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

Rural Broadband

Options
  • 30-09-2014 4:04pm
    #1
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭


    So discussion on the proposed Broadcasting Fee/Tax over in Broadcasting brought up the Urban/Rural divide.

    I beleive that DSO (Digital Switchover) Should have resulted in better quality of Broadband in rural areas first since those in the areas were more like to need to upgrade their TV equipment.

    It's not the first time on boards that I have suggested that the Telecoms should have started in more rural areas first for the role out of 4G.

    And in fairness in true boards manner I have been hammered for the suggestion, with the view that a commercial company couldn't afford to role out broadband in regions where they will make no money.

    I suggest that the regulator (ComReg) should have stipulated that the Telecoms role out 4G in rural areas first and then in urban areas. This would have the effect of Telecom company rushing to set up the 4G in rural areas, as to get to Urban areas ASAP.

    Just IMHO.

    Should ComReg have insisted 4G be rolled out in Rural areas First/or in sync? 9 votes

    Yes
    0% 0 votes
    No
    100% 9 votes


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Probably unenforceable. How much rural coverage would an operator have to provide before being allowed to set up the first urban base station? How, precisely, do you define urban and rural?

    Besides, it just reinforces the already all too prevalent idea that 4G (or any other form of mobile data) is an acceptable substitute for actual broadband.


  • Options
    #3
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Probably unenforceable. How much rural coverage would an operator have to provide before being allowed to set up the first urban base station? How, precisely, do you define urban and rural?

    Besides, it just reinforces the already all too prevalent idea that 4G (or any other form of mobile data) is an acceptable substitute for actual broadband.

    Okay so I shouldn't call it broadband.

    ComReg would have to define Rural and would carry out tests on the product in those areas.


  • Options
    #4
    my3cents
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭my3cents


    Its mobile broadband.

    The regulator could have specified coverage by a combination of population and area like 80% by population and 70% by area so there would be a more even spread of 4G.


  • Options
    #5
    flutered
    Registered Users Posts: 6,668 ✭✭✭flutered


    i had to ditch my wireless broadband supplier, i had to turn to eircom which has little or no speeds, eircom works better for the one particular reason i require it for.


  • Options
    #6
    Mayo Yid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 366 ✭✭Mayo Yid


    my3cents wrote:
    Its mobile broadband.

    Nope, 4G is still not broadband and should not be allowed advertise as such. Mobile networks would be great if people weren't forced (or tricked through clever marketing) to use them as a fixed broadband substitute.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    my3cents
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭my3cents


    Mayo Yid wrote: »
    Nope, 4G is still not broadband and should not be allowed advertise as such. Mobile networks would be great if people weren't forced (or tricked through clever marketing) to use them as a fixed broadband substitute.

    No don't agree, provided the word mobile is included in the name that's fine by me its only when the mobile prefix gets dropped in the way 3 did for the NBS and continue to do that I start to get annoyed.


  • Options
    #8
    Elmo
    Registered Users Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    Mayo Yid wrote: »
    Nope, 4G is still not broadband and should not be allowed advertise as such. Mobile networks would be great if people weren't forced (or tricked through clever marketing) to use them as a fixed broadband substitute.

    So what should ComReg/DCERN do to provide Broadband in rural areas without setting up a rural broadband scheme via the exchequer.


  • Options
    #9
    Mayo Yid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 366 ✭✭Mayo Yid


    Elmo wrote: »
    So what should ComReg/DCERN do to provide Broadband in rural areas without setting up a rural broadband scheme via the exchequer.

    They should forget about 4G and other mobile. Using a combination of the proposed National Broadband Plan and FIXED wireless for the really remote you can deliver universal 30mbit to every house in the country.


  • Options
    #10
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    No, because 4G isn't Broadband. No mobile service can be broadband, ever. It's not a technology problem per se, but economics. You'd end up with so many masts that fibre to everyone would a 1/4 or 1/10th of the cost.

    But they should have mandated 98% geographic coverage. They were more interested in high revenue from licences than a good infrastructure for Nation. If you go away from main roads and villlages or larger you often have no coverage in an emergency. Without a change in regulator attitude you never will, perhaps on what seemed like a safe hill walk and you break a leg or twist an ankle.


  • Options
    #11
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭clohamon


    It was the money.

    323780.png


  • Advertisement
Advertisement