Broadband for All

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

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?

The main advantage of the community approach is that some control at least in the initial stage is in the hands of the community itself. Once they get the names they can then bargain with the ISPs for the best deal. In an ideal world we would all have broadband to start with, but as we all know, that is not the case.

The unfortunate thing is that the one company that seems to be taking the initiative gets its backhaul via satellite. To counter this, there needs to be education so that people are aware of the advantages of taking the initiative themselves. At the end of the day the goal is getting people the broadband they want.

De Rebel

One of the best threads to appear here in a long time, and it is very much a thread that gets to the root of what Ireland Offline is about.

In March 2004 the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications issued its report "Provision of a national high speed broadband infrastructure". It list 12 recommendations, of which two are critical.

• Develop a National Broadband Infrastructure Plan in 2004 .
• Focus on “bridging of the first mile” as the first key policy issue.

12 months later, neither of these has been address by the Department of Communications. We already know that looking to ComReg to solve our Broadband woes is a complete waste of time. This report fairly and squarely nails the responsibility on the door of the Minister. Dempsey is coming to the end of his initial period of grace. It is now time for him to start taking decisive action.

What I am hearing in this thread is a direct repetition of the above recommendations. Ireland needs a plan. It’s as simple as that. In fairness, eircom have set out their stall; they have a partial plan. We all accept, even eircom, that this plan is inadequate and that it will not address the totality of the problem. It is the Minister's responsibility to identify the national requirement, and to ensure that there is a plan to bridge the gap between what the country needs and what eircom are offering.

What exactly the national plan is comprised of, who is involved, what technologies it embodies are all part of a separate exercise. And IrelandOffline will participate in that exercise when the time comes. The job for now is to push the need for that plan right back up the agenda, and make it a priority for the DCMNR.

We wasted a lot of time on ComReg over the recent past and have nothing to show for it. It’s time to re-engage with the Minister's office and get him to focus his attention on this priority in the way that Dermot Ahern did with such success.

In other words..........

Dempsey, your holiday is over. We need Broadband for All, and it is your job to ensure that there is a plan to get us there.

Get on with it.

jwt

SkepticOne wrote:

The main advantage of the community approach is that some control at least in the initial stage is in the hands of the community itself. Once they get the names they can then bargain with the ISPs for the best deal. In an ideal world we would all have broadband to start with, but as we all know, that is not the case.

Thats the way I thought it would work as well, until it recently came to light a Wicklow GBS (Mr Man?) got 2 replies from over a 100 enquiries

SkepticOne wrote:

The unfortunate thing is that the one company that seems to be taking the initiative gets its backhaul via satellite. To counter this, there needs to be education so that people are aware of the advantages of taking the initiative themselves. At the end of the day the goal is getting people the broadband they want.

I have said it before here, much as I disagree with sat as a BB solution hats off to them for spotting a business oportunity and seizing the moment. Other providers should take a leaf from their book! Previous post about SAT providers

De Rebel wrote:

One of the best threads to appear here in a long time, and it is very much a thread that gets to the root of what Ireland Offline is about.

I was thinking the same thing myself

De Rebel wrote:

12 months later, neither of these has been address by the Department of Communications. We already know that looking to ComReg to solve our Broadband woes is a complete waste of time. This report fairly and squarely nails the responsibility on the door of the Minister. Dempsey is coming to the end of his initial period of grace. It is now time for him to start taking decisive action.

I think you're right, the plan is there in black and white. Nobody else seems interested, but alas poor Minister, it's your baliwick.

De Rebel wrote:

It is the Minister's responsibility to identify the national requirement, and to ensure that there is a plan to bridge the gap between what the country needs and what eircom are offering.

The problem here is they think the MANs are the solution. Which part of the first/last mile problem they are going to solve is anybodies guess. I know the plan is to bring backhaul closer to rural areas to allow WISPs etc to provide a service but it doesn't seem to be working

By the way did you know ComReg reckon they were the ones who made friaco happen and that Aherne's mandate was in fact nothing more than rubber stamping their proposal! So maybe it's time for DCMNR to actually mandte something properly


John


P.S.
Cathal, would you mind renaming this thread to something more apt please
Thanks

DonegalMan

jwt wrote:

Cathal, would you mind renaming this thread to something more apt please

Yes - it has become a very useful thread, we should encourage more people into it.

