lack of incentive, sorts out these lines or the regulator with no real interest orders Eircom to do so.

This is why it is not for you, Moriarty, to decide what technology is appropriate but rather, imo, for the community.

I say that it is for these reasons - as well as to avoid the stupidity of tendering in such a way that only one company will qualify - that any tender process should be a) technology neutral b) vendor neutral.

I agree with Sponge Bob that the fact that Eircom are, in effect, already recieving a subsidy should be also taken into account.

What makes you think wireless providers will be any more inclined to offer services to hard to reach areas than eircom are at the moment? The evidence so far is that the wireless operators are more than happy to cherry pick the highest population centres for their services and ignore everywhere else. Expecting that to change for no reason seems a .. strange.. leap of faith.

I have a bad feeling that if we went ahead with large scale community run or community-chosen services, in ten years time we will end up with a vast amount of different legacy infrasructure that will have depreciated into obscurity, necessitating another expensive round of renewal programs at best, or complete discontinuation at worst.

I agree entirely about the "subsidy" being taken into account, by the by.

oscarBravo

Moriarty wrote:

... 'alternative' (aka wireless) infrastructure is expensive and of limited use.

I have to challenge this premise. The assumption is that a wired solution is cheaper than a wireless one, simply because the wires are already there.

If the existing wires have all the quality of wet string, wireless may well prove to be a cheaper and more flexible option than recabling a third of the country. Even Eircom seemed to think so, when they installed expensive Airspan kit to provide me with ISDN rather than fix my line.

I also take issue with the idea that a PSTN-grade copper pair is somehow a future-proof solution, and that wireless has built-in obsolescence. A licence-exempt 802.11a link can provide 24Mb of throughput. How many PSTN lines will do that?

Moriarty wrote:

What makes you think wireless providers will be any more inclined to offer services to hard to reach areas than eircom are at the moment? The evidence so far is that the wireless operators are more than happy to cherry pick the highest population centres for their services and ignore everywhere else. Expecting that to change for no reason seems a .. strange.. leap of faith.

You obviously weren't in Ennis last night. Nine service providers lined up to vie for the business of rural Clare. Leap of faith? I see a lot of companies jumping...

Moriarty wrote:

I have a bad feeling that if we went ahead with large scale community run or community-chosen services, in ten years time we will end up with a vast amount of different legacy infrasructure that will have depreciated into obscurity, necessitating another expensive round of renewal programs at best, or complete discontinuation at worst.

What exactly is it about copper pairs that makes them intrinsically immune to depreciating into obscurity? Seems to me it takes constant investment, updating of infrastructure, repairs of failing equipment and so on to keep a PSTN network running properly. We've seen what happens when a company decides not to bother keeping their network up-to-date.

Wired? Wireless? The issues are the same. Given the state of much of the local loop, it just makes more sense in many places to give up on it and replace it with a more cost-effective option.

SkepticOne

Moriarty wrote:

Diversity of infrastructure is of no more use if it's also held in private hands, creating duopolys. That's not even taking into account that 'alternative' (aka wireless) infrastructure is expensive and of limited use. Instead of solving the underlying problems we're just throwing good money after bad, repeating the same mistakes once again.

It is precicely to avoid throwing good money after bad that I am making these suggestions! I think every technology has its place. As I said before, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is that, wherever possible, you are not forced to use one technology over infrastructure owned by one company.

DSL too has its limitations. The main one being that the infrastructure overwhich it is employed is expensive to install and maintain. Of course DSL has its place, but the main attraction is that a lot of this infrastructure is already there. The attractiveness goes when new lines are to be installed and old ones are to be replaced.

The underlying problem is that people don't have a choice. The can't take their business elsewhere, hence the sole supplier of infrastructure gets to call the shots. I'm in favour of each technology and each infrastructure getting used to its maximum.

Which is why we are meant to have regulation. Fix the regulation and we begin to address the underlying problems instead of wasting money wallpapering up the cracks for another 3-5 years.

