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

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

2»

Comments

  • #52
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


  • #54
    funnyname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭funnyname


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


  • #56
    clohamon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭clohamon


    bk wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #57
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


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

    What do you expect?


  • #58
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


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

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

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

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

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

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


  • #59
    clohamon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭clohamon


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

    Working on it.


  • #60
    bealtine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    bk wrote: »

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

    Not at all (well slightly):)


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


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


  • #62
    clohamon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭clohamon


    Fighting Irish wrote: »
    What do you expect?

    I presume that's rhetorical. If not, I was only noting the worsening trend in digital divide.


  • #63
    KIERAN1
    Registered Users Posts: 246 ✭✭KIERAN1


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

    Mobile would be awful. Many in the countryside will not pay for mobile, because the data limits are so low.

    I'd use about 20 gigs in about a week and half. I not going to keep handing over money if i go over my allowance.


  • #64
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    clohamon wrote: »
    I presume that's rhetorical. If not, I was only noting the worsening trend in digital divide.

    Rhetorical? Nope


  • #65
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    KIERAN1 wrote: »
    Mobile would be awful. Many in the countryside will not pay for mobile, because the data limits are so low.

    I'd use about 20 gigs in about a week and half. I not going to keep handing over money if i go over my allowance.

    It could be done with LTE but the caps and limited bandwidth would have to change!

    You'd need uncapped or, as close to it as possible. The end users would need a similar experience to VDSL/fibre


  • #66
    watty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    It CAN NEVER be done with LTE. Fibre to every home would be fraction of the cost. Mobile caps are actually too HIGH! The caps are because the capacity doesn't exist. You'd need x10 to x30 as many masts to have enough capacity for broadband type caps and speeds.

    A similar experience even to ADSL2 for 90% of LTE users if used as fixed broadband is more costly than Fibre!

    Even 95% coverage "ordinary" LTE is about the same price as universal fibre!

    The whole point of LTE is MOBILE native IP services for short term on the go "bursty" use. Not watching Netflix or replacing fixed Broadband. The two are complementary and actually good 3G & LTE coverage needs Fibre fed Broadband fed "Femto" cells!


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bealtine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    It could be done with LTE but the caps and limited bandwidth would have to change!

    You'd need uncapped or, as close to it as possible. The end users would need a similar experience to VDSL/fibre

    The basic engineering says the opposite, that LTE could never do it in any meaningful way, LTE (and 3G) are shared mediums meaning very simply that the more users that use a cell the less the speed delivered. One (or two) users in a cell will have a good experience but when you move out to 10 or more the "experience" drops off very quickly perhaps even to zero.

    Haven't even mentioned the inverse square law either...

    If you want good speeds on LTE you need to limit the users on the cell and the only way to do that is by tiny caps...also if you are going to fibre up most cell sites why not just run fibre to the village anyway?


  • #68
    BulliteShot
    Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭BulliteShot


    LTE is not the future of broadband, please stop suggesting it. It's good for MOBILE BROADBAND and that's it. Mobile broadband is congested and unreliable as is. If people start to rely on it more, the service is only going to get worse.

    FTTH is the future. It's going to be a necessity like running water or roads. Eircom can even cash in on recycling the old copper crap.

    People can work from home. More productivity. Less emissions. Less road usage. Why the hell isn't REAL fibre rolled out yet? Jesus christ, Rabbitte needs to get his finger out.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement