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

  • 29-01-2004 9:14pm
    #1
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭


    Its almost a cliché now. A new report compares Irelands BB market to ANY other group of countries and will inevitably conclude we are ****e. This will always be the case until €ircon sponsor a comparison between Ireland Sudan Afghanistan and Liberia. We *should* win that one ......even though I hear there are no pairgains in rural Afghanistan :D so dunno :(

    The *interesting* bit about this one is that it was produced by the Irish government ...or Forfás to be precise. It does not tell us anything major as compared to what the EU / OECD / World Economic Forum / Canus in Via have already told us time and time again. In fact they had to sample 21 countries to move us out of bottom place. We are third this time.....from the bottom .

    The full report may be found Here in PDF form.

    M


«1

Comments

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


    October 2003, the number of resell DSL lines in Ireland is reported as being about 1,000 (6.3% of total DSL lines).
    Words fail me.


  • #3
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Fibre-To-The-Home (FTTH) and Premises (FTTP) rollouts are continuing in Japan, Korea, Italy, Sweden and the US. China is also rolling out FTTH in significant numbers. Total subscriptions in Japan have risen from nearly zero at the start of 2002 to over 700,000, with over 3,500 new fibre subscribers being connected every working day in July 2003. Bandwidths of 100Mbit/s are available for €42.19 per mth.

    Best bit is when they show we have the cheapest International Leased Lines ...


  • #4
    Ryaner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭Ryaner


    It'll be years before things like FTTH get over here. Places like Japen they all live in those big big buildings so it's easy enough for them to roll it out and make money.
    As soon as Eircom actively try to give people BB the numbers of people on it will sky rocket. I dont know anyone who has had an easy time getting it in. Maybe they do exist???


  • #5
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    FTTH - doubt we'll ever see it except for new estates / buildings and even then not until house demand falls so much that developers have to use value added as a way to attracb buyers.

    It's just a reminder on how far we are behind - no amount of "e-hub" spin - can change that. Be interesting on how this appears for the election campaigns.


    Point is we do have very cheap Bandwidth in this country - the problems are the Last Mile and distribution across fibre (we the taxpayers have paid for the fibre via govt funding)


  • #6
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Muck


    The full report may be found Here in PDF form.

    M


    I don't much like this recommnndation from page 12

    • The role of the Management Services Entity (MSE) should be restricted to the
    provision of dark fibre, and should not provide transmission or services.

    this might be just what the big multinationals need but dark fibre won't do much to enable smaller local ISP's and wireless group schemes to buy the much needed backhaul which is currently the missing link.

    I can now buy dark fibre for around 18 cent per m per year from the Mayo County Council but it's pretty much worthless because it doesn't go any place and even if it did 180 Km @ 180 Euro per year per Km puts it out of the price range of smaller (and even larger) community based projects

    An MSE that is willing to sell per MB rather than act simply as a fibre provider would enable smaller regional operations ( group broadband schemes, Commercial WISP's, local cable operators, smaller businesses etc) to be able to buy Internet connectivity in Dublin or London where there is a competitive market. Dark Fibre alone isn't going to do much to improve the current situation.

    .Brendan


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Ì stopped reading the report as soon as I saw they introduced the Czech Republic in order to stop us being SECOND last.

    They should either compare us to EXISTING EU members = second last (except for Greece) not Third last

    or EXISTING and NEW EU members where the likes of Estonia and Slovenia will hammer us into the third world but hey....we are still ahead of Greece .

    Forfás deserve an E- for their 'comparative' basis and that is the main reason it is a sh1te report ....not worthy of any credit IMO .

    M


  • #8
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    An MSE that is willing to sell per MB rather than act simply as a fibre provider would enable smaller regional operations ( group broadband schemes, Commercial WISP's, local cable operators, smaller businesses etc) to be able to buy Internet connectivity in Dublin or London where there is a competitive market. Dark Fibre alone isn't going to do much to improve the current situation.
    An MSE selling bandwidth is going to be reluctant to sell fibre to potential competitors. However if it can't sell bandwidth, it has an incentive to sell fibre to as many ISPs as possible, who will have to compete for data to send over the fibre they are paying for.


  • #9
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    it's never going to happen while eircom are in charge of ANY of the telecoms industry in Ireland.

    the government should take control of it and offer a contract to one of the big asian providers (with subsidies for getting it up and running quickly) to get at least 2mbit BB in in the next 3 years to all major towns and cities and then sell it off in bits to the other comms companies in ireland after that and let them fight over the business to keep the prices down.

    but it's not going to happen until someone in power grows some balls and does something about it.


  • #10
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    An MSE selling bandwidth is going to be reluctant to sell fibre to potential competitors. However if it can't sell bandwidth, it has an incentive to sell fibre to as many ISPs as possible, who will have to compete for data to send over the fibre they are paying for.

    This is only true if the MSE is set up in such a way to allow this. I am not suggesting that the MSE enter the Internet market, simply provide a variety of backhaul solutions (including dark fibre) in a carrier neutral manner, nothing to stop Eircom or Esat buying bandwidth or fibre from the MSE if they wish.

    Fibre is of no use to smaller projects right now but if the MSE can aggregate demand for the smaller projects and sell us reasonably priced, useful chunks of bandwidth to somewhere where wholesale Internet is available from a variety of providers then all sorts of local solutions become possible.
    The Chunks need to go as small as 2Mb blocks. this would be useful for existing ISP's wishing to reach the smaller urban and rural areas where it does not make sense for them to take a fibre, there is not much need right now for 2.5 Gb/s. It might be a very cheap 2.5 Gbs pipe bit it's still going to be a lot dearer than buying the 2, 5 or 10 Mbs pipe that is needed to get things started.

    In Ballina for example both ESAT and Eircom have fibre (as do CIE? ) into the town, yet affordable backhaul to Dublin (or affordable Wholesale Internet access ) is not currently available. It's not a lack of infrastructure, it's a lack of an incentive for the telcos to get competitive on pricing.
    How is a Dark fibre provider only MSE going to help in this situation?

    .Brendan


  • #11
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    How is a Dark fibre provider only MSE going to help in this situation?
    Why is the MSE better equipped to light the fibre than some other ISP who does have an incentive to compete for the available business in Ballina?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Why is the MSE better equipped to light the fibre than some other ISP who does have an incentive to compete for the available business in Ballina?
    It's not a question of being better equipped, it's a question of kickstarting competition.

    Here's how I understand it: if I want to set up a small community ISP, and all I have available to me is dark fibre, the minimum I can get is 2.5Gb. No matter how cheaply it's being made available, there's no way I can afford that kind of bandwidth. For my small community ISP, I need 2Mb, and at some point in the future I may need 5, 10 or maybe more.

    The other ISPs, who supposedly have an incentive to compete for my business, are currently looking for phone-number-sized figures for 2Mb of backhaul. How is the MSE going to change that by offering more dark fibre?


  • #13
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Why is the MSE better equipped to light the fibre than some other ISP who does have an incentive to compete for the available business in Ballina?

    ??
    WHERE are these ISP's and why when they 'come to town' would they be willing sell bandwidth to anyone other than themselves which is the current situation.

    A neutral carrier would not preclude the ISP buying fibre if they want it, alternatively the ISP could just buy backhaul as required from the MSE just like anyone else.

    Let's not forget Fibre is Currently available in Ballina and in many other parts of the country. Where are (outside of Dublin) all these independent ISP's?
    Why would one be interested in coming to a smaller regional town (never mind a rural area) if the smallest chunk of bandwidth is a commitment to a Whole fibre ?

    Why would the MSE do it?
    Simply because the Gov can make it a fundamental part of the MSE tender.

    A neutral MSE providing backhaul services as well as selling dark fibre would force the telcos to be more competitive in their pricing (they already have their own fibre anyway, Much of it paid for by the taxpayer) and would be in a position to offer services that a neutral MSE could not, such as Internet connectivity.
    The telcos would also be in a position to offer services in places that are currently unavailable to them by using MSE bandwidth to get there.

    Market forces alone are not going to do anything to improve the current situation since the monopolists will continue to maintain their monopolies at any cost.

    .Bminish


  • #14
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    ??
    WHERE are these ISP's and why when they 'come to town' would they be willing sell bandwidth to anyone other than themselves which is the current situation.
    Today, UTV, Netsource and 365 are reselling oreillycoms RADSL package, with indications that one or more will join that group soon. National Toll Roads, through their IBB subsidiary, are also in the ISP business. None of them are ever going to run their own fibre to Ballina, but there's no reason why they shouldn't buy dark fibre from the MSE, and compete for business from there, and other similiar towns.
    Why would one be interested in coming to a smaller regional town (never mind a rural area) if the smallest chunk of bandwidth is a commitment to a Whole fibre ?
    Ah. So what you really want is someone to subsidise the cost of the unwanted bandwidth. Because by your own argument it will be unused - someone has to eat the cost.

    How will you get competition if ISPs have to compete against backhaul that's subsidised by the MSE?

    You can't expect "bulk" prices if you're only buying "retail" quantities, Brendan. The government has already massively subsidised the infrastructure, bringing the startup cost down to where it's where it's worth arguing about. Yeah, you're right, it's a real "chicken and egg" situation, but if there really isn't enough demand in Ballina to justify more than a 2MB chunk, then the town should never have been provisioned in the first place.


  • #15
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Where does 'bulk' start Ripwave ?

    Above what amount, specify please !

    M


  • #16
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave

    Ah. So what you really want is someone to subsidise the cost of the unwanted bandwidth. Because by your own argument it will be unused - someone has to eat the cost.


    No I don't want it subsidized, i just want it available at a fair market price. All the MSE has to do is to aggregate demand. IBB et all can use this to reach areas that are uneconomic for them to buy fibre to as well. Eircom would also be able to use it if they wanted.

    RADSL isn't going to get to much of the population around here, due to line reach issues and the extensive use of pairgains in the network

    The Gov announced support in the form of 50% funding for group broadband schemes for rural areas that are unserved by current providers, How exactly are these GBS going to buy backhaul if the MSE isn't able to sell them smallish chunks, do you propose throwing more taxpayer's money at the incumbent operator (who is the ONLY operator available in many places) to pay vastly inflated backhaul costs



    How will you get competition if ISPs have to compete against backhaul that's subsidized by the MSE?


    How many times do I have to point out the following

    1/ it would not be subsidized (except that the Gov paid for it to be built ) and would be expected to make an operating profit. Why would this be unfair competition?


