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

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

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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