Rural Broadband - National Broadband Plan

Lots of fantastic contributions here in this thread. Finally a decent conversation about rural broadband and not just pie in the sky stuff.

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I think another important point is the price that these services will cost. People in towns/cities get these awesome packages, maybe phone and 100Mb broadband for €30-40/month, albeit understandably, particularly when there's plenty of competition. I'm currently paying €30/month for a 3Mb connection, and will probably upgrade to 5Mb when it becomes available, which will cost €40/month. Realistically, these prices would not want to go any higher than this as the speeds further increase.

A good point worth discussing.

The reality is that quality rural broadband costs a lot more to do then urban bb. Up to now, because Eircom is forced to charge the same for bb in urban areas as rural areas, it has resulted in them making the least effort possible in rural areas, thus resulting in pretty awful quality of bb in rural areas.

I think rural Ireland is going to have to get use to the idea that if they want quality broadband they are going to have to pay for it themselves. In much the same way as they pay more for ESB.

I don't think it is reasonable for people in urban areas to be expected to subsidise rural broadband. They just won't stand for it and Eircom can't compete in this way (remember UPC only operates in urban areas, so they aren't burdened with subisiding rural broadband and can thus undercut Eircom).

So I think the people of rural Ireland will have to ask themselves, are they willing to continue with crappy, slow but cheap best effort broadband or pay more for quality broadband.

Gonzo wrote: »

This is exactly what is needed up to 2/3km beyond the town boundary. This pole mounted vdsl solution would be perfect for my area, there are 60 houses or so in my area (most of them are side by side on both sides of 3 roads) and some of the houses are only 800 meters from the nearest cab but none of them are connected to the cab. A VSDL pole cab could easily be centrally located feeding all the houses. There are about 3 other locations with similar small distances away from Dunshaughlin each with about 40-70 houses, none of them have fibre. All in all there must be at least 200-300 houses just marginally beyond the town boundary around the town. 2 or 3 pole mounted VDSL installs would give everyone within 4km of the center of Dunshaughlin fibre broadband, where currently it's limited to some people within 600 meters radius of the town centre.

I agree with you and I hope Eircom will do exactly this.

But just to explain why they haven't yet. It will cost significantly more to reroute the lines from the exchanges to these closer mini cabs. That will be an awful lot of very expensive manual labour. Much more expensive then the current VDSL rollouts, so they are currently focusing on doing the much cheaper low hanging fruit.

BT in the UK is already doing this with something called Fibre To The Remote Node (FTTRN), however so far it doesn't seem to be working out so well and doesn't seem to be rolled out widely. Hopefully it will be easier to do here in Ireland:

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/north-yorkshire-moot-bt-trial-fibre-remote-node-broadband-tech.html

nilhg wrote: »

My local exchange, Rathangan, Co. Kildare went live for VDSL last month and happily I'm one of the lucky one's who got connected, currently getting 40/8mb from the nearest cab to me. I really do seem to be one of the lucky ones though because I'm 3.5km out in the countryside from the village and my cab is 2.7km or so out, no matter what way I count I can only get to about 30 houses within 2km of the cab. In the village as a whole the Eircom wholesale site reports that VDSL is available to 730 premises, the thing is they have 9 cabs installed to provide that service. There are plenty of comparable town/villages scheduled on the map to have VDSL rolled out, TBH I can't see any of them having 400 premises per cab so maybe the economics for Eircom aren't quite as bad as your figures predict.

Yes, there certainly seem to be exception to the rule, but I'm not sure why.

- Maybe they are trialling these villages to find out the real economics of it.
- Perhaps there is political pressure to do these particular villages, wouldn't surprise me at all, pretty much normal practise in Ireland.

It would be great news if I'm wrong, it would be fantastic if the economics worked out that Eircom could run fibre to every rural village and put a VDSL cab in the village. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

nilhg wrote: »

On the €10k per house for FTTH via the ESB poles network I've seen nothing official (could have missed it) from Irish sources to confirm this, there have been some quotes from sources abroad but local conditions and practices vary so much it must be hard to apply these to Ireland, hopefully some firm figures will come once the rollout starts in Ireland.

