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

UPC go to 200Mb/s; digital divide worse than ever.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Also another interesting point, Eircoms FTTC network will allow them to follow BT's example and do FTTH on Demand.

    Basically in the UK, if you are connected to a BT FTTC cab, you can opt to have FTTH installed.

    However the FTTH install costs £500 + a distance fee. So you end up paying the true cost of FTTH up front.

    I'd expect few customers would go for it, but business might jump at it.


  • Options
    #33
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »
    But if they did that, it would probably take them 5 years longer before they actually started on the rural areas.

    FTTH takes much longer to do as it is very labour intensive. If Eircom started with FTTH in urban areas, it would take them much, much longer to finish these urban areas before they started doing FTTC in rural areas.

    Plus if they did spend the 1.5 billion on the urban areas, it would be much more likely that they would just run out of money or go broke before they even started on the rural areas.

    This is predicated on the assumption that Eircom's continued survival is a good thing. The infrastructure wont disappear even if Eircom do.
    bk wrote: »
    Eircom going FTTC in urban areas first is actually makes it more likely that rural areas will get FTTC too and faster.
    Are you sure FTTC is a good solution for rural areas?


    For a 21st century national and universal communications infrastructure, 5 years and €2.5Bn is not a lot of time or money.


  • Options
    #34
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    clohamon wrote: »
    For a 21st century national and universal communications infrastructure, 5 years and €2.5Bn is not a lot of time or money.

    I think it is the only realistic solution.

    With both our government and Eircom almost broke, I think realistically no one is going to spend 2.5 billion for FTTH. Sorry I'm a realist and while I'd love to see us do FTTH, I just can't see it happening.

    Actually my biggest fear is that the government will actually go with LTE as the BB solution for rural areas!

    FTTC would be far preferable to crappy LTE.

    I look forward to see what the ESB do. I don't expect them to go anywhere near rural areas, but if they bring FTTH to even the 400,000 urban people not served by UPC, it would still be a good thing, it would shake up the market and perhaps spur UPC and Eircom into action and act as a template for future FTTH across the whole of Ireland.


  • Options
    #35
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Interesting quote:
    However, Telekom was clear to emphasize that they are not abandoning FTTH and in fact believe that 50 percent of the CAPEX used for the FTTC + Vectoring will be applicable to FTTH networks in the future with FTTH being the long-term target for the wireline network.

    http://broadbandtrends.com/blog1/2013/07/29/is-vdsl2-vectoring-destroying-the-ftth-business-case/


  • Options
    #36
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    ESB manage Electricity to all Rural areas now. Not much difference to deliver fibre, even on same poles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    bk wrote: »
    I think it is the only realistic solution.

    With both our government and Eircom almost broke, I think realistically no one is going to spend 2.5 billion for FTTH. Sorry I'm a realist and while I'd love to see us do FTTH, I just can't see it happening.

    Actually my biggest fear is that the government will actually go with LTE as the BB solution for rural areas!

    Many of those estimates, as far as I can see, are based around lots of digging and underground ducting, fibre can easily be "clipped" to poles, this is how a lot of the runs in the West are done now.

    So I'd estimate that the cost of a fibre deployment would be significantly less that 2.5 billion now.

    LTE would be the nightmare solution...


  • Options
    #38
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    bealtine wrote: »
    So I'd estimate that the cost of a fibre deployment would be significantly less that 2.5 billion now.

    I very much hope you are correct.

    That is why I see ESB doing fibre to even urban areas being so important. It will give them real world costs and experience which may eventually apply to rolling it out to rural areas.

    Watty the ESB do supply electricity to rural areas, but at a greater cost to the consumer then urban areas. Perhaps a similar system is needed to bring high speed bb to rural areas, allow a higher rate to be charged for rural areas, thus making it more feasible?


  • Options
    #39
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Bear in mind that it took ESB from 1930 to 1973 to build out the rural networks. Running fibre down every ESB wire would probably take at least a decade to complete.


  • Options
    #40
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Bear in mind that it took ESB from 1930 to 1973 to build out the rural networks. Running fibre down every ESB wire would probably take at least a decade to complete.

    Well yes....however I don't think the Rural Electrification Scheme started in earnest until the 50's, electrification stalled as there was a break for "the emergency" and kind of ended when the last offshore islands were connected which was about 10 years ago. The last mainland community connected was the Black Valley iirc. Nowadays the scheme is about upgrading the ancient lines and "fixing up" the brownouts and dropouts.