    2/ your competing ISP's can buy the SAME bandwidth at the SAME price from a neutral MSE, Why on earth would this be anti-competitive? It will simply help break up the current monopoly situation. If your competing ISP wants larger amounts then it can buy a whole fibre and save money. Of course Bulk buying an entire fibre = lower per Mb charges to those who need that amount of bandwidth



    You can't expect "bulk" prices if you're only buying "retail" quantities, Brendan.


    No, but if leased line or frame relay costs were at anything approaching free market prices then we would not have a problem

    in excess of 40k for 2 Mb leased line is absolutely ridiculous.


    The government has already massively subsidized the infrastructure, bringing the startup cost down to where it's where it's worth arguing about.

    They also massively subsidized all that teclo fibre too. Ballina is a Local loop unbundled Exchange, taxpayers money was used to fund that as well.
    Yet you still can't have ADSL (or RADSL) more than around 4 Km from the exchange or if your line fails the line test and ESAT do not compete against eircom much for Leased line (why should they ?)

    The Only thing that needs to happen to make things possible is to break the monopolies , Fair market pricing would do just fine and the MSE could be used to do this in the backhaul market if the Gov so desired.

    Brendan.


  • #17
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    but if there really isn't enough demand in Ballina to justify more than a 2MB chunk, then the town should never have been provisioned in the first place.

    Why should it not have been provisioned Ripwave ?

    Wexfordman


  • #18
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by wexfordman
    Why should it not have been provisioned Ripwave ?
    Which bit of "if there really isn't enough demand in Ballina to justify more than a 2MB chunk" do you not understand, Wexforman?


  • #19
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    Thanks Ripwave,

    Just the sort of ignorant response I would expect from you....
    Any particular reason why you feel the need to insult ?


    Anyway, lets forget the ignorance for a while shall we.

    I thought the reason for the MSE was to provide an incentive to kick off demand in regional areas not currently served by our beloved ericom, as they dont see it as viable.

    Now, please dont attack me, but if this was the reason, then it seems pretty obvious that we dont site back and simply wait for the demand, we encourage it, provide it and ensure that it grows.

    That seems to be a reason to provision to me ?

    Any thoughts (without attacking me now if you can please Ripwave, I dont think my heart can take any more).

    Wexfordman


  • #20
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    Where does 'bulk' start Ripwave ?
    It sounds to me like Brendan wants 2MB of data at 16th the cost of a "basic" 32M circuit. But the capital costs for provisioning that first fibre can't simpley be divided by 16 if the rest of the fibre isn't going to be used, because there's no demand for it (by Brendans estimation). If there's enough demand from multiple sources to justify lighting a full fibre, then any one of a number of ISPs should be able to buy a full circuit, and sell bandwidth in whatever sized chunks there's a market for. If there isn't enough demand, then why should the MSE act as little more than a government subsidised Telco?

    The MSE has an incentive to sell as many seperate circuits as it can, because unused fibres are simply dead assets. But if it is in the bandwidth business too, then it ends up with exactly the same conflict of interest that oreillycom has - it won't sell dark fibre to anyone at a price that will allow that 3rd party to undercut the MSE on bandwidth. And if it sells bandwidth at "cost", then there's no point in any 3rd party buying bandwidth to sell on, because it can't compete with the MSE.


  • #21
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Your quoting is screwed up, so I can't quote most of what you said to reply.
    Originally posted by bminish
    No I don't want it subsidized, i just want it available at a fair market price. All the MSE has to do is to aggregate demand.
    And you still haven't said why the MSE is better qualified to aggregate demand than a 3rd party ISP is. You've already seen what happens when the infrastructure owner is the only one providing service on the circuit.

    If there's enough demand to justify lighting fibre to provide service to the area, then there's no obvious reason why a commercial operator shouldn't buy the capacity from the MSE, and sell it in smaller chunks. If there isn't enough demand to justify it, there's no obvious reason why the MSE should sell the bandwidth in uneconomically sized chunks. If the MSE sells you a 2MB chunk for less than the cost of providing it, then it has to subsidise it by charging other customers, in other areas more.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by wexfordman
    Thanks Ripwave,

    Just the sort of ignorant response I would expect from you....
    Any particular reason why you feel the need to insult ?
    You keep doing that - insinuating that I have a particular agenda, and then starting a pissing match when I respond. If you want to start categorizing responses as "ignorant", you'd have to start with your own "Why should it not have been provisioned" response to a statement that explained exactly why it shouldn't have been provisioned.

    I ask again, which part of "if there really isn't enough demand in Ballina to justify more than a 2MB chunk, then the town should never have been provisioned in the first place" do you not understand? It seems blindingly obvious to me exactly what that statment means. If you don't understand what that statement means, you'll have to explain what your difficulty is.
    I thought the reason for the MSE was to provide an incentive to kick off demand in regional areas not currently served by our beloved ericom, as they dont see it as viable.
    The MSEs purpose is to manage the governments fibre network. That means that there's an infrastructure in place that will allow ISPs who can only prosper by driving up demand to use. If you allow the MSE to do the ISPs job, then you've just created yet another monopoly telco with a commercial interest in hindering competition.
    Now, please dont attack me, but if this was the reason, then it seems pretty obvious that we dont site back and simply wait for the demand, we encourage it, provide it and ensure that it grows.
    By subsidising it (again), apparently? But as you're starting from a false premise, your arguement is baseless.


  • #23
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    If there isn't enough demand to justify it, there's no obvious reason why the MSE should sell the bandwidth in uneconomically sized chunks. If the MSE sells you a 2MB chunk for less than the cost of providing it, then it has to subsidise it by charging other customers, in other areas more.