Not to labour the point, can I just emphasise that you, deRebel and I are giving personal opinions here, there's been no discussion on this yet at committee level and there is no 'official' stance on it.

Martin

(P.S. As you were the first to post in the thread, I *think* you might be able to change it yourself by editing the title of your first post.)

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

I have said it before here, much as I disagree with sat as a BB solution hats off to them for spotting a business oportunity and seizing the moment. Other providers should take a leaf from their book! Previous post about SAT providers.

The important thing is that people are aware of what they are getting.

I agree that other providers need to look at the example set by this company. The problem is that this sat based provider does not need to hook up with backhaul. It can set up anywhere in the country. Other providers need to grow their network.

The solution, ultimately, will involve a combination of providers, government funding where necessary and, most importantly, community involvement.

jwt

DonegalMan wrote:

Yes - it has become a very useful thread, we should encourage more people into it.

Not to labour the point, can I just emphasise that you, deRebel and I are giving personal opinions here, there's been no discussion on this yet at committee level and there is no 'official' stance on it.

Martin

(P.S. As you were the first to post in the thread, I *think* you might be able to change it yourself by editing the title of your first post.)

Hence the "I" as opposed to the royal "we"

Too late to change the title, I think you only have a set time before editing is disabled

SkepticOne wrote:

The solution, ultimately, will involve a combination of providers, government funding where necessary and, most importantly, community involvement.

Bingo!


John

SkepticOne

The core opposing viewpoints being advocated in this thread are:

a) Big Bang, monopoly + regulation (e.g N.I) vs. b) piecewise multi-vendor, multi-technology.

My problem with a) is that it depends on too much to work in a sustainable way.

1) In N.I. there is a degree of goodwill from BT that won't be present from Eircom in the South. From BTs standpoint, N.I is only a small part of their network. They can funnel resorses in there without making much of a dent on overall revenues in order to look good generally. It is in their interest to present themselves as the nice monopoly.

2) In the South, despite a 'competitive' tendering process, we know that realistically, if it is to be done in one go, thdere is only one company, Eircom that will bid. It does not make much business sense, from the government point of view, to operate on this basis. Either no deal will be struck (after possibly protracted negotiations) or a poor deal will be struck. This is inevitable if you deliberately limit yourself to one possible candidate. The deal may be poor in two ways:

a) High price for what is required - I think it goes without saying that Eircom, being the only company in the running will extract the maximum from the tax payer.

b) What Eircom will deliver will fall short of what is required. Remember that Eircom will be putting a huge amount of pressure on the governement to do some sort of a deal. They will use the media to point out the people who are still waiting for broadband. The real danger is that they will do a deal where they extend their monopoly to the extent that the possiblity of competition is removed but where people still aren't guaranteed broadband but rather that Eircom take 'reasonable' steps to ensure that as many people get broadband as possible. Many people here will see through this, but will a government under pressure? Remember that Eircom need to no deal whatsoever; they have all the cards.

3. Having one the contract as the subsidised monopoly supplier of broadband, where is the competitive pressure going to come from to update the services? The government has effectively kicked out competition and paid to do so! Now we are left with a monopolised broadband situation and the monopolist will have no incentive to upgrade services. What seems OK today will be rubbish in 5 years time.

In summary Ireland is going to lose in two ways. Firstly, we are going to pay over the odds because we are limiting those we are prepared to do a deal with. This company, knowing this will also try to wiggle out of obligations like they have successfully done with the regulator. It will be take it or leave it for the government. Secondly, it leads to a monoply and we are back to take it or leave it for the consumer too - assuming that the deal is actually done. Double whammy. And in a few years we're back to square one relative to other countries.