    My great granny was on the first power station in Ireland which was in Fleet St and supplied DC

    But essentially you are correct any fibre deployment would take a log time even with the cute fibre wrapping machines:)

    The story of Rural Electrification does echo today's necessary fibre deployment, the ideological arguments of the time are being played out again. This time round the Hayek economic view is in the ascendancy...

    http://www.ouririshheritage.org/page_id__73_path__0p4p.aspx

    Who/what is Hayek?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWZXAypjt1o


  • Options
    #41
    ColmH81
    Registered Users Posts: 365 ✭✭ColmH81


    croo wrote: »
    If UPC keep this up the government will soon be bragging that the *average* download speed is now 30mb even as many of us are still on stuck on dialup!

    Yeah.. This is all great if you're not rural... UPC stops 100m down the road and won't come any further up... And eircom are the same.. Absolutely suck donkey d#ck...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »
    I think it is the only realistic solution.

    With both our government and Eircom almost broke, I think realistically no one is going to spend 2.5 billion for FTTH. Sorry I'm a realist and while I'd love to see us do FTTH, I just can't see it happening.

    That's not realism its fatalism. Anyone can make a business case. You don't need governments at all if you are happy with a business case.

    A wide aspect cost benefit analysis of universal FTTH would be overwhelmingly positive. The prime beneficiary would be government itself. The cost savings in delivering government services would be enormous.

    It has been fourteen years since TE was privatised. We could have fibred up the entire country twice over in that time.

    The lasting effect of liberalising the market is that the telcos have got the government to think like they do. And the public in turn are being asked to swallow the same stuff by the government.
    bk wrote: »
    Actually my biggest fear is that the government will actually go with LTE as the BB solution for rural areas!

    FTTC would be far preferable to crappy LTE.

    What are you going to do about it!


  • Options
    #43
    smee again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 552 ✭✭✭smee again


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Bear in mind that it took ESB from 1930 to 1973 to build out the rural networks. Running fibre down every ESB wire would probably take at least a decade to complete.

    The quicker we start then, eh?


  • Options
    #44
    Nonoperational
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Nonoperational


    To be honest, getting reliable 10Mbit+ to everybody is far more important and significant that 100Mbit+... I have 12Mbit and 99% of the time it's perfect for what I need.


  • Options
    #45
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    clohamon wrote: »
    The cost savings in delivering government services would be enormous.

    I'm sorry, but this bit is bs. Exactly what government services require FTTH?

    The reality is almost all government services that are online (pay TV license, revenue website, citizens information, etc.) can easily be delivered over 10mb/s BB.

    The question is, if you live in a rural area and you currently get no BB or just 1 to 2 mb/s, would you rather wait 1 to 2 years to get 50mb/s+ or wait more then 10 years to get 500mb/s+

    Because the reality of FTTH in rural areas is that even if the money was available to do it (very doubtful) it would still take more then 10 years to actually do it due to how difficult it is to lay last mile cable.


  • Options
    #46
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    I think a good initial aim would be to have Eircom put a VDSL2 cab at the center of every village in rural Ireland. That would mean:

    - Everyone living in the village would get 50mb+
    - Everyone living within 1km of the village would get 18mb
    - Everyone living within 2km of the village would get 10mb
    - Everyone living within 3km of the village would get 7mb *
    - The village would now have fibre optic cable running to it, where previously non existed.
    - This fibre cable could be used to bring 100mb+ BB to the local school, community center and businesses in the village.
    - This fibre cable could also be used to feed LTE and fixed wireless antennas in the village, which could therefore feed high speed BB to the surrounding area at distances much greater then 3km.

    Getting fibre to every village in Ireland is half the battle of getting high speed BB to rural Ireland. Over time, you could then start doing FTTH from these VDSL2 cabs. Perhaps communities could even start digging trenches themselves and laying fibre cables from the village out to the surrounding homes.

    Perhaps if Eircom won't do it on their own, the government can part fund it, but with the requirement that the local communities have access to the fibre to build out their own FTTH network or fixed wireless network.

    * 7mb might not sound very exciting, but many really rural villages in Ireland have either no ADSL at all or just crappy 1 - 2mb. 7mb would be a big win for them. It would be good enough to make all the internet easily usable, music streaming, skype, SD video streaming, etc. They really only lose out on HD video streaming.


  • Options
    #47
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but this bit is bs. Exactly what government services require FTTH?
    FTTH in rural areas is primarily about reach not speed.
    bk wrote: »
    The reality is almost all government services that are online (pay TV license, revenue website, citizens information, etc.) can easily be delivered over 10mb/s BB.

    The usefulness of the network increases exponentially as you reach 100% coverage and adoption. That's the point at which you can start to dismantle the other more expensive channels of delivery. Every interaction across the entire range of government that involves members of the public meeting public servants and exchanging bits of paper, talking, and making payments, is replaceable. Thats just the start, but it can only happen if you can guarantee that everyone is connected on an equal footing.
    bk wrote: »
    The question is, if you live in a rural area and you currently get no BB or just 1 to 2 mb/s, would you rather wait 1 to 2 years to get 50mb/s+ or wait more then 10 years to get 500mb/s+

    If that's a promise, then unequivocally yes.


