Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

So there is no demand for Very high speeds?

Comments

  • #2
    bealtine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    crawler wrote: »
    Good article today in the Indo.

    It shows how dramatically usage is changing on the Internet and how we need to move away from legacy copper to fibre over time

    http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/streaming-services-push-irish-internet-use-up-by-75pc-30080200.html

    LTE and fibre will kill copper.....

    Not sure about the promises of LTE but for sure fibre is the way forward...


  • #3
    crawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    bealtine wrote: »
    Not sure about the promises of LTE but for sure fibre is the way forward...

    LTE will do the high speed mobility and Fibre the heavy lifting - they compliment each other but are not substitutes.

    For any radio technology it depends on the availability of spectrum, the amount of spectrum and the frequency of the spectrum. Spectral efficiancy (Bits per Hertz) is increasing all the time and a move to an "all IP core" (VoLTE for example) is well advanced everywhere so technology will take care of that.

    In short I agree with you but am a bit more optimistic on an LTE & Fibre world with no legacy copper :)


  • #4
    bealtine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    crawler wrote: »
    LTE will do the high speed mobility and Fibre the heavy lifting - they compliment each other but are not substitutes.

    For any radio technology it depends on the availability of spectrum, the amount of spectrum and the frequency of the spectrum. Spectral efficiancy (Bits per Hertz) is increasing all the time and a move to an "all IP core" (VoLTE for example) is well advanced everywhere so technology will take care of that.

    In short I agree with you but am a bit more optimistic on an LTE & Fibre world with no legacy copper :)


    Fibre,Fibre,fibre is the future for LTE too...

    Yes the pairing of the technologies will be good but every LTE mast will have to be fibred up though, I don't believe that is in the current plans though.

    The amazing expanding spectral efficiency thing I'm not so sure about that:)
    I suspect 5G (or perhaps 6g) will be the limit (Shannon blah blah however that's been said before). I guess that's a glass half full or half empty argument.


  • #5
    crawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    bealtine wrote: »
    Fibre,Fibre,fibre is the future for LTE too...

    Yes the pairing of the technologies will be good but every LTE mast will have to be fibred up though, I don't believe that is in the current plans though.

    The amazing expanding spectral efficiency thing I'm not so sure about that:)
    I suspect 5G (or perhaps 6g) will be the limit (Shannon blah blah however that's been said before). I guess that's a glass half full or half empty argument.

    We are in violent agreement :)


  • #6
    Gonzo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gonzo


    first of all instead of constantly upping the speeds of fibre to the lucky people who can get it, they should be focusing on providing most/if not all of the country with at least 24meg broadband as the digital divide is getting more extreme than ever.

    There are still vast areas of the country both rural and semi-rural with ancient dsl speeds less than 8meg, some places still don't have broadband. They also need to fix urban areas such as central Dublin where there is no fibre and Eircom's efibre is patchy at best where it is only offered to a small urban area in each exchange district, even in those urban areas if your home is not connected to a cabinet then theres still no fibre for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    OneEightSeven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven


    Gonzo wrote: »
    first of all instead of constantly upping the speeds of fibre to the lucky people who can get it, they should be focusing on providing most/if not all of the country with at least 24meg broadband as the digital divide is getting more extreme than ever.

    There are still vast areas of the country both rural and semi-rural with ancient dsl speeds less than 8meg, some places still don't have broadband. They also need to fix urban areas such as central Dublin where there is no fibre and Eircom's efibre is patchy at best where it is only offered to a small urban area in each exchange district, even in those urban areas if your home is not connected to a cabinet then theres still no fibre for you.

    That's all fine and dandy for the rural folks, but from a financial standpoint, it's bad economics. It's cheaper to fibre-up urban areas than rural areas and there's more money to be made in urban areas.

    Eircom have employees to pay and you can pay them when your business is operating at a loss.

    If you want fast broadband, move to a town. If you can't move, you'll have to be patient.

    I've been waiting for faster upload speeds since 2007 and in about 2 or 3 months, my wait should be over.