The alternative seems less simple but leads to a potentially more stable result and more choice for the consumer.

First of all, it is not about technology (DSL vs. wireless vs. whatever). The problem has always been that in most areas, one company monopolises the infrastructure over which services are provided.

Secondly, companies other than Eircom do not have the cannibalisation issue that Eircom has. They do not make revenue out of dial-up or ISDN that is threatened by broadband.

Thirdly, even though we might have opinions about this or that technology, the presence of a competing technology of whatever sort puts pressure on Eircom to deliver improved services because otherwise they lose business. Even if it is a wireless company in a village, people in that village if they can't get even basic dial-up due to pair gains, now have the opportunity to remove their business entirely from Eircom. This puts pressure on Eircom to improve their infrastructure. Even those who are outside of line of sight can threaten to take their business away since Eircom won't know. Moreover, in this situation, it is now to a much greater Eircom's problem, not the country's if Eircom don't respond since Eircom are the ones losing business.

A 'staw man' is often erected at this point about the merits of one type of technology vs. another. This is missing the point. The point is by giving people alternatives you put pressure on Eircom.

The downside of this is that it can't be done in one fell swoop but the benefits are increased competition and consumer power. This is the thing that has been lacking all this time in Ireland.

DonegalMan

SkepticOne wrote:

The core opposing viewpoints being advocated in this thread are:

a) Big Bang, monopoly + regulation (e.g N.I) vs. b) piecewise multi-vendor, multi-technology.

My problem with a) is that it depends on too much to work in a sustainable way.

My problem with b) is that it is what we have now, it isn't working and I see nothing to suggest it will work

How can it be speeded up?

BTW, I agree with you in principle about technology, I have no hang ups about using any particulr techology except that copper is the one that is already there, it has been used in most other countries and it works for them.

I could be easily swayed to wireless (which is what brought Broadband to me, much to my surprise and delight!) if I could see it starting to happen on a significant scale outside the metropolitan areas.

SkepticOne

DonegalMan wrote:

My problem with b) is that it is what we have now, it isn't working and I see nothing to suggest it will work

How can it be speeded up?

I think this is an important difference of opinion. I don't believe we have b) to any great extent. What we have is the likes of ComReg and others pointing at the number of companies in the market and calling this competition. In reality, many of these are simply reselling an array of Eircom wholesale products.

Most ISPs, for example, don't compete at the sort of level that would lead to infrastructure improvement. Compare this with South Korea where the vast majority can ditch the phone company altogether and still get broadband. The incumbent telephone company, simply does not have the option of letting their own infrastructure decay. They must continualy upgrade equipment and services just to stay in the game. Now you have FTTH and wireless adding to the mix.

We must, imho, seek to emulate this to the greatest extent possible.

What should be done, again imho, is:
1. Identify areas that need broadband.
2. Tender for the area giving priority to whatever technology gets the job done.
3. Bias in favour of competing infrastructure where possible. This encourages the incumbent to take more care of its network to avoid losing business - people get the best of both worlds.
4. Prioritise areas where there is community-led interest.
5. Do it at a pace that does not give advantage to the entrenched monopolist if possible.

BTW, I agree with you in principle about technology, I have no hang ups about using any particulr techology except that copper is the one that is already there, it has been used in most other countries and it works for them. I could be easily swayed to wireless (which is what brought Broadband to me, much to my surprise and delight!) if I could see it starting to happen on a significant scale outside the metropolitan areas.

The point I was trying to make is that we should let the technologies compete. Let the companies set out their stalls and let the communities decide. In many cases this will be DSL. In other cases this will be wireless. If some other technology is proposed, then this allowed too. An educational element is important with this approach. People must be given the negative as well as positive aspects of what they choose and the full economical consequences of each choice.

E.g. with DSL (most peoples' default choice) they must be told that some people won't get services if they have a bad line and how much it actually costs to fix a bad line. With wireless it will be LOS issues, CPE costs and so on. Full info up front.

They should also be supported if they wish to do it themselves. This is how, imo, the process can be sped up. The key is not dictating technology or methods.