The problem with regulation as a solution to all our problems is that the monopolist infrastructure owner will always be entitled to dispute regulatory orders in the courts. This means that if the regulator wants all splitters to be removed, the monopolist is entitled to add up all the costs of new line installation or splitter replacements and demand increases in charges and take the regulator to court if not satisfied. This is the problem with the "regulated monopoly" model that some people feel is the best way forward.

What makes you think wireless providers will be any more inclined to offer services to hard to reach areas than eircom are at the moment? The evidence so far is that the wireless operators are more than happy to cherry pick the highest population centres for their services and ignore everywhere else. Expecting that to change for no reason seems a .. strange.. leap of faith.

The simple answer is I don't. I make no assumptions about any form of technology. Like I said, each technology has its strengths and weaknesses. What I'm saying is that just like I decide what's best for me. Communitities should decide what's best for them.

I have a bad feeling that if we went ahead with large scale community run or community-chosen services, in ten years time we will end up with a vast amount of different legacy infrasructure that will have depreciated into obscurity, necessitating another expensive round of renewal programs at best, or complete discontinuation at worst.

If a company depreciates, say, a DSLAM and replaces it with a new, more capable one, that is good for the consumer. If a wireless operator adds new equipment and people switch over to new services then the old equipment will be depreciated and eventually withdrawn. No problem here. This is the sort of thing one would hope for. The problem is when the same equipment is used year after year providing the same poor level of service at the same price. This is the problem with monopolised infrastructure. There is no incentive to maintain service and infrastructure investment is kept to a minimum. The monopolist resists regulatory efforts to change this.

The main difference between your regulated monopoly approach to infrastructure provision and the competitive market approach is that in yours, the monopolist gets to charge the country for each improvement in provision. If lines need to be brought up to a certain standard, that is the countries problem, not the monopolists.

Although you use phrases like "throwing good money after bad" and so on, I respectfully submit that it is your suggestions, if implemented, that would lead to this situation.

Reliance on a single privately owned infrastructure can, in some situations, work OK. But the infrastructure must be there to start with. If it is not, then upgrading the equipment may be a very expensive proposition with the monopolist calling the shots and threatening court action all the way.

Moriarty

oscarBravo wrote:

I have to challenge this premise. The assumption is that a wired solution is cheaper than a wireless one, simply because the wires are already there.

If the existing wires have all the quality of wet string, wireless may well prove to be a cheaper and more flexible option than recabling a third of the country. Even Eircom seemed to think so, when they installed expensive Airspan kit to provide me with ISDN rather than fix my line.

I also take issue with the idea that a PSTN-grade copper pair is somehow a future-proof solution, and that wireless has built-in obsolescence. A licence-exempt 802.11a link can provide 24Mb of throughput. How many PSTN lines will do that?

I said 'limited use', not useless. Wireless will always suffer from more expensive CPE (+expensive installs if you're going to need an antenna on your chimney/gable), more unreliable connections and inherent physical layer contention problems.

It's not an ideal solution, but it's a damn sight better than being stuck on dialup. I'm not saying that no one should use wireless - hell, I'm using a DIY wireless connection at the moment for my internet - what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be viewed as the first option for national provision. It just isn't suited to it.

oscarBravo wrote:

You obviously weren't in Ennis last night. Nine service providers lined up to vie for the business of rural Clare. Leap of faith? I see a lot of companies jumping... What exactly is it about copper pairs that makes them intrinsically immune to depreciating into obscurity? Seems to me it takes constant investment, updating of infrastructure, repairs of failing equipment and so on to keep a PSTN network running properly. We've seen what happens when a company decides not to bother keeping their network up-to-date.

Wired? Wireless? The issues are the same. Given the state of much of the local loop, it just makes more sense in many places to give up on it and replace it with a more cost-effective option.

Do you honestly believe that wireless is capable of providing broadband access to the majority of people in this country? I certainly don't. Nowhere near it infact. It's a nice solution to a niche problem, but not the panacea.

DSL is superior in delivering broadband connections to large numbers of people at low cost in an area. It is technologically superior. It is proven technology. It has much more money behind it both nationally and internationally so it will be constantly improved upon and supported in the long term. For all those reasons and more, DSL is the primary way to go as I see it.