    You see Ripwave, again I dont understand. I thought the reason for bulding the fibre networks etc was to stimulate demand, not to make money. If the only justification was to sell to areas where it is economically feasible, then why have a gov built network in the first place, surely the market would build it if it was feasible on econimic reasons.

    I dont want the gov to build infrastructure purely to make money, let the market do that. It was built to provide access, to areas where others wont. To stimulate demand and competition, not to make a quick buck.

    if I understand you correctly, you are saying lets take publicly built infrastructure, sell it/lease it in large chunks (unlit fibre), so the big boys can get it cheap (cos they alone can afford it), and lease little bits of it at a profit to the smaller players.

    Economic feasibility does not come into it when we are talking about publin infrastructure such as this.

    So the obvious reasons


  • #24
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave


    And you still haven't said why the MSE is better qualified to aggregate demand than a 3rd party ISP is. You've already seen what happens when the infrastructure owner is the only one providing service on the circuit.


    For the simple reason that a 3rd party ISP is only interested in maximising profits. If it's a monopoly or duopoly then nothing will progress any further than it has to date.

    The MSE IS better placed to do this becase thier ENTIRE profitabilty depends on getting customers for the services that they provide. they won't be in the ISP buisness, just in the backhaul buisness.




    If there's enough demand to justify lighting fibre to provide service to the area, then there's no obvious reason why a commercial operator shouldn't buy the capacity from the MSE, and sell it in smaller chunks.


    you really don't get it at all do you?

    The problem IS that any commercial operator is going to be in the delivery to end users business and as a result are going to do their best to keep others out to reduce competition. Healthy competition = less profit in this case. They are NOT going to enable other ISP's / group Schemes to buy backhaul at a reasonable price, it's not in their interests. This IS the current situation, a dark fibre only MSE will change nothing

    If there isn't enough demand to justify it, there's no obvious reason why the MSE should sell the bandwidth in uneconomically sized chunks. If the MSE sells you a 2MB chunk for less than the cost of providing it, then it has to subsidize it by charging other customers, in other areas more.

    There IS demand and the MSE (as a backhaul provider and gov telco ) will have to light up Ballina anyway. A fractional 2, 5 or 10 Mbs extra to various other ISP's and group schemes will not cost the same as lighting fibre JUST to provide a couple of Mb for one group. I am not for a moment suggesting that the MSE charge below cost rates, it won't need to and unlike Eircom / Esat / other ISP won't be hurting it's own interests by doing so, It would Simply increasing the profits of the MSE.

    Demand will grow quickly once people actually have access to services. Availability of smaller blocks of bandwidth would be an encouragement for the likes of IBB to go to the less densely populated areas thus improving competition in the market.

    A few moths ago I considered carefully the possibilities of becoming a licensed commercial 3.5 Ghz operator in parts of Mayo.There were 2 problems

    1/ no backhaul available at anything even approaching sensible pricing
    2/ The gov made a total pigs ear of the licences in relation to rural areas

    .Brendan


  • #25
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by wexfordman
    You see Ripwave, again I dont understand. I thought the reason for bulding the fibre networks etc was to stimulate demand, not to make money.
    Well, you thought wrong. The network is to be run as a commercial entity. It doesn't have to support a massive capital debt, but it's not there to "stimulate demand". It will provide a means of satisfying any increased demand, and there is obviously an element of "build it and they will come" that means that business that might otherwise not invest in a particular area now will, but giving out "below cost" bandwidth to stimulate demand isn't within the MSEs remit.


  • #26
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    .. but giving out "below cost" bandwidth to stimulate demand isn't within the MSEs remit.

    I don't think anybody has sugegsted that bandwith should be below cost. Cost + reasonable profit margin is fine by me

    .Brendan


  • #27
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Well, you thought wrong. The network is to be run as a commercial entity. It doesn't have to support a massive capital debt, but it's not there to "stimulate demand". It will provide a means of satisfying any increased demand, and there is obviously an element of "build it and they will come" that means that business that might otherwise not invest in a particular area now will, but giving out "below cost" bandwidth to stimulate demand isn't within the MSEs remit.

    Most illogical Captain !

    It does not have to repay the Capital cost. It will only have to cover its operational cost . As the former is not loaded into the equation at all the MSE must ...by definition...sell below cost.

    Again...what is a retail quantity and what is a wholesale quantity ?

    Once we have some notion of your base premise in that regard we may help educate you....until then it will all be a circular argument . Again I fail to see what you actually stand for Ripwave your opinions seem to inevitably lead to a negative reductionist conclusion.

    M


  • #28
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    you really don't get it at all do you?

    The problem IS that any commercial operator is going to be in the delivery to end users business and as a result are going to do their best to keep others out to reduce competition. Healthy competition = less profit in this case. They are NOT going to enable other ISP's / group Schemes to buy backhaul at a reasonable price, it's not in their interests. This IS the current situation, a dark fibre only MSE will change nothing
    The world isn't divided between retail ISPs and Telcos, Brendan. A provider like Worldcom (just for example) would be prepared to sell 2M, 5M and 10M circuits to 3 or 4 ISPs selling retail services in the area. Worldcom isn't interested in the "retail" end of the business. They're not going to set up wireless circuits to deliver that broadband to local businesses or residential customers. That's where your local ISP comes in.