There are no figures in Ireland, as no company has done it yet. Which should be indicative in its own right. If rural FTTH is so cheap, then why hasn't any company done it yet or even announced plans for it?

What conspiracy theory do you have for companies denying cheap FTTH to rural Ireland?

I think the reality is that the accountants and network planners at Eircom, ESB, Vodafone, UPC know perfectly well what the real cost would be.

While we have no figures for Ireland, multiple times I've given real figures supported by articles for UK and Europe.

The FTTH Council (remember a group made up of companies who sell FTTH gear, so very likely to low ball the figure) claim it costs €10,000 per home in Europe.

BT in the UK it is very transparent, anyone in the UK can order FTTH, but need to pay the full costs of it, which are:

- Monthly rental £99
- Once off connection charge £750
- Distance charge for the fibre run from home to nearest cab, £3.50 per meter

So 2km would cost €10,000 and a 4km run €18,000 plus €125 per month for service.

3.50 × 2000 = 7,000
7,000 + 750 gbp in euro = €9,740.18
3.50 × 4000 = 14,000
14,000 + 750 gbp in euro = €18,537.76


http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/01/bt-openreach-hike-price-already-expensive-330mbps-fibre-demand.html

I don't know why people seem to think it is going to be some much cheaper in Ireland? Generally things like infrastructure (roads, Metros, etc.) tend to be more expensive in Ireland then mainland Europe not cheaper!

Ironically, some people seem to say it will be cheaper, but provide no evidence, nor any articles to proof it so, while I provide an abundance of evidence for my position. Wishful thinking I think.

nilhg wrote: »

Ovbiously getting fibre into the villages and towns is essential but I was struck today while driving from home down to North Wexford and back home again via Carnew, Shillelagh, Tullow, Castledermot, Athy and Kildare town that none of them are (to my mind any way) are ideal sites for wireless base stations, almost all of them are in hollows in river valleys, located in rolling countryside. Some of the wind turbine sites in North Wexford/South Wicklow mightn't be bad though.

Ah, but the fibre to the town can feed a point to point microwave link in the town to a tower on a hill overlooking the town, thus supplying a high quality broadband to a lot of the surrounding areas.

You can then bounce a point to point microwave link from tower to tower on neighbouring hills.

But there are two key issues.

1) Getting at least one of the towers connected to a high quality fibre backhaul link for an affordable cost.

2) Making sure these companies have access to affordable licensed spectrum.

same ol sh1te wrote: »

This is why we need a long term plan, much longer than the 4 years any party is in power and we need it to be public so the mobile telecoms industry don't dress their technologies up to be better than they are and we get more of the same

I agree completely, that is why we need a plan with short, medium and long term goals.

The long term plan (20 to 40 years) needs to be FTTH to every home. The short to medium term plan needs to be getting decent, dependable, low latency, unlimited minimum 25 mb/s BB to every home.

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Yes, because WISPs are starved of funding and have been ripped apart by the NBS with it's false promise of bringing broadband to everyone. Plenty of FWA customers disconnected working broadband connections to move to NBS. It costs money to go on or build masts. It also costs a huge annual fee to use licensed links, over €1000 per yr, where in the UK it's a 50 quid paper fee. Comreg are holding WISPs back by milking them for all they're worth, Comreg see it as a cash cow.

It's a perfect stop gap until we have fibre, 20-30mbit each way is easily possible if done right

Here, here , this is exactly what needs to be done IMO.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You reckon there is a difference between rural dwellers' and urban dwellers' needs, or that 25/5 is sufficient for 'the vast majority' regardless where located?

No, to be honest, 25/5 is fast enough for everyone.

I went from 16/0.5 ADSL2+ to 120/10 UPC. And to be honest I saw almost no difference. Before I was able to do Netflix HD and Youtube HD just fine and going to UPC has made no difference to these.

Sure very big downloads from well provisioned sites (Microsoft, Apple) come down quicker by UPC, but I've always done such updates and downloads offline anyway, so there is little real world difference.

The one area I've seen a very big welcome difference, that made UPC worth it was the 20 times jump in upload speed. A great help with uploading to cloud services, facebook, etc.

So yes, IMO 25/5 is good enough for most people and anything more is a luxury.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is that per person? ....... so a household of 5 would need 100+Mb/s ?