SkepticOne wrote:

It is precicely to avoid throwing good money after bad that I am making these suggestions! I think every technology has its place. As I said before, each has its advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is that, wherever possible, you are not forced to use one technology over infrastructure owned by one company.

DSL too has its limitations. The main one being that the infrastructure overwhich it is employed is expensive to install and maintain. Of course DSL has its place, but the main attraction is that a lot of this infrastructure is already there. The attractiveness goes when new lines are to be installed and old ones are to be replaced.

The underlying problem is that people don't have a choice. The can't take their business elsewhere, hence the sole supplier of infrastructure gets to call the shots. I'm in favour of each technology and each infrastructure getting used to its maximum.

If there's no broadband in an area and a wireless company is given a grant to create a network there, you'll still be stuck with only one technology provided over an entirely private network. How is creating local monopolies run by many small companies any better than just handing over whatever money eircom wants to let them expand their network/monopoly in the first place?

Wouldn't time and money be better spent expanding a ubiquitous network nationwide and then making sure that that network delivers what we want (ie. open competition over the platform, aswell as keeping the network well maintained to enable LLU competition)? If wireless companies wanted to compete with that (which they do in places, seeminly) then that's even better.

SkepticOne wrote:

The problem with regulation as a solution to all our problems is that the monopolist infrastructure owner will always be entitled to dispute regulatory orders in the courts. This means that if the regulator wants all splitters to be removed, the monopolist is entitled to add up all the costs of new line installation or splitter replacements and demand increases in charges and take the regulator to court if not satisfied. This is the problem with the "regulated monopoly" model that some people feel is the best way forward.

That's true. There's a way to lessen the number of issues the monopolist would find objectionable if you wanted to go down that road though - remove the monopolist from markets they would otherwise wish to protect.

SkepticOne wrote:

The simple answer is I don't. I make no assumptions about any form of technology. Like I said, each technology has its strengths and weaknesses. What I'm saying is that just like I decide what's best for me. Communitities should decide what's best for them.

If a company depreciates, say, a DSLAM and replaces it with a new, more capable one, that is good for the consumer. If a wireless operator adds new equipment and people switch over to new services then the old equipment will be depreciated and eventually withdrawn. No problem here. This is the sort of thing one would hope for. The problem is when the same equipment is used year after year providing the same poor level of service at the same price. This is the problem with monopolised infrastructure. There is no incentive to maintain service and infrastructure investment is kept to a minimum. The monopolist resists regulatory efforts to change this.

You don't see a possible problem with the long term viability of large numbers of small scale networks using disparate technologys? Particularly to do with the small scales we're talking about, and fairly large capital expenditures needed from time to time. Honest question. I'd suspect it would become a big issue, but maybe I'm wrong.

SkepticOne wrote:

The main difference between your regulated monopoly approach to infrastructure provision and the competitive market approach is that in yours, the monopolist gets to charge the country for each improvement in provision. If lines need to be brought up to a certain standard, that is the countries problem, not the monopolists.

Although you use phrases like "throwing good money after bad" and so on, I respectfully submit that it is your suggestions, if implemented, that would lead to this situation.

Reliance on a single privately owned infrastructure can, in some situations, work OK. But the infrastructure must be there to start with. If it is not, then upgrading the equipment may be a very expensive proposition with the monopolist calling the shots and threatening court action all the way.

I fully see your point, but do you not see the possible problems with a truely open competition stage for infrastructure that could see large parts of the country recieving no provision at all because it's not comercially viable? That's what's happening at present, and a nationwide ubiquitous regulated network would solve that. Then if there's better services offered in your area from other providers (wireless, llu, whichever) you can just switch to them, but always know that there will be a base service provision still available to you from the incumbent.

Expanding the network nationwide would mean that when the incumbent responds to competition in highly competitive environments like the major citys, it will "raise all boats" across the country with it, making the effects of competition felt for the better no matter where you lived.

oscarBravo

Moriarty wrote:

I said 'limited use', not useless.

I know, and I didn't say or imply useless either. Copper is of limited use also.

