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

spongebob · 29-01-2004 9:14pm #1

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

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

Ripwave · 29-01-2004 9:58pm

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.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-01-2004 12:23am

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 ...

Ryaner · 30-01-2004 3:54am

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???

Capt'n Midnight · 30-01-2004 9:18am

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)

bminish · 30-01-2004 12:02pm

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

spongebob · 30-01-2004 12:54pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 1:13pm

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.

vibe666 · 30-01-2004 1:29pm

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.

bminish · 30-01-2004 1:39pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 2:53pm

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?

oscarBravo · 30-01-2004 3:10pm

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?

bminish · 30-01-2004 3:21pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 3:49pm

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.

spongebob · 30-01-2004 4:21pm

Where does 'bulk' start Ripwave ?

Above what amount, specify please !

M

bminish · 30-01-2004 4:33pm

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.

wexfordman · 30-01-2004 7:22pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 7:25pm

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?

wexfordman · 30-01-2004 7:36pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 7:45pm

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.

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 8:00pm

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.

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 8:26pm

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.

wexfordman · 30-01-2004 8:34pm

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

bminish · 30-01-2004 9:01pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 9:03pm

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.

bminish · 30-01-2004 9:12pm

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

spongebob · 30-01-2004 9:20pm

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

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 9:28pm

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.

Ripwave · 30-01-2004 9:32pm

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.

spongebob · 30-01-2004 9:42pm

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

bminish · 30-01-2004 9:47pm

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

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

Comments