  • Options
    #48
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    clohamon wrote: »
    The usefulness of the network increases exponentially as you reach 100% coverage and adoption. That's the point at which you can start to dismantle the other more expensive channels of delivery. Every interaction across the entire range of government that involves members of the public meeting public servants and exchanging bits of paper, talking, and making payments, is replaceable. Thats just the start, but it can only happen if you can guarantee that everyone is connected on an equal footing.

    I'm hearing a lot of blah blah jargon here, but no actual examples of any government services that require FTTH?
    clohamon wrote: »
    If that's a promise, then unequivocally yes.

    Then that is just nuts!!

    Even in the cities, there is almost no applications that actually require 50mb+ speeds.

    People in rural areas need high speed BB today, not super high speed BB in 10 years time.


  • Options
    #49
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    bk wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but this bit is bs. Exactly what government services require FTTH?

    The reality is almost all government services that are online (pay TV license, revenue website, citizens information, etc.) can easily be delivered over 10mb/s BB.

    Perhaps/perhaps not, at this time many Dept of Agriculture/EU services are online, like the cattle tracking thing (I forget all the details) but a lot of farmers are by definition rural so can't avail of the services. Granted any form of broadband would probably do these farmers at this time but the EU has big plans (unrealistic perhaps but plans all the same) for greater monitoring of livestock this will need more bandwidth in the future, will VDSL cover it...hard to know especially in the "rural fringe" where speeds will be pretty basic.

    In my opinion we should be planning for FTTH now...


  • Options
    #50
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »
    Then that is just nuts!!
    You made an offer, I took you up on it. Who's nuts?
    bk wrote: »
    Even in the cities, there is almost no applications that actually require 50mb+ speeds.
    Again, rural FTTH is primarily about reach not outright speed.

    I think the difference between us is you're advising a series of incremental steps where digital divide is a given and a constant, based on an limited view of the medium term. I'm proposing to deal with the problem conclusively based on the potential of the long term.


  • Options
    #51
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    bk wrote: »
    I think a good initial aim would be to have Eircom put a VDSL2 cab at the center of every village in rural Ireland. That would mean:

    - Everyone living in the village would get 50mb+
    - Everyone living within 1km of the village would get 18mb
    - Everyone living within 2km of the village would get 10mb
    - Everyone living within 3km of the village would get 7mb *
    - The village would now have fibre optic cable running to it, where previously non existed.
    - This fibre cable could be used to bring 100mb+ BB to the local school, community center and businesses in the village.
    - This fibre cable could also be used to feed LTE and fixed wireless antennas in the village, which could therefore feed high speed BB to the surrounding area at distances much greater then 3km.

    Getting fibre to every village in Ireland is half the battle of getting high speed BB to rural Ireland. Over time, you could then start doing FTTH from these VDSL2 cabs. Perhaps communities could even start digging trenches themselves and laying fibre cables from the village out to the surrounding homes.
    ...

    The thing is that many, many small towns and villages already have fibre connected eircom exchanges (small remote concentrators). The fibre is probably using very old protocols designed for phone and ISDN era stuff. Moving them to all-IP would solve that.

    There are also a few towns not on efibre that have MAN networks installed that were never used. An example would be Manorhamilton in north Leitrim.

    There is a lot of infrastructure already in place and totally under utilised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    There is a lot of infrastructure already in place and totally under utilised.

    Exactly and sticking a VDSL cab on the end of this fibre would be a quick and sensible way of bringing higher speed broadband to the people living in and near these villages almost overnight.

    However there are also still many villages that have no fibre, so fibre connecting them would be a good start.
    clohamon wrote:
    I think the difference between us is you're advising a series of incremental steps where digital divide is a given and a constant, based on an limited view of the medium term. I'm proposing to deal with the problem conclusively based on the potential of the long term.

    Yes I agree I'm suggesting an incremental approach. However I disagree that my approach assumes the digital divide is a given.

    Actually the opposite, I believe your approach would mean that the digital divide would continue to very much exist for the next 10 years as your FTTH network is slowly (and it would be slow) built out.

    Under my approach at least many people in rural areas would be getting VDSL speeds, the same as does in the city, pretty much removing the digital divide over night for many, if yes, not all.

    Again, it makes sense to fibre connect every village in Ireland and stick a VDSL cab at the end of the fibre. From there you can continue to build out a FTTH network, which would roughly take the same amount of time as under your plan of going direct to FTTH.

    The difference is that you want to force people to continue to suffer from very slow or no BB speeds for the next 10 years while your ivory tower gold plated network is built.