Moriarty wrote:

Wireless will always suffer from more expensive CPE

Back up. Five miles of copper wire is not cheap CPE. Wireless is an answer where existing copper doesn't work. When it comes to deciding whether to replace the copper with new copper or with wireless, that's a fair cost comparison.

Moriarty wrote:

more unreliable connections

What is it about wireless that you feel is intrinsically unreliable? I've had a wireless ISDN line for a few years now, and it's a shedload more reliable than either the wired PSTN line I had before it, or (for example) bminish's wired ISDN line.

Moriarty wrote:

and inherent physical layer contention problems.

Ethernet has inherent physical layer contention problems. In a well-planned wireless network, as with a well-planned wired network, it doesn't need to be a problem.

Moriarty wrote:

It's not an ideal solution, but it's a damn sight better than being stuck on dialup. I'm not saying that no one should use wireless - hell, I'm using a DIY wireless connection at the moment for my internet - what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be viewed as the first option for national provision. It just isn't suited to it.

Right about now I'm starting to get that straw man feeling. Who said anything about it being the first option? Read the thread. We're talking about whether to throw (even more) wads of money at Eircom, or whether to give other technologies a chance to prove their worth.

Moriarty wrote:

Do you honestly believe that wireless is capable of providing broadband access to the majority of people in this country? I certainly don't. Nowhere near it infact. It's a nice solution to a niche problem, but not the panacea.

See above. It's not a panacea. Neither is DSL. Frankly, I would have more confidence that wireless can cover the whole country than I would in copper - how many people can't get a TV signal? How many get it wirelessly rather than through cable? - but once again, nobody's suggesting that. Except you.

Moriarty wrote:

DSL is superior in delivering broadband connections to large numbers of people at low cost in an area.

Not in my area. DSL is physically incapable of delivering broadband connections to any number of people at any cost in this area. It might be possible to DSL-enable the RCU and add street-cabinets with DSLAMs at a couple of crossroads, and then replace several miles of copper.

Still think it would be cheaper than wireless?

Moriarty wrote:

It is technologically superior.

Says who? I've already pointed out that wireless can run at higher speeds over longer distances.

Moriarty wrote:

It is proven technology.

And radio communication isn't?

Moriarty wrote:

It has much more money behind it both nationally and internationally so it will be constantly improved upon and supported in the long term.

...as will wireless.

Moriarty wrote:

For all those reasons and more, DSL is the primary way to go as I see it.

Forgive me, but I don't see that you've made a case to pump money into Eircom at the expense of potentially cheaper, easier and quicker solutions, that can deliver in the short term instead of whenever Eircom get around to recabling every by-road in the country.

Moriarty wrote:

If there's no broadband in an area and a wireless company is given a grant to create a network there, you'll still be stuck with only one technology provided over an entirely private network.

If you pay Eircom to provide DSL, you'll still be stuck with only one technology provided over an entirely private network - owned by a company with a proven track record of allowing that network to decay into a state of disgraceful disrepair.

Moriarty wrote:

How is creating local monopolies run by many small companies any better than just handing over whatever money eircom wants to let them expand their network/monopoly in the first place?

How in the name of Allah could it possibly be any worse?

Moriarty wrote:

Wouldn't time and money be better spent expanding a ubiquitous network nationwide and then making sure that that network delivers what we want (ie. open competition over the platform, aswell as keeping the network well maintained to enable LLU competition)? If wireless companies wanted to compete with that (which they do in places, seeminly) then that's even better.

Listen to yourself. You're suggesting that it's better to pay a monopolist to maintain a monopoly position (that they've a proven track record of abusing) and let smaller players compete against that state-subisidised monopoly if they can, than to give potential competitors the brief, small-scale kickstart they need to be in with a chance of providing real competition rather than the illusion of competition that bistream provides?

Seriously?

Moriarty wrote:

That's true. There's a way to lessen the number of issues the monopolist would find objectionable if you wanted to go down that road though - remove the monopolist from markets they would otherwise wish to protect.

Can you name a market the monopolist would not wish to protect? Which markets do you propose removing them from, and how do you propose to do so?

Moriarty wrote:

You don't see a possible problem with the long term viability of large numbers of small scale networks using disparate technologys?

It's always easy to envisage possible problems. But, you know what? Look out your window and you can see an existing problem. It's called Eircom's monopoly, we've seen the damage it can wreak, and you're suggesting we should subsidise it?

Moriarty wrote:

Particularly to do with the small scales we're talking about, and fairly large capital expenditures needed from time to time. Honest question. I'd suspect it would become a big issue, but maybe I'm wrong.

You keep talking about the ongoing capital expenditure needed to maintain a wireless network as if copper was immune from the same problems. You've been on this board long enough to know how much Eircom should be spending on their local loop network. What's the difference?

Moriarty wrote:

I fully see your point, but do you not see the possible problems with a truely open competition stage for infrastructure that could see large parts of the country recieving no provision at all because it's not comercially viable?

With respect, you're not keeping up with developments. Local ISPs are being set up to address the needs of those remote areas that the big companies have snubbed for years. Believe me when I tell you that none of them would be too impressed at the idea that an IrelandOffline committee member is advocating a subsidised monopoly to undermine what viability they might have.

Moriarty wrote:

That's what's happening at present, and a nationwide ubiquitous regulated network would solve that.

When ComReg successfully introduce a broadband USO that will force Eircom to provide the same DSL speeds in Belderg and Spanish Point as they do in Foxrock, let me know.

DonegalMan

Why do we have to re-invent the wheel when our next door neighbour has already clearly demonstrated how to get the job done?

DETNI were able to roll out broadband to over 98% of households by using the existing network and working with a single supplier after a fair and open tendering process - BT* in their case.

Looking at different technologies is fine in principle but our broadband situation is so dire that we simply don't have the time to play around with them; lets get on with it and do something that we know will work, is not particularly expensive and can be implemented quickly.

I also think that allowing individual communities to decide technologies would just lead to delays and confusion. What we need is decisive action implemented rapidly. Anyone in business will tell you that a large project is always carried out most effectively when the contract is given to a single main supplier who can subcontract out bits of it but still carry the can for delivery - the worst possible scenario is several lead suppliers who either cannot or will not work cohesively together and end up blaming each other for problems and delays.

Martin

[size=-1](*A big comfort factor for them using BT was of course that although BT acted in a similar way to Eircom in the early days of UK broadband rollout, the UK Government had long since put a stop to that by giving Oftel real teeth to operate and making them accountable for their performance, rather than the jelly-kneed, unaccountable, totally ineffective oufit that we have been lumbered with. This issue must be dealt with as part of any subsidised rollout.) [/size]

DonegalMan

oscarBravo wrote:

Local ISPs are being set up to address the needs of those remote areas that the big companies have snubbed for years.

I'm full of admiration for those who have got off their asses and have done this. Whilst their work is invaluable to the communities they service, however, I for one am not convinced that they will make a significant impact on the overall national situation.

How many people are actually benefitting from GBS right now? A couple of hundred, I would guess.

oscarBravo wrote:

Believe me when I tell you that none of them would be too impressed at the idea that an IrelandOffline committee member is advocating a subsidised monopoly to undermine what viability they might have.

That's a really cheap shot and I'm very disappointed in you making it, particularly when IrelandOffline has been fully supportive of people going the GBS route.

Are you saying that being a committee member means that someone has to toe some sort of party line, that they can't have an individual opinion? That it is wrong to throw out different ideas and discuss different options?

If IrelandOffline is going to have 'sacred cows' that cannot even be talked about, it would be as well to pack the whole thing in - thankfully it doesn't.


Martin
(Posting as an individual, not as a committee member)

Blaster99

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not a panacea. Neither is DSL. Frankly, I would have more confidence that wireless can cover the whole country than I would in copper - how many people can't get a TV signal? How many get it wirelessly rather than through cable?

Sorry don't really want to get involved in this, but that was probably a fairly unfortunate comparison considering FWA is generally LOS dependent to get anything resembling decent performance? Unlike TV. If you ignore Ireland's peculiar situation and have a look at BB leaders, they're not using wireless. I'm not an expert on the technology but I don't think I would be too far wrong if I suggested that once somebody gets the thumb out and starts offering proper ADSL2+ services (24Mbps) then the wireless folks will have serious difficulty keeping up. I obviously don't mind wireless companies providing competition, any little bit helps, but the country should look at world leaders and do what they're doing.

oscarBravo

DonegalMan wrote:

Why do we have to re-invent the wheel when our next door neighbour has already clearly demonstrated how to get the job done?

There are parallels, and there are differences. Is the copper network in NI in the state of advanced degradation that much of the republic's is? Do we have the same regulatory environment?

DonegalMan wrote:

DETNI were able to roll out broadband to over 98% of households by using the existing network and working with a single supplier after a fair and open tendering process - BT* in their case.

You've attached a footnote to this point, and I'd contend that the footnote is the real issue. Hand on heart: do you believe that we're going to get an effective regulator any time soon? Do you believe Eircom are going to let it happen without a fight?

DonegalMan wrote:

Looking at different technologies is fine in principle but our broadband situation is so dire that we simply don't have the time to play around with them; lets get on with it and do something that we know will work, is not particularly expensive and can be implemented quickly.

I must be missing something here. This is not just about upgrading exchanges. That's the cheap and easy part. The real issue here is the disgraceful and worsening state of the local loop, which is getting worse on a daily basis.

Let me put it like this: the Knockmore are is served (as far as I can tell) by three exchanges - Foxford, Knockmore and Ballina. Ballina is DSL-enabled; Knockmore is not and probably never will be; Foxford may be on the cards. Even if Knockmore was enabled, I would anticipate based on my knowledge of people's dialup experience that somewhat less than half the area would be in with a shot at DSL.

You're right, Martin: we don't have time to play around with possibilities. We need something that we know will work. In areas like this, we've clearly demonstrated that wireless works and copper doesn't.

DonegalMan wrote:

I also think that allowing individual communities to decide technologies would just lead to delays and confusion.

I keep hearing this, but nobody is saying why it must be the case.

I can't be the only one who is puzzled at the juxtaposition of statements like "we can't afford delays" and "we should depend on Eircom for the answer to our problems".

DonegalMan wrote:

What we need is decisive action implemented rapidly. Anyone in business will tell you that a large project is always carried out most effectively when the contract is given to a single main supplier who can subcontract out bits of it but still carry the can for delivery - the worst possible scenario is several lead suppliers who either cannot or will not work cohesively together and end up blaming each other for problems and delays.

That's all well and good - if you trust that single main supplier.

oscarBravo

DonegalMan wrote:

I'm full of admiration for those who have got off their asses and have done this. Whilst their work is invaluable to the communities they service, however, I for one am not convinced that they will make a significant impact on the overall national situation.

How many people are actually benefitting from GBS right now? A couple of hundred, I would guess.

That's just not fair, Martin. We're only in the second phase of a multi-year project, of which the first phase was a flawed attempt to do something that had never been attempted before. The department acknowledged those flaws by radically changing the scheme for the second phase.

A few years ago, there were a mere handful of DSL customers in the country. That didn't mean that DSL wasn't going to make a significant impact.

DonegalMan wrote:

That's a really cheap shot and I'm very disappointed in you making it, particularly when IrelandOffline has been fully supportive of people going the GBS route.

Are you saying that being a committee member means that someone has to toe some sort of party line, that they can't have an individual opinion? That it is wrong to throw out different ideas and discuss different options?

If IrelandOffline is going to have 'sacred cows' that cannot even be talked about, it would be as well to pack the whole thing in - thankfully it doesn't.

It wasn't intended as a shot at IrelandOffline, and I apologise if it seemed like it was.

Let's be frank: I'm speaking as a part-owner of a commercial wireless ISP whose raison d'etre is the provision of service to those areas that the main players don't seem to be interested in. I don't know how to convey the dismay I feel at the idea that we should be forced to compete, unsubsidised, against a subsidised monopoly.

Those who support the idea of a subsidised universal DSL provision: when would the expect to see DSL available to everyone in Belderg, and how much do they reckon it would cost the taxpayer to provide it?

oscarBravo

Blaster99 wrote:

Sorry don't really want to get involved in this, but that was probably a fairly unfortunate comparison considering FWA is generally LOS dependent to get anything resembling decent performance? Unlike TV.

It's an analogy. It's not intended to be an exact parallel.

Blaster99 wrote:

If you ignore Ireland's peculiar situation and have a look at BB leaders, they're not using wireless.

If you ignore Ireland's peculiar situation, you're missing the point by a country mile. I'm only talking about Ireland.

Blaster99 wrote:

I'm not an expert on the technology but I don't think I would be too far wrong if I suggested that once somebody gets the thumb out and starts offering proper ADSL2+ services (24Mbps) then the wireless folks will have serious difficulty keeping up.

I'd confidently suggest that you'll deliver 24Mbps wirelessly in rural parts of this country a long, long time before you deliver it on copper.

Blaster99 wrote:

I obviously don't mind wireless companies providing competition, any little bit helps, but the country should look at world leaders and do what they're doing.

Why stop at ADSL2+? Why not mandate FTTH? Let's lead for a change.

Blaster99

oscarBravo wrote:

If you ignore Ireland's peculiar situation, you're missing the point by a country mile. I'm only talking about Ireland.

I implied that the pecularities of Ireland should be sorted properly, not necessarily find workarounds because the regulator is useless.

oscarBravo wrote:

Why stop at ADSL2+? Why not mandate FTTH? Let's lead for a change.

Absolutely, it's just that ADSL2+ is a no-brainer.

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know how to convey the dismay I feel at the idea that we should be forced to compete, unsubsidised, against a subsidised monopoly.

It's a very good point. And I'm not belittling the problem but subsidy or no subsidy, Eircom will come to town at some stage and you will have that problem then regardless. Tricky one to get right, though.

DonegalMan

oscarBravo wrote:

There are parallels, and there are differences. Is the copper network in NI in the state of advanced degradation that much of the republic's is?

The short answer is that none of *us* know - we believe it is in a bad and deteriorating state but we don't know the exact position.

Bill Murphy should know and he has said the same result as NI can be achieved for €200m. I'm taking that statement at face value, if he is offered the chance to do it and says that extra expenditure on the network is required first, then that's a different ballgame.

In regard to the cost of maintaining the network, you ignore the fact that leaving broadband aside money will have to be spent on it sooner or later or our landline voice network will collapse.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do we have the same regulatory environment? You've attached a footnote to this point, and I'd contend that the footnote is the real issue. Hand on heart: do you believe that we're going to get an effective regulator any time soon?

Such a project could be an opportunity to get round the issues that Comreg seem unable to deal with. An Invitation to Tender for the project would allow a lot of new Terms and Conditions to be defined.

oscarBravo wrote:

Do you believe Eircom are going to let it happen without a fight?

IMO, if Eircom saw a significant pot of money up for grabs with the risk of another Telco getting it, they would be very likely to change their current stance.

oscarBravo wrote:

I keep hearing this (delays by trying to involve the community) , but nobody is saying why it must be the case.

We've already seen it. Finance for GBS has been available for a while now and the Government has made clear that no GBS scheme will be turned down because of lack of finance. The problem is not making the finance available, the problem is getting communities to avail of it. I would love to see GBS being more widely implemented, but I believe the reality is that it will only happen where communities are lucky enough to have someone who is interested and dedicated enough to put a lot of work into getting it up and running. Unfortunately, such people are thin on the ground.

oscarBravo wrote:

I can't be the only one who is puzzled at the juxtaposition of statements like "we can't afford delays" and "we should depend on Eircom for the answer to our problems". That's all well and good - if you trust that single main supplier.

Eircom has clearly shown they can't be trusted. That's why the Terms and Conditions for any Invite to Tender would have to be very carefully written.

Martin

DonegalMan

oscarBravo wrote:

That's just not fair, Martin. We're only in the second phase of a multi-year project

I mean no disrespect to those driving forward the GBS option - on the contrary, I have already said that I am full of admiration for them.

The expression "multi-year" is what frightens the life out of me, we are already so far behind that we can't afford to take multiple years at solving this.

oscarBravo wrote:

Let's be frank: I'm speaking as a part-owner of a commercial wireless ISP whose raison d'etre is the provision of service to those areas that the main players don't seem to be interested in. I don't know how to convey the dismay I feel at the idea that we should be forced to compete, unsubsidised, against a subsidised monopoly.

I appreciate fully where you are coming from and if a subsidised national rollout were to take place, I personally would fight tooth and nail for those who have already gone the GBS route to get some protection on their investment to date (both time and money)

oscarBravo wrote:

Those who support the idea of a subsidised universal DSL provision: when would the expect to see DSL available to everyone in Belderg, and how much do they reckon it would cost the taxpayer to provide it?

I'm working on the premise that the NI is not significantly different from RoI in terms of geography and demographics. The approach there has delivered Broadband to 100% of the population in less than 2 years, Bill Murphy has said the same can be done here for €200m.

If there are differences here, they need to be brought out. If there are not significant differences, then we need to be questioning why the same approach can't be applied here.

jwt

DonegalMan wrote:

The short answer is that none of *us* know - we believe it is in a bad and deteriorating state but we don't know the exact position.

We can however extrapolate from current levels of investment versus the rest of Europe and read the definite worries expressed in the Pitsburgh report and draw some conclusions.

DonegalMan wrote:

Bill Murphy should know and he has said the same result as NI can be achieved for €200m. I'm taking that statement at face value, if he is offered the chance to do it and says that extra expenditure on the network is required first, then that's a different ballgame.

To date ESAT appear to be long on talk and short on action. There have been ample opporunities for them to get stuck in to both eircom and comreg but the would rather have IOFFL do the dirty work. I take what Bill says with a pinch of salt.

DonegalMan wrote:

In regard to the cost of maintaining the network, you ignore the fact that leaving broadband aside money will have to be spent on it sooner or later or our landline voice network will collapse.


Such a project could be an opportunity to get round the issues that Comreg seem unable to deal with. An Invitation to Tender for the project would allow a lot of new Terms and Conditions to be defined.

IMO, if Eircom saw a significant pot of money up for grabs with the risk of another Telco getting it, they would be very likely to change their current stance.

My worry is that in a fair tender process eircom have the home field advantage. They know this and will adopt a wait and see approach. It really sticks in my craw that a company can pillage a national asset that they bought for a song and then get more money to make good their pillaging!

DonegalMan wrote:

We've already seen it. Finance for GBS has been available for a while now and the Government has made clear that no GBS scheme will be turned down because of lack of finance. The problem is not making the finance available, the problem is getting communities to avail of it. I would love to see GBS being more widely implemented, but I believe the reality is that it will only happen where communities are lucky enough to have someone who is interested and dedicated enough to put a lot of work into getting it up and running. Unfortunately, such people are thin on the ground.

I personally believe a huge amount of blame lies with both gov.ie and ISPs. I say gov.ie because its not just DCMNR. There needs to be advertising, ISPs of all types need to get a move on. Here is a golden opportunity for companies to receive a 70% subsidy and its falling by the wayside.
Talk to a few community people who have done the GBS thing and it is soon apparent that it requires an enourmous level of commitment. For free. For an ISPs profit. For what?


Our biggest problem is the monopoly. All the regulation issues, provision problems and penetration issues stem from that . Anything that reinforces the monopoly makes this worse.

Anything that fosters alternative access helps Ireland. We are seeing this already. SMART 2mb offer, eircom forced to move into smaller towns due to GBS, BB costs falling etc etc.



John

DonegalMan

jwt wrote:

To date ESAT appear to be long on talk and short on action. There have been ample opporunities for them to get stuck in to both eircom and comreg but the would rather have IOFFL do the dirty work. I take what Bill says with a pinch of salt.

I agree fully - that's why I'd like to see him put on the spot about this.

jwt wrote:

It really sticks in my craw that a company can pillage a national asset that they bought for a song and then get more money to make good their pillaging!

The degree to which I physically feel like vomiting at the thought of Eircom gettting more taxpayers' money is only marginally less than the degree to which I physically feel like vomiting at the way Ireland is slipping farther and farther behind in Broadband