What I'm describing is an enhancement of the GBS. It ties in with investments like the MANs which should still go ahead. It doesn't prejudge technology and encourages competition. There is still a need, of course, for decent regulation and people will still need guaranteed basic FIA but it doesn't totally depend on ComReg, which I think is a wise thing.

damien

DonegalMan wrote:

Not to labour the point, can I just emphasise that you, deRebel and I are giving personal opinions here, there's been no discussion on this yet at committee level and there is no 'official' stance on it.

To add to what DeRebel said further back in the thread: This is a great discussion and some great thoughts and opinions have been offered here. I think it would be a terrible shame to leave it on a thread on the forum and just let it die there, like some other great ideas in the past.

We could probably take all opinions, distill them and come up with a clever and detailed plan on how to bring about Broadband For All.

The Broadband For All project is something we started work on and it's still chugging about in the background while we tackle the various other aspects of IrelandOffline. Instead of keeping it an internal project I'm going to open it up to the public here.

If ComReg can send out consultations and get peoples opinions, how about we do the same ? My suggestion is that everyone write up what their views are in getting Broadband For All and submit it to IrelandOffline via email or on a thread here and then a bunch of us meet up after reading the submissions and discuss them in order to direct them into one very strong plan. *

We'd need to restrict the meeting to a small amount of people as judging from the EGM a lot of people have a lot of opinions and we'd end up taking 48hours of talking before everyone has their piece. Therefore please don't get pissed off if we don't ask you to come along but you can still give opinions before and after.

So, of the people who've posted their opinions here so far, who is willing to write up their views on how Ireland achieves Broadband For All and then agrees to attend a meeting to discuss this ? I don't like using the words "Put up or shut up" but well... Even if you only have an idea to solve a small part of getting Broadband for All I think you should send it in.


* That is if we want to go down the route of making a plan. Some are of the view that we should just smack Noel and the DCMNR on the head IrelandOffline style and say "Get on with making a plan".

Blaster99

Isn't the real problem down the sticks how to get backhaul? If oscarBravo and his buddies had easy access to that I bet there would be a lot more of those types of operations. Backhaul can probably be provided from a number of sources so it won't be an Eircom monopoly situation.

I'm incidently not completely sold on why my tax euro should be spent giving people broadband access.

DonegalMan

SkepticOne wrote:

What should be done, again imho, is:
1. Identify areas that need broadband.
2. Tender for the area giving priority to whatever technology gets the job done.

I like this idea - it 'sorta' came up a few months ago when Damien and I met one of the ISP's who also claimed that 100% nationwide coverage could be achieved reasonably inexpensively (they actually said they could do it for less than the cost of the MAN's!).

As a pilot run, the DCMR should pick a county which is fairly difficult to service and low on the priority list for providers ( Donegal would be good one ), call for tenders to provide that county with 100% coverage and let the providers compete for it.

3. Bias in favour of competing infrastructure where possible. This encourages the incumbent to take more care of its network to avoid losing business - people get the best of both worlds.
4. Prioritise areas where there is community-led interest.

These two are less important to me, history should be put aside, it should be a balance of cost, speed of rollout and ongoing service.

5. Do it at a pace that does not give advantage to the entrenched monopolist if possible.

I fundamentally disagree with that one, we are so far behind that building in further delay would be disastrous - speed of rollout should actually be a major plus factor in selecting a provider.

DonegalMan

Blaster99 wrote:

I'm incidently not completely sold on why my tax euro should be spent giving people broadband access.

Convince me that Broadband is less important than roads or any other infrastructure.

Blaster99

We pay about twice as much in car related taxes than goes into road infrastructure, so whatever is spent on roads is already well paid for. Payment for roads is therefore subsidising other activies, with broadband it would be a straight subsidy. And besides, you/we don't have decent roads either so the broadband situation is clearly quite compatible with the general state of affairs.