    While I'm suggesting lets give those people pretty good broadband today, while they wait for the fibre network to be built out.


  • Options
    #53
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The problem is that we need some kind of state backed funding to make it happen in rural areas. Eircom is a small, private telco with rather limited resources and has just come out of a big debt write down.

    What they're doing at the moment is sensible. FTTC until they need to go to FTTH

    Also despite all the annoyance, the rollout has been very rapid.

    To get to full coverage the state is going to have to become involved.


  • Options
    #54
    funnyname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭funnyname


    Yup state involvement is required but at the moment that looks like it's going to be mobile - LTE - rather than - FWA- , this will be be to the detriment of the rural population in that it still not be proper BB and only of benefit to the mobile phone companies who can say that even though their remit was to supply coverage to 70% of the country they can say it actually higher and again the Govt can say their policy of only putting a 70% coverage clause in the 4G licence tender actually worked to the advantage of everyone in the country.


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The problem is that we need some kind of state backed funding to make it happen in rural areas. Eircom is a small, private telco with rather limited resources and has just come out of a big debt write down.

    What they're doing at the moment is sensible. FTTC until they need to go to FTTH

    Also despite all the annoyance, the rollout has been very rapid.

    To get to full coverage the state is going to have to become involved.


  • Options
    #55
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    LTE would work, but you'd have to drastically increase the spectrum allocations in the areas that it's going to be used as primary broadband.

    There's nothing wrong with LTE as a protocol for providing fixed broadband, but in the current configuration without enough bandwidth and without sufficient backhaul it wouldn't work.


  • Options
    #56
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »

    Yes I agree I'm suggesting an incremental approach. However I disagree that my approach assumes the digital divide is a given.

    Actually the opposite, I believe your approach would mean that the digital divide would continue to very much exist for the next 10 years as your FTTH network is slowly (and it would be slow) built out.

    .....and then it would be finished.
    bk wrote: »
    Under my approach at least many people in rural areas would be getting VDSL speeds, the same as does in the city, pretty much removing the digital divide over night for many, if yes, not all.

    This approach does not deal with "all'......."over night". I think you know that.
    bk wrote: »
    Again, it makes sense to fibre connect every village in Ireland and stick a VDSL cab at the end of the fibre. From there you can continue to build out a FTTH network, which would roughly take the same amount of time as under your plan of going direct to FTTH.

    It only makes commercial sense. Where 100% coverage is not the primary objective.

    Typically what happens is that the easy bits are done first then there is a reevaluation of the remainder, the unit cost of which is deemed unsupportable, and the project, which might have had high ideals at first, is then shelved or scaled back when only partially complete. BDUK is a good example of commercial cherry picking leading to a hopeless mess. Alternatively the market intervenes, either through the needs of shareholders/bondholders, or the business cycle.

    I don't blame commercial entities for acting in their own best interests. In a sense it is a reliable element in the equation. But there are pragmatic issues to be faced when relying on the market to deliver public utilities.
    bk wrote: »
    The difference is that you want to force people to continue to suffer from very slow or no BB speeds for the next 10 years while your ivory tower gold plated network is built.

    Well there's two straw men in there, but after 14 years of market failure, regulatory failure and 3 toy broadband schemes (the NBP will be the fourth), I've seen enough. Remember the market led incremental approach is what we have been doing so far and the premise of this thread is that digital divide is getting worse not better.
    bk wrote: »
    While I'm suggesting lets give those people pretty good broadband today, while they wait for the fibre network to be built out.

    Give or take, that is the definition of digital divide.


  • Options
    #57
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    clohamon wrote: »
    It used to be that urban services were only 50 times better than rural, now they're 100 times better.

    What do you expect?


  • Options
    #58
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    clohamon, simple question, where are you going to get the 2.5 billion to do FTTH?

    The reality is that neither Eircom nor the Government will invest 2.5 billion in FTTH, it just isn't going to happen.

    We all wish it would happen, but it won't.

    My fear is that we will actually end up with a crappy LTE solution rather then a high quality FTTC + fixed wireless solution. The truth is FTTH for rural areas doesn't even come into the equation.

    BTW We have gone way off topic now, perhaps a mod could separate out the discussion to a new thread.

    Coming back to the topic at hand, it is great news that UPC are rolling out 200mb/s BB and I don't think it was a bad decision for Eircom to choose FTTC versus FTTH.


  • Options
    #59
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »
    clohamon, simple question, where are you going to get the 2.5 billion to do FTTH?

    Working on it.


  • Options
    #60
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    bk wrote: »

    BTW We have gone way off topic now, perhaps a mod could separate out the discussion to a new thread.

    Not at all (well slightly):)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    We should setup a consultancy service! I'm seeing much better ideas on this thread than many that are coming from official sources!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement