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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

New report comparing Irish BB to 21 other countries concludes we are ****e

2»

Comments

  • #52
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Here
    **** you too, Brendan.

    If your attitude is that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a telco stooge, then you're not worth the effort of responding to.


    Does this offer still stand? :D


  • #53
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Which is a flawed assumption imo.
    It doesn't matter that you and I think it's flawed. It's the basis on which oreillycom and Esat are making their marketing decisions.
    Theres a distinct difference between purposely undercutting companies, and being able to sell services at a profit while still having a price significantly lower than the other companies. The former is anti-competitive while the latter infers there was previously a cartel market.
    The problem is that the MSEs cost basis won't include the capital costs of building the network. Notwithstanding Brendans case that much of the existing fibre was built with Government grants, it's still part of an infrastructure that is privately owned. Whether we like it or not, having the MSE compete head to head with oreillycom or Esat for business would be problematic, from an anti-competitive point of view. (Even if they were prepared to compete at that level, it wouldn't be possible for oreillycom or Esat to compete against a provider that had no capital costs to carry).
    The whole idea for the fibre rings was to break the cartel that eircom and to a lesser extent esat had on backhaul. Surely thats a noble cause?
    Which they can do by making it possible for other providers to get into the market, not by shutting down the backhaul market completely (which would be the effective outcome of Brendans proposal - how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).


  • #54
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Brendan, did you actually read what I said? You asked why would any competing provider be different from the existing telcos, and I said "because they wouldn't have exclusive ownership of the infrastructure". In other words, non-exclusivity would be a good thing. You're the one calling for a scheme where by the fibre rings would effectively become yet another exclusive infrastructure, because it wouldn't be economical for other providers to compete against the MSE on the MSEs own network.

    Why not? Surely they can buy entire fibres from the MSE if they want, they can also buy fibre from source (such as Co Council or ESB) or lay their own using the various duct sharing agreements.

    Other providers can offer services over MSE circuits that the MSE can't. the MSE should not offer directly Internet connectivity for example, that's not carrier neutral.

    How is a fibre only MSE any different in real terms form a virtual circuit MSE? it's exactly the same thing only in smaller chunks
    Someone who has invested in a 34M circuit has a huge incentive to drive uptake in Ballina, to make sure that the maximise the utilisation of that circuit. The MSE won't have that incentive.

    Why not, an MSE that has no users has no income just as is the case for any new entrant.
    Exactly - so why do you keep making arguments about the incumbents buying fibre from the MSE? They've already got fibre.

    Not perhaps in all cases, They may also want to buy bandwidth to markets where it is currently uneconomical to light their own fibre. The MSE will have to light fibre for it's Irish Gov customer.
    You're the one calling for a setup where there'll be exclusive ownership, because nobody else will bother buying their own fibre from the MSE if they have to compete with the MSE's own "at cost" or "low cost" retail offerings.

    if the cost of MSE fibre is low enough for it to make it uneconomic for other providers to lay their own fibre and they then choose to use MSE fibre instead is this a bad thing?
    You are proposing that they use MSE fibre anyway.
    How much unlit fibre do we need in the ground
    There's nothing wrong with it, for Canada. How many existing fibre providers were in place when Supernet was built? Canada doesn't/didn't have the problems that we have so it's not obvious why the Canadian solution is the right solution for our conditions.

    Actually Alberta (where the supernt is) would seem to have a broadly similar range of problems and the overall cost of the supernet is about the same as the Gov plans to spend on the MAN projects alone.


    .Brendan


  • #55
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    It doesn't matter that you and I think it's flawed. It's the basis on which oreillycom and Esat are making their marketing decisions.

    Fair enough, but i was just making the point thats been made many times before that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    The problem is that the MSEs cost basis won't include the capital costs of building the network. Notwithstanding Brendans case that much of the existing fibre was built with Government grants, it's still part of an infrastructure that is privately owned. Whether we like it or not, having the MSE compete head to head with oreillycom or Esat for business would be problematic, from an anti-competitive point of view. (Even if they were prepared to compete at that level, it wouldn't be possible for oreillycom or Esat to compete against a provider that had no capital costs to carry).

    That eircom and esat are sitting on this fibre or charging exhorbitant amounts for access to/over it would seem to negate the argument of leaving the market sort itself out. The market has clearly failed. Eircom and esat have only themselves to blame if government intervention hurts their profit margins and customer base while correcting the market.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Which they can do by making it possible for other providers to get into the market, not by shutting down the backhaul market completely (which would be the effective outcome of Brendans proposal - how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).

    Indeed. But the whole idea of this new network is that it will cost the same no matter where you are in the country. If companies are allowed compete over the same infrastructure it will inevitably lead to price differences to the detriment of the smaller towns. If the MSE isnt allowed to offer services over the network, and a company doesnt see the gain in investing in a certain area, that potentially leaves people in that area in the exact same position as they are now. That is simply unacceptable.


  • #56
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).

    Only one if the Supernet is the only provider in town, however anyplace you can get onto the supernet you can choose from a wide range of wholesale Internet connectivity providers in a competitive market. that has got to be a good outcome hasn't it?

    .Brendan


  • #57
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    That eircom and esat are sitting on this fibre or charging exhorbitant amounts for access to/over it would seem to negate the argument of leaving the market sort itself out.
    There are a number of different markets involved. ESAT and oreillycom are nominally in all of those markets (fibre, backhaul and "retail services", for example). It's precisely because they want to protect their "retail services" that they have effectively shut down the other two markets. If the MSE gets into the fibre and the backhaul markets, on the basis that is being proposed here, it's hard to see how you'll every get a competitive market for backhaul.
    Indeed. But the whole idea of this new network is that it will cost the same no matter where you are in the country.
    So much for "fair market prices"!


  • #58
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Only one if the Supernet is the only provider in town, however anyplace you can get onto the supernet you can choose from a wide range of wholesale Internet connectivity providers in a competitive market.
    Is it "only one" or is it a "wide range"?

    Or does "anyplace you can get on the supernet" not include those places where Supernet is the only provider in town?


  • #59
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    I dont really want to speak for bminish and i dont know the ins and outs of the supernet, but i think the way it goes is that if youre connected to any part of the supernet you can use supernet backhaul, or any other company if they provide a service to where you want it, back to central points like their equivilant of dublin. From there, you can buy bandwidth from any of the companys providing it that are already situated there.


  • #60
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Is it "only one" or is it a "wide range"?

    Or does "anyplace you can get on the supernet" not include those places where Supernet is the only provider in town?

    Rather than try to answer this, why not go and do some reading about the supernet for yourself INCLUDING the background as to why it was decided by the Government of Alberta to take that particular approach to solving the digital divide.
    AlbertaSupernet


    As far as a wide range goes, the Supernet is Carrier neutral and goes to lots of places so you can buy service from any provider that has a presence on or reachable from the supernet. They have no favoured carriers and no contracts for service between providers and the supernet are exclusive.

    there is also a FAQ Here


    Here is an article from IEEE spectrum magazine about the supernet.

    I am not in any way involved with any of the companies bidding for the MSE but from where I am looking at the problems with connectivity In Ireland it seems to me that it's a very good model to base the MSE on.

    Can you take a proper look at the Public information on who & what the Supernet is as well as how it works in Alberta then please explain why it would be such a bad idea here?

    .Brendan


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Rather than try to answer this,
    Answer it? Brendan, I'm just asking you to clarify your own post, in which you seem to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

    I asked a simple question, which you seem strangely reluctant to answer. How many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet. After doing your legwork for you, and reading the documentation for you, I can only find mention of 1 - Supernet itself. So there is no comptetitive market in backhaul, just a single price, government subsidised backhaul service.
    Can you take a proper look at the Public information on who & what the Supernet is as well as how it works in Alberta then please explain why it would be such a bad idea here?
    Because it would stifle the development of competition in the backhaul market. It's easy to argue that government subsidised bandwidth would be a "good idea", but the decision was to subsidise the infrastructure, not the bandwidth. (In otherwords to replicate the model that got us a surfeit of international connectivity).

    Supernet was built in cooperation with, not in competition with the incumbent Telco (so Canada isn't paying for shedloads of duplicate infrastructure, but that's another story). It was built specifically to provide connectivity to existing Government facilities and "oh by the way, once we build it, we can sell access to local communities". The Fibre rings were not built to connect government facilities - it's not even a primary focus of the fibre ring project to move government funded facilities away from oreillycom and esat comms services to the fibre rings. How much government business has oreillycom lost since the fibre rings were installed? Not much, I'll bet (or someone would have mentioned it by now). Now whether that should have been the rationale behind the Governments investment is a different discussion, but it wasn't. (In fact, I don't think you could say that there was a coherent rationale for the Governments investment).


  • #62
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Answer it? Brendan, I'm just asking you to clarify your own post, in which you seem to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

    I asked a simple question, which you seem strangely reluctant to answer. How many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet.

    ... Sniped some Guff ..

    I can only find mention of 1 - Supernet itself. So there is no comptetitive market in backhaul, just a single price, government subsidised backhaul service.


    I already answered this , One provider of backhaul in most less developed places places, however everywhere you have the supernet you have a wide range of choice about who your wholesale Internet provider is.

    Which is more important to the end users a Competitive market for backhaul or a competitive market for wholesale Internet access ?

    Since the Supernet backhaul is available to all companies on equal terms and is priced reasonably low does it actually matter that there is only one backhaul provider in the market?

    If it was 'too dear' then others could build their own, if it was too cheap then the company running the supernet would not make money.


    It was built specifically to provide connectivity to existing Government facilities and "oh by the way, once we build it, we can sell access to local communities". The Fibre rings were not built to connect government facilities - it's not even a primary focus of the fibre ring project to move government funded facilities away from oreillycom and esat comms services to the fibre rings.


    Why on earth should the Government NOT use infrastructure owned by the state to provide for the states telecomms needs if this is more cost effective than the current suppliers?

    To do anything else is simply squandering the tax payer's money and propping up the exisitng cozy cartel.


    Currently If I was able to offer competitively priced (to the incumbents) leased line grade service (perhaps wireless) to the decentralized Gov offices in my area I would not be able to get the business Even if I was offering cheaper and better service since the Gov has a national deal done with Eircom. How good is that for competition ?
    How likely is someone big such as Worldcom to bring new carrier grade service to my area if they already KNOW they can't have any government business ?

    If these fibre projects are not used to open up the market for all the players, big and small, then the entire project (which by the way does far less and is costing more than the supernet) is a giant waste of taxpayers money and should be knocked on the head right now.

    .Brendan


  • #63
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Which is more important to the end users a Competitive market for backhaul or a competitive market for wholesale Internet access ?
    The only thing the end users give a damn about is the cost of retail Internet access for them. They don't care how that comes about.
    If it was 'too dear' then others could build their own, if it was too cheap then the company running the supernet would not make money.
    The company running the Supernet has a huge guaranteed market - all the Government facilites in the state. Nobody else can build infrastructure to compete with that anywhere, except in urban areas.
    Why on earth should the Government NOT use infrastructure owned by the state to provide for the states telecomms needs if this is more cost effective than the current suppliers?

    To do anything else is simply squandering the tax payer's money and propping up the exisitng cozy cartel.
    No argument from me, Brendan. I'm just describing the way thing are, not the way the should be.
    Currently If I was able to offer competitively priced (to the incumbents) leased line grade service (perhaps wireless) to the decentralized Gov offices in my area I would not be able to get the business
    And why wouldn't you?
    Even if I was offering cheaper and better service since the Gov has a national deal done with Eircom.
    <IRONY>Great little country, isn't it?</IRONY> (You've got to wonder who the hell elects these feckers, sometimes).
    If these fibre projects are not used to open up the market for all the players, big and small, then the entire project (which by the way does far less and is costing more than the supernet) is a giant waste of taxpayers money and should be knocked on the head right now.
    I think I mentioned that way back on page 1, and got Wexfordmans hackles up.


  • #64
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    (In fact, I don't think you could say that there was a coherent rationale for the Governments investment).

    Thats about the only sensible point you have made in the whole thread Ripwave.

    The rest of it is pure thread killing in classic 'Redmondite' fashion, you sound more like the CWU agitprop department with every post. As yet you have presented no coherent argument as to what should be done to foster a competitive market, by whom , and why. If the market (read duopoly and incompetent regulator) worked in Ireland there would be no IoffL forum, all would smell of roses.

    It does not work so we have a peculiar admixture in this thread of those who wish to make it work and those who knock those who wish to make it work.

    M


Advertisement