  • #29
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    Again...what is a retail quantity and what is a wholesale quantity ?
    A Wholesale quantity is whatever the minimum the MSE is prepared to sell at the moment. Apparently that's too much for Brendans needs.

    Unlike your good self, I'm not in the habit of just pulling numbers from thin air. As you're obviously a numbers man, maybe you're not comfortable with the concept of using an analogy to explain a concept. I'm sure everyone else gets it, though.


  • #30
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    A Wholesale quantity is whatever the minimum the MSE is prepared to sell at the moment. Apparently that's too much for Brendans needs.

    Unlike your good self, I'm not in the habit of just pulling numbers from thin air. As you're obviously a numbers man, maybe you're not comfortable with the concept of using an analogy to explain a concept. I'm sure everyone else gets it, though.

    The MSE sells nothing at the moment , nothing is not what Brendan wants but he was not looking for an STM1 the last time I spoke to him.

    I believe that the minimum wholesale amount should be 2Mbit Symettrical ....with a few strings attached maybe.

    The 2Mbit pipe should be available from all state owned assets with sufficient available backhaul, both fibre and wireless .

    What is your position Ripwave ....... state it.

    M


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    A provider like Worldcom (just for example) would be prepared to sell 2M, 5M and 10M circuits to 3 or 4 ISPs selling retail services in the area. Worldcom isn't interested in the "retail" end of the business.

    So why can't one buy services from the likes of Worldcom almost anywhere in the country right now then?

    The fibre is already there if Worldcom wanted to get to these places. You don't need the MSE to be in existence to buy fibre. Lack of fibre isn't the problem.
    With a backhaul only MSE one would be able to chose Worldcom (among others of course) in Dublin or London.
    If Worldcom saw real demand coming to them via the MSE backhaul would they not then seek to increase profits by buying MSE fibre right to where the customers are ?

    I am sorry Ripwave but your argument makes no sense whatsoever

    .Brendan


  • #32
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    So why can't one buy services from the likes of Worldcom almost anywhere in the country right now then?
    Because there isn't enough demand to justify the capital costs of providing what you need?

    Isn't this where we started?

    How much cheaper do you think it would be for the MSE to provide it to you, than a 3rd party provider using the MSEs infrastructure?


  • #33
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    What is your position Ripwave ....... state it.
    Is it not obvious? I think the people running the MSE are in a far better place to make that decision than you are, and whatever they decide is fine by me.


  • #34
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Because there isn't enough demand to justify the capital costs of providing what you need?

    You are ignoring one of the MSE's jobs. it has to provide services for government therefore it has to light the fibre anyway. if it lights the fiber then why should it not offer backhaul services to others in a carrier neutral manner? Not only does it make good business sense for it to do so it also furthers one of the government's stated aims which is to improve broadband access in the regions.

    There are commercial operators willing to provide end user serves but who currently can't because affordable backhaul in reasonable sized amounts isn't available because of the current monopolistic situation.

    There are also community groups willing to go to places that commercial operators aren't interested in who cannot do anything about meeting their own communities needs because affordable backhaul isn't available.

    Isn't this where we started?


    No, it's where you started but you haven't made a case for your position, your position makes little sense unless you were the incumbent operator. On one hand you seem to be saying let market forces do it yet you seem unable to accept that in the current situation in many parts of Ireland the market is completely broken. More dark fibre will do noting to improve things.

    The same backhaul problems prevent the likes of IBB coming and offering services, yes they can buy fibre but it's too big a chunk of bandwidth for one ISP for anything other than a large city. It NEEDS to be broken into smaller amounts to be useful to service providers (large and small )

    How much cheaper do you think it would be for the MSE to provide it to you, than a 3rd party provider using the MSEs infrastructure?



    Where are the 3rd parties willing to provide services over MSE infrastructure? Why are they not currently using all that fibre to offer services currently. You don't need the MSE to buy fibre, it's there already.


    Currently 2Mb leased line costs in the region of 40,000 Euro per year in this neck of the woods
    If I could get that for 10,000 Euro / yr it would begin to be possible to do things but @ 10 K / Yr is still more expensive than it should be in a truly competitive market.

    I would expect aggregated demand backhaul would be in the same league as ESB backhaul (since presumably the ESB aren't offering backhaul services at a loss!
    The ESB charge 50,000 year for 34 Mbs and may be willing to aggregate demand for users that require smaller amounts than this, unfortunately they can't offer it at all in this area.

    MAN fibre in Ballina (including Ballina to Kiltimagh ) costs 18 Cent per m, per year, per fibre. 180 Euro per Km.
    It's not expensive IF the MSE is willing to aggregate demand for those that only need a fraction of the bandwidth that a fibre offers.

    .Brendan


  • #35
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Is it not obvious? I think the people running the MSE are in a far better place to make that decision than you are, and whatever they decide is fine by me.

    It is not obvious at all. I do not want an STM1 and/or ATM .

    I will light the thing myself

    So what is the minimum acceptable entry level wholesale quantity.

    Is It

    1. A fibre pair ..... unlit.
    2. An E1
    3. An OC3
    4. An STM1
    4. A GBIC

    M


  • #36
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    So what is the minimum acceptable entry level wholesale quantity.
    I've already answered this question. I have no intention of restating my answer because you don't like the answer I already gave.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    I've already answered this question. I have no intention of restating my answer because you don't like the answer I already gave.