Actually why not take some of the farming subsidies and put it into broadband instead. Effectively the people benefitting would be the people paying for it, give or take. That sounds fair to me. If broadband is such an important feature of rural Ireland, it shouldn't be difficult to make that case.

SkepticOne

DonegalMan wrote:

I like this idea - it 'sorta' came up a few months ago when Damien and I met one of the ISP's who also claimed that 100% nationwide coverage could be achieved reasonably inexpensively (they actually said they could do it for less than the cost of the MAN's!).

Not Esat by any chance?

DonegalMan wrote:

These two are less important to me, history should be put aside, it should be a balance of cost, speed of rollout and ongoing service.

There is a judgement to be made here. If it is purely on the basis of speed, then Eircom wins each time and the problems with monopoly and over dependence on regulation with its inherent problems arise.

DonegalMan wrote:

I fundamentally disagree with that one, we are so far behind that building in further delay would be disastrous - speed of rollout should actually be a major plus factor in selecting a provider.

Again there is a balance to be met. If the problems are due to the monopoly in the first place, then doing it in such a way that the monopolist wins every time is just postponing the same problems till a bit later. We get broadband but no improvement thereafter and the threat of degeneration. The priority is getting broadband out there, but where possible, competition should be encouraged.

One thing that would influence such a decision is the outcome of the recent USO consultation. We will be able to see the extent to which regulation can handle basic 28.8k access in a monopoly situation. If it can't handle that, then it can't handle broadband and all future methods of encouraging broadband should be heavily biased in favour of competing infrastrucures since that is the only way to ensure continuing investment in legacy wired infrastructure.

oscarBravo

Just getting back into this now, been away all day. Ironically, I've been away working with others on a strategy to get widespread broadband to all as quickly as possible. Even more ironically, I came home to find my wireless broadband out of action - because someone had dug up the phone line that carries the DSL backhaul! I think it's a measure of how well this community network has worked that I had to struggle to figure out how to get online through my ISDN line. Christ, it's slow!!

I'd like to start by apologising to Aidan and the rest of the committee for my remarks earlier; as Martin has said, they were uncalled for. Please take the fact that I reacted the way I did as a measure of how dismayed I am at the very suggestion that everything I have worked ceaselessly on for the last several months (not to mention the groundwork of the last several years) could be destroyed at a stroke.

It is an interesting discussion. If nothing else, it has made it clear to me that those not directly involved have no real idea what's currently happening with the GBS, and more importantly what will be happening over the coming weeks and months. That's largely down to those of us who are working on it. We've been too busy making it happen to talk about it.

I think Damian has offered an excellent forum for us to clarify where we're going, and how we hope to shake up the market dramatically in the very near future. Take it as read that we'll be participating in the Broadband For All project - it aptly describes our ethos - and I'll be happy to be involved in any meeting, if I can.

Blaster99, the backhaul problem is slowly going away. It remains the biggest obstacle, but it's no longer insurmountable. Watch this space.

DonegalMan

SkepticOne wrote:

Not Esat by any chance?

Nope

DonegalMan

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd like to start by apologising to Aidan and the rest of the committee for my remarks earlier; as Martin has said, they were uncalled for.

I understand your anger and frustration, I can still hardly believe that I'm arguing that giving money to Eircom should even be considered!

oscarBravo wrote:

If nothing else, it has made it clear to me that those not directly involved have no real idea what's currently happening with the GBS, and more importantly what will be happening over the coming weeks and months. That's largely down to those of us who are working on it. We've been too busy making it happen to talk about it.

I'd be delighted to discover that I've completely underestimate the impact of GBS, I look forward to you bringing us up to date when you're in a position to do so.

Martin

jwt

Ooh Ooh Ooh I know I know I know

pre christmas meeting in Dublin?

I think it was posted here actually


John

DonegalMan

Ssssssshhhhhhhh !

Moriarty

No apology needed oscarBravo, it was just a bit of robust debating . Intresting thread though, I'm looking forward to the resulting meeting.

damien

Paul, a gentleman as ever.

SkepticOne: An Irish Broadband company. I won't say anymore though because we respect their privacy.