The average Irish home has 2.5 people living in it. 25/5 would be enough for that size home. 25mb/s would be fast enough for 3 HD streams (about 8mb/s).

5 people in a house is an exception. 25/5 might be a little strained with 5 high end users, but still should be just enough.

marno21 wrote: »

All of it is bullshít.

Thanks for the insightful input! :rolleyes:

Villain wrote: »

I didn't mean posters here were but I haven't seen any ducting in the past years that wasn't done along the road network.

The B4RN project has shown many interesting concepts. Bringing fibre to FWA high sites could certainly avail of such cheaper digs.

Well all the fibre laid until now has almost exclusively been in urban areas, where given the population density it makes sense to do proper ducting.

Once we get into the more rural installs we will see more unique solutions being used. However I think the cheapest and easiest way will be to use the ESB poles.

But people shouldn't underestimate the cost of this either. Laying fibre is expensive.

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I agree with that, but at the same time I believe that what you're paying should be half way proportional to the speed you're getting. I don't expect the speed/cost ratio to be the same as an urban connection, but I would not expect to pay more than €40/month for an 8Mb connection. If, on the other hand, I wanted a 24Mb connection, I would happily pay €60-70/month for it, and as time moves on and that 24Mb connection increases to a 30Mb connection, I would not expect to pay more for it than the 24Mb connection.

Great in theory, but unfortunately the speeds you get have little relation to the cost of delivering the service for broadband.

For instance, it costs much less to deliver 100mb/s in a high density area, then it does to deliver 1mb/s in a low density area.

I know it is counter intuitive compared to most things in life, but with broadband, from an ISPs perspective there is very little cost difference between 1mb/s and 100mb/s on their national and international backhaul. They would happily give everyone 100mb/s if they could. The limitation is that the speed drops the further you are from the fibre. It is simple physics.

As least until we get to FTTH, broadband speeds will always be related to distance and population density.

Ironically when we do finally get to 100% FTTH, I expect we will still have a digital divide, with high population density areas getting faster FTTH!

Villain wrote: »

ESB poles are certainly an option but I can't see that happening for a long time.

It will start happening start of next year, when the ESB will start rolling out their new FTTH network. Though obviously in high population density areas, they will be using their medium power distribution network across the Irish countryside to get the fibre to each of these towns.

But you are correct, rural FTTH is a very long way off.

Villain wrote: »

Not sure that is the case tbh both Eircom and UPC have seen congestion issues recently on their transit, if they were to start delivering those speeds to hundreds of thousands of customer they would need a lot more capacity on their transit.

Well UPC already has 350,000 customers getting up to 200mb/s and Eircom has more then 100,000 customers getting up to 100mb/s on top of the other 1 million customers getting up to 24mb/s.

There were some problems with congestion on Eircoms network a few months ago when an undersea international fibre link was damaged, but that has been resolved now and both Eircom and UPC have put in place massive amounts of international backhaul recently.

Sure there maybe temporary times of congestion and bottleknecks here and there, but on the whole, both companies seem to be very much on the ball in ensuring sufficient amounts of backhaul.

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I know all that, which is why I said "I don't expect the speed/cost ratio to be the same as an urban connection" I'm talking specifically about fixed-wireless here in rural areas.

Ahh... I missed that bit! Yes, actually, with access to fibre backhaul and cheaper licensed spectrum and thus quality gear, I'd expect that speeds of minimum 30mb/s should be easily possible with FWA.

I'd expect some increased cost for quality FWA, perhaps in the region of €60 per month versus €40 for urban broadband. But not ridiculously more expensive and at least a quality, reliable, unlimited connection.

So the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources had called for input from the industry into the National Broadband Plan and have published a massive 500 page document with all the submissions here:

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/D2786222-4075-428C-83FE-95967A370E9B/0/SubmissionstoCFIforpublication22ndOctober2014FINAL.pdf

I've just spent the past few hours reading through the submissions and they are incredibly interesting. While I'll admit I've skimmed over some of it, here is my summary of the submissions.

Eircom

---

By far the most interesting, detailed and surprising submission.

The reason it is so surprising? Because it seems that Eircom thinks the the only technology that is really suitable for the NBP and rural broadband is FTTH !!!

That is shocking, I had expected them to push FTTC/VDSL and LTE, but no, they pretty much blew them out of the water. Eircom says:

While eircom agrees with the classification of NGA Broadband networks from a technical capability perspective, we are of the view that a predominantly FTTH solution will offer the most cost effective NBIP solution, with limited roles for FTTN and for LTE Advanced. eircom has conducted significant analysis of rural areas on Ireland and concluded that Ireland is quite different in terms of population density compared to most other European countries. eircom recommends that FTTH is the most appropriate NGA Broadband network for the NBIP.

They say that they are planning to run fibre overhead from pole to pole in rural Ireland and that they are currently trialling the technology in Mayo. They plan on using GPON, the same as the ESB, but also plan to upgrade in future to NG-PON2 in future too.

In particular LTE, they grudgingly say the LTE could be used, but given the geographic dispersal, that it would be incredibly expensive to do widespread, quality LTE with enough base stations.

They really do go into incredible detail on how much investigation they have done into LTE (for instance approaching three major LTE suppliers and running workshops with them) and proving that it would just be too expensive to do it right and not much cheaper then just doing FTTH, which would deliver much better performance and a longer upgrade plan.

This input pretty much holes all the other companies submissions (e.g. Three) who might be thinking of using LTE.

They say micowave point to point links might be suitable for the most remote people, for instance on remote islands or mountain tops. But they recommend FTTH for the majority of rural premises.

They also say they have trialed VDSL mini-DSLAMS but they have found that they aren't really suitable as you would need too many of them, which are expensive active network elements. Thus they are almost as costly as FTTH with no future upgrade path, unlike FTTH.

They also mention G.Fast and FTTDp and that yes they are experimenting with it, but they say it is really only for urban areas, as part of a FTTH rollout and only to be used when a direct FTTH install is necessary and you can't push the fiber through an obstructed duct.

Overall, it seems Eircom believes that FTTH truely is the future of broadband in all for all!! That is brings significant network operational and maintenance cost reductions in the long term. Here is the money quote for me:

As the technology has matured and as operational experience and understanding of the deployment issues advances, lower equipment costs over recent years have made an FTTH solution increasingly more cost-effective to deploy.
it has significant advantages in the ribbon development in rural Ireland it is the only technology that is sufficiently future-proofed

However it isn't all roses, the devil is in the detail. While Eircom make it clear that FTTH is the future, they are doing their best to limit the scope of government involvement and subsidies.

For instance they want to make sure that 30mb/s is set as the definition of high speed broadband and not a higher speed. By doing so they ensure that areas that already have VDSL aren't part of the NBP.

They also want the areas to be defined as widely as possible and surrounded by "Buffers". So by doing so, a single VDSL cab in a village might preclude a large area around the village from being included in the NBP, which might leave many people without a highquality broadband.

Finally they are trying to push the idea of one or two large suppliers to the NBP, rather then lots of smaller companies, which would obviously benefit them.

But still, the document shows to me clearly a company that has turned over a new leaf.

ESB/Vodafone JV

---

Clearly they think the only solution to broadband in rural Ireland is also FTTH and it looks like they are very willing to help deliver it to rural Ireland.

They detail the importance of building a network that will last far into the future and can be easily upgraded (GPON to NG-PON2 for instance). They point out they need for a high quality and dependable solution and rubbish wireless and LTE. They point out that 30mb/s isn't fast enough and how we should be really aiming for at least 100mb/s. They point ot the need for actual delivered speeds, rather then the "marketing" theoretical shared speeds that wireless companies spew.

They point out the importance of making the areas covered as granular as possible, down to as few as 20 houses. So for instance even if your village was covered by an Eircom VDSL cab, but your small estate of 20 houses was just 1km outside the area covered by Eircoms eFibre, you could still get subsidised by the NBP. Clearly Eircom don't want this and fight it in their submission.

IrelandOffLine

---

Superb submission from IrelandOffLine. Puts many submissions of many of the companies to shame!

IOffL are also pushing for FTTH for almost everyone, with the limited and proper use of Fixed Wireless Access for the most remote of people only.

They say that the plan needs to last for 40 years. The core of the network should be fiber and that all companies should have access to the fiber backhaul on a wholesale basis for the last mile.

Vodafone

---

They also made a separate submission from the ESB/Vodafone JV. They agree that FTTH is the future! However they differ in that they think it can be phased. The long term plan should be 100% FTTH, but an interim plan could be a mix of FTTH and Fibre feed LTE-Advanced

UPC
----

A dreadful, defensive submission from UPC. It is clear they have no interest in being involved in this and only in defending their existing turf!

They seem to be focused on ensuring that EuroDOCSIS 2 is defined as NGA and thus areas served by it won't be a part of the NGA. It would seem that UPC still have a lot of areas out there on ED2 and don't want to be forced to upgrade it to ED3.

They are also mentioning that higher upload speeds shouldn't be specified as part of the requirements. It is clear that again they are worried about the relatively low upload speeds of cable versus FTTH.

Finally they despicably mention that in the map whole white areas that will receive government subsidies should be revealed and not black or grey areas. In other words they don't want ordinary people to have transparency to the the and quality of broadband available in their area.

Overall a very disappointing submission from UPC.

Three

---

Laughable submission from Three. They barely even tried. It is clear they know that they burned their bridges with the last National Broadband Plan and that no one will believe a word they have to say. They are mostly just looking for access to whatever fibre is laid and so of say that maybe LTE would be suitable for last mile access, but to be honest even they sound like they don't believe what they are saying!

Sky
---

Seem to be mostly concerned about getting access to whatever network is built at a wholesale level and various understandable issues around that.

Sky don't really seem to have any big plans for the Irish market, just to skim off the top of everyone elses network.

Others

---

A bunch of small wireless companies who operate in rural Ireland who all think FWA is good enough.

Summary

---

In summary it seems to be fibre, fibre, fibre.

At the very least it looks like everyone agrees that we should have a core fibre backhaul network. I can't see how the government can't deliver this now.

Where they disagree is on the "last mile"

I think the most powerful voices (ESB/Vodafone, Eircom and IrelandOffLine) are all calling for FTTH for most of rural Ireland and given the information they supply (surprisingly mostly from Eircom!) it is hard to see how it could be anything else. It will be hard for me to see how the DECNR will be able to ignore the 3 of the 5 most powerful ISP's in Ireland saying the same thing.

Where they disagree on is the level of granularity that the NBP will operate to and what the requirements will be.

While there are some mutterings about LTE Advanced, for the most part they don't seem to be very enthusiastic about it.

It seems that the entry of the ESB into the market has really changed things up and everyone is thinking about FTTH now.

I get the feeling that what we might end up with from the NBP is:

- An open access wholesale backhaul network subsidised by the government (no disagreement here, everyone seems to think this is a good idea).
- The ESB/Vodafone JV and Eircom rolling out FTTH to the majority of people over the last mile, maybe targeting different areas and hopefully not duplicating their networks. I guess partly subsidised by the government.
- Maybe some LTE and FWA gets done, hopefully only for the most extreme remote people.

All of this seems to be much better thought out then the BDUK scheme in the UK which is dominated by BT alone.

But either way, very interesting times ahead.

AirBiscuit wrote: »

I'm a bit disappointed frankly (Mainly with ESB/Vodafone), they keep mentioning "rural Ireland", but instead focus on providing it to towns with adequate existing infrastructure instead, with places such as Sligo and Galway getting the test phases. Can't comment on Galway, but most of the place in Sligo that I lived in could easily get UPC's 100Mb.

I've talked about this before, the confusion is down to peoples different definitions of rural.

Amongst the government and civil service, rural has always been defined as pretty much anywhere outside of the big cities. So yes places like Cavan and Sligo town are considered rural and thus yes the ESB is bringing FTTH to these "Rural" areas.

To be honest, the title "urban/rural divide" is a bad one and causes confusion. The divide is really high density versus low density areas.

Many rural towns and villages, like Cavan can be high density and thus very suited to high speed broadband technology. Meanwhile low density areas aren't economic to deliver high quality BB. These low density areas can be both rural or urban (just two km's from a large town or city).