  • #8
    crawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    I agree with everything said PLUS we also need to compete on an international stage...

    For example

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/11/indonesia_plans_10_gbps_broadband_sprint/


  • #9
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    OneEightSeven wrote: »
    That's all fine and dandy for the rural folks, but from a financial standpoint, it's bad economics. It's cheaper to fibre-up urban areas than rural areas and there's more money to be made in urban areas.

    Eircom have employees to pay and you can pay them when your business is operating at a loss.

    If you want fast broadband, move to a town. If you can't move, you'll have to be patient.

    I've been waiting for faster upload speeds since 2007 and in about 2 or 3 months, my wait should be over.

    That why economists don't argue purely from a financial standpoint. It is also why countries are not run (and should not be) as profit making ventures. If we (by that I mean the government) planned only by minimising expenses then we would end up with a society where almost everyone lives in Dublin. Maybe some people would view that as a ideal situation but many do not.


  • #10
    OneEightSeven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven


    crawler wrote: »
    I agree with everything said PLUS we also need to compete on an international stage...

    For example

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/11/indonesia_plans_10_gbps_broadband_sprint/

    They have a higher population density than us but, interestingly, they have a lower population density then Britain.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density


  • #11
    OneEightSeven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,356 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven


    equivariant wrote: »
    That why economists don't argue purely from a financial standpoint. It is also why countries are not run (and should not be) as profit making ventures. If we (by that I mean the government) planned only by minimising expenses then we would end up with a society where almost everyone lives in Dublin. Maybe some people would view that as a ideal situation but many do not.

    I apologize if my terminology is off but the point I'm trying to convey here is that there is no return on investment for rural areas. Irish people like living in the countryside, I would like live in the countryside, but would you open up a restaurant in rural Donegal? No because you won't have many customers.

    Just imagine all staff wages and electricity bills you'd have. There's just no money to be made in rural areas.

    The government shouldn't have to subsidize it either as Bk explains here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057153058


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Gonzo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gonzo


    OneEightSeven wrote: »
    I apologize if my terminology is off but the point I'm trying to convey here is that there is no return on investment for rural areas. Irish people like living in the countryside, I would like live in the countryside, but would you open up a restaurant in rural Donegal? No because you won't have many customers.

    Just imagine all staff wages and electricity bills you'd have. There's just no money to be made in rural areas.

    The government shouldn't have to subsidize it either as Bk explains here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057153058

    I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison, I totally get opening up a restaurant in the middle of a mountain or rural donegal may not be great from an economical business decision, but reliable broadband is quickly becoming a service like television, electricity and running water, everyone should have a right to it, what happens in a few years time when most transactions/services will only be applied online. Will it get to the stage where most people living outside a town will have to drive a few miles so they can use the internet instead of waiting 20 minutes for a page to load on their phone or 1meg broadband?

    I understand that speeds of 100meg+ are not really possible everywhere but at least try and bring those who will never get super fast broadband something half decent, minimum 20-24megs.


  • #13
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,872 ✭✭✭✭briany


    One of that article's opening statements is that the Internet is 25 years old. I know that he means the Web but the Internet itself is quite a bit older.

    Netflix is supposed to scale well on middling connections. If the connection speed doesn't create any problems for you, you're less likely to demand progress toward a better one.


  • #14
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,010 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Gonzo wrote: »
    I understand that speeds of 100meg+ are not really possible everywhere but at least try and bring those who will never get super fast broadband something half decent, minimum 20-24megs.

    LTE or equivalent wireless tech should be able to accommodate low density areas far better then direct cabling. But we should probably address the serious issue of once off housing everywhere in this country first.


  • #15
    jmcc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,530 ✭✭✭jmcc


    Looked good until this "On the eve of the internet's 25th birthday". It looked very much like a recycled press release (possibly from INEX) with the odd bit of commentary.

    Regards...jmcc


  • #16
    Morf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,822 ✭✭✭Morf


    Cuddlesworth wrote: »
    LTE or equivalent wireless tech should be able to accommodate low density areas far better then direct cabling. But we should probably address the serious issue of once off housing everywhere in this country first.

    It won't be discouraged though and this issue will come up over and over. Cake and eat it is not a well-recognised concept in this instance.

    2014 version of Peg would be about the constant struggle with youtube/netflix buffering.


  • #17
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,374 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Gonzo wrote: »
    I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison, I totally get opening up a restaurant in the middle of a mountain or rural donegal may not be great from an economical business decision, but reliable broadband is quickly becoming a service like television, electricity and running water, everyone should have a right to it, what happens in a few years time when most transactions/services will only be applied online. Will it get to the stage where most people living outside a town will have to drive a few miles so they can use the internet instead of waiting 20 minutes for a page to load on their phone or 1meg broadband?

    I understand that speeds of 100meg+ are not really possible everywhere but at least try and bring those who will never get super fast broadband something half decent, minimum 20-24megs.

    Mains water is not generally available in rural areas, hence local water schemes. As recently as 1997 there was a TD elected in Donegal on a platform to retain local TV deflectors. The Rural Electrification scheme took over 30 years to complete and I remember the electricty coming to the localilty where I grew up. Getting a landline phone used to be a major achievement for some people in the countryside in the not too distant past.

    Except for TV you could say the urban rual divide is still mostly there. Higher speed internet will gradually get there but there is no easy, quick or cheap solution. 1 Meg broadband was top of the range even in towns when I started and it cost more than I pay now for 50 Meg fibre.


  • #18
    BeerWolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,122 ✭✭✭BeerWolf


    Everything is streamed online nowadays... software clients are huge in size [20+GB], and what not - and mobile providers, for those unfortunate to live in areas without fixed lines, are stuck with stupidly low 10-60GB download caps...

    Great times.

    Wish these providers would take their heads out of their ass, and provide an actual usable service, beyond reading the news online, for people in rural areas and raise the god damn cap to 150GB at least so they could benefit of today's current trend, that is to say that everything is being STREAMED now...


  • #19
    bealtine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    Everything is streamed online nowadays... software clients are huge in size [20+GB], and what not - and mobile providers, for those unfortunate to live in areas without fixed lines, are stuck with stupidly low 10-60GB download caps...

    Great times.

    Wish these providers would take their heads out of their ass, and provide an actual usable service, beyond reading the news online, for people in rural areas and raise the god damn cap to 150GB at least so they could benefit of today's current trend, that is to say that everything is being STREAMED now...

    Well 3G networks were not built with support for fixed clients or as a replacement for fixed line broadband. You wouldn't use a mobility scooter to drive on the motorway but then you wouldn't take a car into a supermarket:)

    So the "capacity" simply isn't there both in the backhaul and the over the air interfaces, the only way those networks have of controlling contention is to drop connections or other throttling tactics which is one of the main reasons that the caps are so miserly.

    3G should never have been sold as a "solution" to rural broadband. 4G is not as bad but suffers from similar issues (less so in a well designed backhaul)

    Ugh me defending mobile providers...there must be 3 moons in the sky just thought it was important to point out why the caps exist:)


  • #20
    crawler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    bealtine wrote: »
    Well 3G networks were not built with support for fixed clients or as a replacement for fixed line broadband. You wouldn't use a mobility scooter to drive on the motorway but then you wouldn't take a car into a supermarket:)

    So the "capacity" simply isn't there both in the backhaul and the over the air interfaces, the only way those networks have of controlling contention is to drop connections or other throttling tactics which is one of the main reasons that the caps are so miserly.

    3G should never have been sold as a "solution" to rural broadband. 4G is not as bad but suffers from similar issues (less so in a well designed backhaul)

    Ugh me defending mobile providers...there must be 3 moons in the sky just thought it was important to point out why the caps exist:)

    To be fair - you are more defending the laws of physics....no matter how fast any radio network can go spectrum & spectral efficiency will impact volume. That is why 3G/4G and Fibre are complimentary to each other not substitutional.


Advertisement