    WHERE??

    A fibre's worth of bandwidth starts at around 2.5 Gbs and with DWM can go many times faster than that.

    By your line of thinking the gov should not be building this fibre and we should all sit back and wait for the nice kind altruistic telco people to come and open up the market for us.This won't happen unless they are pushed.

    An MSE Selling bandwidth (NOT AT BELOW COST ) in reasonable sized chunks from point X to someplace with a competitive wholesale Internet market will force the telcos in the coverage areas of the MSE to price their services based on cost (& value added services) rather than whatever they can extract from the market.

    In Dublin the likes of IBB & Leap can ONLY exist because there is a competitive and price efficient wholesale market in Dublin, driven in part by the government's investment in international connectivity a few years ago.
    Competitively priced backhaul to Dublin from the regions would work wonders for driving broadband roll out and force telco wholesale prices down.

    Don't feel sorry for the telcos, Both Eircom and Esat BT's fibre in these parts was subsidized by the Government a few years ago, they have plenty of room to come down in price (and I guarantee they will come down as soon as some competition arrives on the scene.)


    Perhaps Ripwave, you speak for for one of the telcos and that's why your argument make so little sense

    .Brendan


  • #38
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    At this point i'd like to remind everyone that personal attacks are out of order. Attack the post, not the poster.


  • #39
    BigEejit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭BigEejit


    Sorry for butting in on this ..er ... interesting discussion .... but has the company thats been selected to be the MSE actually been told what they are doing?
    i.e.
    1) Has Michael Ahern said: supply a bit of fibre from point A to point B
    OR
    2) Has he said: You have free rein to do whatever is needed to ensure that a bunch of community ISPs or larger ISPs can supply John Murphy (who lives 6KM from the exchange in Ballina) gets reasonably priced broadband.
    OR
    3) Has he said: Allow groups or companies to buy bandwidth at the market rate for that region (where more than likely the only competitors are €ircon)
    OR
    4) Has he said: Minimum the feckers can order is an OC3, fuck 'em!

    Or has this not been hashed out at all yet? is everyone here blowing hot air? ..... do we need to be petitioning our TD's to get the MSE doing option 2 above?


  • #40
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by BigEejit
    Sorry for butting in on this ..er ... interesting discussion .... but has the company thats been selected to be the MSE actually been told what they are doing?

    I dunno, it's probably the right question to be asking though !

    At a conference last year on rural BB I met with people from one of the companies tendering for the MSE (Axia) they were willing to talk publicly about some of the things that they wanted to do with the MSE and it sounded very like what they have already done with the Alberta Supernet.
    See here

    It all made sense to me and seems like a logical way to use the State owned infrastructure to open up the wholesale market without acting as a disincentive for private companies / operators to enter the regional markets. Pricing broadly similar to Supernet pricing.
    2) Has he said: You have free rein to do whatever is needed to ensure that a bunch of community ISPs or larger ISPs can supply John Murphy (who lives 6KM from the exchange in Ballina) gets reasonably priced broadband.

    the problem here is that one has to be careful not to overstep the mark and provide a disincentive for other operators to enter the market in John Murphy's area (actually can we call him OscarBravo :D ?) after all he is better served if eventually he has multiple competing operators to choose from in a true free market.

    We need to level the playing field but we also need to be absolutely neutral so as not to make things worse than they already are.
    OR
    3) Has he said: Allow groups or companies to buy bandwidth at the market rate for that region (where more than likely the only competitors are €ircon)

    Well I personally don't think that the MSE should operate ANY backhaul at a loss but on the other hand I have no sympathy for the effects on telco profits offering it at near cost pricing , after all the telcos are also in many cases using state funded fibre and have plenty of room to reduce wholesale connectivity pricing

    With an MSE based on something like supernet model the MSE would not sell Internet connectivity to anyone, it would just sell backhaul on non-exclusive terms to someplace where it can be bought from a diverse range of suppliers. There is also nothing to stop the incumbent telco buying this backhaul from the MSE if it want's to.
    do we need to be petitioning our TD's to get the MSE doing option 2 above? [/B]

    Not necessarily option 2 but we do need to make sure that this big contract goes to a company who will run it in the public interest rather than the interests of the incumbent and a few big contractors.

    The MSE is a big contract and a lot of tax payers money is going to be spent on fibre in the coming years, let's see it make a real and lasting difference.

    .Brendan


  • #41
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    WHERE??
    Here
    Perhaps Ripwave, you speak for for one of the telcos and that's why your argument make so little sense
    **** 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. You're the one who wants the MSE to emulate the existing Telcos (except cheaper for you), not me. I want the MSE to make it possible for competing backhaul providers to service Ballina and compete with ESAT and oreillycom.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Here
    **** you too, Brendan.
    ..
    You're the one who wants the MSE to emulate the existing Telcos (except cheaper for you), not me. I want the MSE to make it possible for competing backhaul providers to service Ballina and compete with ESAT and oreillycom.

    1/ I most certainly DO NOT want the MSE to be like the existing telcos

    2/ Where are these competing backhaul providers actually going to come from and why would they be ANY different from the existing telcos.

    Why would having an MSE selling fibre encourage these competing backhaul providers to enter the market, the fibre is already there so why aren't these providers already offering services over it ?

    You are not making much sense.

    BTW your 'Answer' about what is an acceptable minimum block of bandwidth is a non-answer so providing a link back to it still does not make your position any clearer.


