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
2

Comments

  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #34
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #37
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #38
    Moriarty
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #39
    BigEejit
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #40
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #42
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #45
    Moriarty
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #46
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #49
    bminish
    Registered Users 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


  • Options
    #50
    Moriarty
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #52
    bminish
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Here
    **** 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.


    Does this offer still stand? :D


  • Options
    #53
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Which is a flawed assumption imo.
    It doesn't matter that you and I think it's flawed. It's the basis on which oreillycom and Esat are making their marketing decisions.
    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 problem is that the MSEs cost basis won't include the capital costs of building the network. Notwithstanding Brendans case that much of the existing fibre was built with Government grants, it's still part of an infrastructure that is privately owned. Whether we like it or not, having the MSE compete head to head with oreillycom or Esat for business would be problematic, from an anti-competitive point of view. (Even if they were prepared to compete at that level, it wouldn't be possible for oreillycom or Esat to compete against a provider that had no capital costs to carry).
    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?
    Which they can do by making it possible for other providers to get into the market, not by shutting down the backhaul market completely (which would be the effective outcome of Brendans proposal - how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).


  • Options
    #54
    bminish
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Brendan, did you actually read what I said? You asked why would any competing provider be different from 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.

    Why not? Surely they can buy entire fibres from the MSE if they want, they can also buy fibre from source (such as Co Council or ESB) or lay their own using the various duct sharing agreements.

    Other providers can offer services over MSE circuits that the MSE can't. the MSE should not offer directly Internet connectivity for example, that's not carrier neutral.

    How is a fibre only MSE any different in real terms form a virtual circuit MSE? it's exactly the same thing only in smaller chunks
    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.

    Why not, an MSE that has no users has no income just as is the case for any new entrant.
    Exactly - so why do you keep making arguments about the incumbents buying fibre from the MSE? They've already got fibre.

    Not perhaps in all cases, They may also want to buy bandwidth to markets where it is currently uneconomical to light their own fibre. The MSE will have to light fibre for it's Irish Gov customer.
    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.

    if the cost of MSE fibre is low enough for it to make it uneconomic for other providers to lay their own fibre and they then choose to use MSE fibre instead is this a bad thing?
    You are proposing that they use MSE fibre anyway.
    How much unlit fibre do we need in the ground
    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.

    Actually Alberta (where the supernt is) would seem to have a broadly similar range of problems and the overall cost of the supernet is about the same as the Gov plans to spend on the MAN projects alone.


    .Brendan


  • Options
    #55
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    It doesn't matter that you and I think it's flawed. It's the basis on which oreillycom and Esat are making their marketing decisions.

    Fair enough, but i was just making the point thats been made many times before that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    The problem is that the MSEs cost basis won't include the capital costs of building the network. Notwithstanding Brendans case that much of the existing fibre was built with Government grants, it's still part of an infrastructure that is privately owned. Whether we like it or not, having the MSE compete head to head with oreillycom or Esat for business would be problematic, from an anti-competitive point of view. (Even if they were prepared to compete at that level, it wouldn't be possible for oreillycom or Esat to compete against a provider that had no capital costs to carry).

    That eircom and esat are sitting on this fibre or charging exhorbitant amounts for access to/over it would seem to negate the argument of leaving the market sort itself out. The market has clearly failed. Eircom and esat have only themselves to blame if government intervention hurts their profit margins and customer base while correcting the market.
    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Which they can do by making it possible for other providers to get into the market, not by shutting down the backhaul market completely (which would be the effective outcome of Brendans proposal - how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).

    Indeed. But the whole idea of this new network is that it will cost the same no matter where you are in the country. If companies are allowed compete over the same infrastructure it will inevitably lead to price differences to the detriment of the smaller towns. If the MSE isnt allowed to offer services over the network, and a company doesnt see the gain in investing in a certain area, that potentially leaves people in that area in the exact same position as they are now. That is simply unacceptable.


  • Options
    #56
    bminish
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    how many backhaul providers can you choose from on Supernet?).

    Only one if the Supernet is the only provider in town, however anyplace you can get onto the supernet you can choose from a wide range of wholesale Internet connectivity providers in a competitive market. that has got to be a good outcome hasn't it?

    .Brendan


  • Options
    #57
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    That eircom and esat are sitting on this fibre or charging exhorbitant amounts for access to/over it would seem to negate the argument of leaving the market sort itself out.
    There are a number of different markets involved. ESAT and oreillycom are nominally in all of those markets (fibre, backhaul and "retail services", for example). It's precisely because they want to protect their "retail services" that they have effectively shut down the other two markets. If the MSE gets into the fibre and the backhaul markets, on the basis that is being proposed here, it's hard to see how you'll every get a competitive market for backhaul.
    Indeed. But the whole idea of this new network is that it will cost the same no matter where you are in the country.
    So much for "fair market prices"!


  • Options
    #58
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Only one if the Supernet is the only provider in town, however anyplace you can get onto the supernet you can choose from a wide range of wholesale Internet connectivity providers in a competitive market.
    Is it "only one" or is it a "wide range"?

    Or does "anyplace you can get on the supernet" not include those places where Supernet is the only provider in town?


  • Options
    #59
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    I dont really want to speak for bminish and i dont know the ins and outs of the supernet, but i think the way it goes is that if youre connected to any part of the supernet you can use supernet backhaul, or any other company if they provide a service to where you want it, back to central points like their equivilant of dublin. From there, you can buy bandwidth from any of the companys providing it that are already situated there.


  • Options
    #60
    bminish
    Registered Users Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Is it "only one" or is it a "wide range"?

    Or does "anyplace you can get on the supernet" not include those places where Supernet is the only provider in town?

    Rather than try to answer this, why not go and do some reading about the supernet for yourself INCLUDING the background as to why it was decided by the Government of Alberta to take that particular approach to solving the digital divide.
    AlbertaSupernet


    As far as a wide range goes, the Supernet is Carrier neutral and goes to lots of places so you can buy service from any provider that has a presence on or reachable from the supernet. They have no favoured carriers and no contracts for service between providers and the supernet are exclusive.

    there is also a FAQ Here


    Here is an article from IEEE spectrum magazine about the supernet.

    I am not in any way involved with any of the companies bidding for the MSE but from where I am looking at the problems with connectivity In Ireland it seems to me that it's a very good model to base the MSE on.

    Can you take a proper look at the Public information on who & what the Supernet is as well as how it works in Alberta then please explain why it would be such a bad idea here?

    .Brendan


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by bminish
    Rather than try to answer this,
    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. After doing your legwork for you, and reading the documentation for you, 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.
    Can you take a proper look at the Public information on who & what the Supernet is as well as how it works in Alberta then please explain why it would be such a bad idea here?
    Because it would stifle the development of competition in the backhaul market. It's easy to argue that government subsidised bandwidth would be a "good idea", but the decision was to subsidise the infrastructure, not the bandwidth. (In otherwords to replicate the model that got us a surfeit of international connectivity).

    Supernet was built in cooperation with, not in competition with the incumbent Telco (so Canada isn't paying for shedloads of duplicate infrastructure, but that's another story). 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. How much government business has oreillycom lost since the fibre rings were installed? Not much, I'll bet (or someone would have mentioned it by now). Now whether that should have been the rationale behind the Governments investment is a different discussion, but it wasn't. (In fact, I don't think you could say that there was a coherent rationale for the Governments investment).


Advertisement