    .Brendan


  • #43
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    2/ Where are these competing backhaul providers actually going to come from and why would they be ANY different from the existing telcos.
    Because they don't have exclusive ownership of the infrastructure. They would have an incentive to help you, as a local WISP, build your business, because that's the only way they can sell more bandwidth. A "carrier neutral" MSE can't, by definition, provide you with any such incentives.
    Why would having an MSE selling fibre encourage these competing backhaul providers to enter the market, the fibre is already there so why aren't these providers already offering services over it ?
    Because people like you might convince the politicians to tell the MSE to undercut their investment by selling small circuits "at cost". Once the MSE is in place, and the ground rules are know, providers will be in a better position to decide whether the low current levels of demand justify whatever investment they need to make.
    You are not making much sense.
    Neither are you, if you have to resort to character assasination to make your point.
    BTW your 'Answer' about what is an acceptable minimum block of bandwidth is a non-answer so providing a link back to it still does not make your position any clearer.
    Apparently, you have the same difficulty reading English that Muck has. I'm perfectly happy to leave it up to the people running the fibre network to decide what's the minimum size circuit they want to provide. If you've got a business case to put that says that they're wrong, put it. So far, all we've heard is vague handwaving about how you want the MSE to compete directly against Esat and oreillycom.


  • #44
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Lookit Ripwave.

    The MSE will be a failure (for the taxpayer) if it does not breakdown the bandwidth into manageable chunks.......starting at 2mbits . The demand has to scale up from a starting position and the starting position must be reasonable. As you work in or near telecoms you know perfectly well what 2Mbit means. This laissez faire guff is useless , the market cannot develop without clarity.

    That is pretty much the common position outside the M50 .

    M


  • #45
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Because people like you might convince the politicians to tell the MSE to undercut their investment by selling small circuits "at cost". Once the MSE is in place, and the ground rules are know, providers will be in a better position to decide whether the low current levels of demand justify whatever investment they need to make.
    Which doesnt explain why these services were never offered at a resonable price before the fibre rings etc were even mooted. The entire existance of the fibre rings is a direct result of the cartel-style behaviour of the current major telecoms companys.


  • #46
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Because they don't have exclusive ownership of the infrastructure.

    Look where exclusive ownership of infrastructure has gotten us so far.


    They would have an incentive to help you, as a local WISP, build your business, because that's the only way they can sell more bandwidth. A "carrier neutral" MSE can't, by definition, provide you with any such incentives.

    I don't NEED incentives. I just I need backhaul at a fair market price. If I could buy a T1 or E1 line at similar pricing to other parts of the world OR I could buy carrier neutral backhaul to a some place where i have a range of competing Wholesale providers I could build a network.

    Everyone except the incumbent needs backhaul and it is in the interests of the incumbent NOT to provide backhaul at anything approaching a far market price. it is also in ESAT's interests not to upset the apple cart by starting a price war.

    Because people like you might convince the politicians to tell the MSE to undercut their investment by selling small circuits "at cost".

    The MSE NETWORK is being built with tax payer's money (just like Eircom and Esat BT's fibre network in this part of the country)
    The cost to the MSE of providing services does not have to include build costs (Eircom / Esat don't have to consider full build cost either) but the MSE needs to make money, I don't expect it to give circuits away but if it starts engaging in exclusive ownership deals we will not get any place either.


    Once the MSE is in place, and the ground rules are know, providers will be in a better position to decide whether the low current levels of demand justify whatever investment they need to make.

    Who is writing the ground rules and why are they not clearly defined at this stage?

    What exactly is wrong with the Supernet model for example ?

    Neither are you, if you have to resort to character assasination to make your point.


    Apparently, you have the same difficulty reading English that Muck has. I'm perfectly happy to leave it up to the people running the fibre network to decide what's the minimum size circuit they want to provide.

    I didn't engage in character assassination, but you seem rather quick to.

    I think it is time that you declared any vested interest in this matter, I have made my position perfectly clear.

    I am worried that in the current political Climate that the MSE may not be handed over to a company who will operate it in a manner that is in the long term public interest.

    If you've got a business case to put that says that they're wrong, put it. So far, all we've heard is vague handwaving about how you want the MSE to compete directly against Esat and oreillycom.

    I DON'T want the MSE to compete directly against the existing telcos, this would have long term damaging effects on the market, I think we can all agree on that.
    There is no hand wringing on my part, I am outlining exactly how it could work.

    Offering wholesale backhaul (& point to point) services to all (including Eircom / ESAT ) in a carrier neutral manner is not the same thing at all.

    .Brendan


  • #47
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Which doesnt explain why these services were never offered at a resonable price before the fibre rings etc were even mooted. The entire existance of the fibre rings is a direct result of the cartel-style behaviour of the current major telecoms companys.
    That's a totally different argument, Moriarty. Why would oreillycom or ESAT offer these services at a reasonable price? Neither of them believe that lower prices will drive increased consumption, and they spent a lot of money on getting their fibre into Ballina in the first place (a lot less than the government did, because they put their fibre in long before the massive inflation in construction and engineering costs kicked in in the last 4 years).

    If the MSE's only role is to undercut the 2 existing telcos, then, aside altogether from the legal implication of state subsidies for competing against private companies, it militates against anyone else using the fibre infrastructure to compete against the existing telcos.


  • #48
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    If the MSE's only role is to undercut the 2 existing telcos, then, aside altogether from the legal implication of state subsidies for competing against private companies, it militates against anyone else using the fibre infrastructure to compete against the existing telcos.

    That is a gloriously circular and ...dare I say it again .... 'Redmondite' argument Ripwave.

    It is because of the tendency in the Duopoly to set a ludicrously high price barrier at the entry level that the government HAD to build the MSE in the first place. Now its there (nearly) lets make some really good use of it as long as the starting point for access .....2Mbit ....is reasonably priced and not ludicrously complicated to provision .....like having to use a ATM interface or something .

    That will enable micro carriers to flourish in double quick time ...leading to competition not duoploy and hopefully to the restoration of this country to the forward ranks of internationally competitive knowledge based economies.

    That is the kind of long term stuff that we elect governments to do , unencumbered as they are by market short termism and George Soros and Tony O'Reilly.

    What on earth do you mean by "Legal Implications" Ripwave ??? , I'd love to see some flesh on that one :D

    M


  • #49
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    .... and they spent a lot of money on getting their fibre into Ballina in the first place


    Actually they didn't spend a lot of money getting fibre into Ballina, the Taxpayer bought a lot of it for them under the EIOP projects

    Eircom's fibre to Ballina (amongst many other west coast towns) was funded under the EIOP3 project which extends from Cork to Sligo and EIOP 4 which connects Castlebar (& Westport where it meets EIOP3 Fibre ) to Galway

    Esat's Fibre to Ballina was funded under EIOP 6 which connects sligo (where it meets EIOP5) to Athlone via Ballina and quite a few other towns ) In Athlone it meets up with ESAT fibre funded under EIOP 10 which goes from Limerick Via Galway and Athlone to Dublin.


    EIOP report (pdf) Here

    .Brendan


  • #50
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    That's a totally different argument, Moriarty. Why would oreillycom or ESAT offer these services at a reasonable price?

    Why indeed. It would kill the golden goose. Thats not a reason to let the situation continue.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Neither of them believe that lower prices will drive increased consumption, and they spent a lot of money on getting their fibre into Ballina in the first place (a lot less than the government did, because they put their fibre in long before the massive inflation in construction and engineering costs kicked in in the last 4 years).

    Which is a flawed assumption imo. A year or two ago eircom were insisting that there was no demand for adsl in this country and yet now that its available to people and the price is falling, many have got it. Theres no reason to believe that ireland is any different to any other country with their needs for higher bandwidth alternatives.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    If the MSE's only role is to undercut the 2 existing telcos, then, aside altogether from the legal implication of state subsidies for competing against private companies, it militates against anyone else using the fibre infrastructure to compete against the existing telcos.

    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 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?


  • #51
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Look where exclusive ownership of infrastructure has gotten us so far..
    Brendan, did you actually read what I said? You asked why would any competing provider be different from the 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.
    I don't NEED incentives. I just I need backhaul at a fair market price.
    And your definition of a "fair" market price is? Obviously not what the market is charging. So how do you make the market "fair"? By opening it up to other vendors. Your proposal will not open the market up to other vendors, you're effectively calling for the market to be closed down, and a single price imposed. (The "market" in question is the cost of backhaul to Dublin, or where ever international connectivity is available). 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.

    (As I said at the beginning, there's a chicken and egg element to this. If there really isn't the potential that demand in the medium term will grow to justify someone making that investment in the first place, then you have a whole different set of questions to ask).
    Everyone except the incumbent needs backhaul and it is in the interests of the incumbent NOT to provide backhaul at anything approaching a far market price. it is also in ESAT's interests not to upset the apple cart by starting a price war.
    Exactly - so why do you keep making arguments about the incumbents buying fibre from the MSE? They've already got fibre.
    the MSE needs to make money, I don't expect it to give circuits away but if it starts engaging in exclusive ownership deals we will not get any place either.
    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.
    What exactly is wrong with the Supernet model for example ?
    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. (Obviously, it'd suit you nicely, but that's not quite the same question).
    I didn't engage in character assassination, but you seem rather quick to.
    You've accused me of "speaking for one of the telcos", on no basis at all other than that I disagree with your contention that the MSE should stick to managing fibre. That's a text book case of character assasination, Brendan. You can't make your case on it's merits, so you try to discredit my case by making groundless charges about who I am.

    Pointing out that you seem to have difficulty comprehending plain English, by pointing to specific examples where you claim to not understand the words I've spoken is not character assasination.
    I think it is time that you declared any vested interest in this matter, I have made my position perfectly clear.
    The only vested interest I have is as a taxpayer.
    I am worried that in the current political Climate that the MSE may not be handed over to a company who will operate it in a manner that is in the long term public interest.
    You're calling for the MSE to be run in a manner that isn't in the long term public interest!
    I DON'T want the MSE to compete directly against the existing telcos, this would have long term damaging effects on the market, I think we can all agree on that. There is no hand wringing on my part, I am outlining exactly how it could work.
    Then I obviously missed something - your outline is that the MSE should charge you a lot less than either of the current incumbents charge you for using their infrastructure.

    Offering wholesale backhaul (& point to point) services to all (including Eircom / ESAT ) in a carrier neutral manner is not the same thing at all.[/B][/QUOTE] As oreillycom and Esat don't need backhaul services, that's something of a moot point. And if the MSE offers the service, then there won't be any additional competition in that market.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement