Budget idea for charlie

wexfordman

Been looking at some posts regarding the price of eircom dsl (is it with or without vat etc...).

Just as an idea for the Governemt who is keen to rollout broadband to all, and bring about low prices to stimulate the market. Why does'nt charlie take VAT off of residential DSL lines ?

Not that this shoul dbe an excuse for ercom to say prices are low, but more to A) put it up to the operators, aying the gove is more than doing its bit to stimulate demand, now lets see what you do....

b) Reduce prices and stimulate demand. If the gov wantsw to restore vat once it considers the market stimulated, then fair enough I would'nt mind.


Also, why dont they CUT corpo tax, vat etc on RURAL WIRELESS BASESTATIONS. And I mean RURAL, not wireless in the city areas.

All of the above can be considered short term (5yrs maybe), until the market is manture and available to all. With the low current take up of broadband, its going to cost the gov feck all to cut vat, and once the demand/rollout etc picks up it means jobs etc.

wexfordman

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
Also, why dont they CUT corpo tax, vat etc on RURAL WIRELESS BASESTATIONS. And I mean RURAL, not wireless in the city areas.

Yeah right, lets tax all the city people to subsidise the people who live in the country.

Listen, you wouldn't have ANY DSL in rural areas if Eircom couldn't skim the cream from the densely populated Urban areas. The only real competition that might make eircom drop their prices will come from wireless operators signing up large numbers of customers in built-up areas. If IBB or LEAP or whoever can get to the stage where they can announce that they're signing up 300 people a week at €30/month, the eircom spokesman claiming 1,000 a week at €54.45 is going to have a hard time explaining himself.

(And wireless will never be able to do this if it requires someone with a ladder coming out to install an aerial on your roof. Now that "self install" is the norm for DSL, it's going to be harder to justify the cost of an engineer install for wireless).

spongebob

Originally posted by wexfordman

Been looking at some posts regarding the price of eircom dsl (is it with or without vat etc...).

Just as an idea for the Government who is keen to rollout broadband to all, and bring about low prices to stimulate the market. Why does'nt charlie take VAT off of residential DSL lines ?

He cant, he could create a new 5% rate but in reality he can only reduce it to 13.5%, the lower rate. It would be an idea if the takeup was more meaningful and if DSL was a component of the RPI

Reduce prices and stimulate demand. If the gov wantsw to restore vat once it considers the market stimulated, then fair enough I would'nt mind.

Once it IS in the RPI it could cause an inflation kick if not removed within a year IF demand ramps, if all worked it should be a 1 year special only.

Also, why dont they CUT corpo tax, vat etc on RURAL WIRELESS BASESTATIONS. And I mean RURAL, not wireless in the city areas.

Invidious and unfair, some city dwellers cannot get DSL either. I believe that IoffL have a Budget submission about this matter n the pipeline, I have seen an early draft. What about those beyond wireless with REALLY expensive VSAT CPE costs ?

The tax break is to go to the Customer to deal with the high CPE cost and is to be at the lower marginal rate for 3 years if the contract is not broken. That helps wireless operators to plan ahead with 3 year business plans where your tax break is in the first year only. City dweller can get it once Eircom confirm they fail the DSL test.

With the low current take up of broadband, its going to cost the gov feck all to cut vat, and once the demand/rollout etc picks up it means jobs etc.

Yes, the timespan would be compressed with all tax breaks wound up by end 2005 save the continuation of the 3 year CPE one if the contract is still in place.

M

Victor

Originally posted by wexfordman
Just as an idea for the Governemt who is keen to rollout broadband to all, and bring about low prices to stimulate the market. Why does'nt charlie take VAT off of residential DSL lines ?

It won't happen. I know my next comment is cruel, but there are more important things than downloading cheap pr0n.

DonegalMan

Originally posted by Ripwave
Yeah right, lets tax all the city people to subsidise the people who live in the country.

Surely it's a fundamental principle of government that all citizens should get equal access to essential services and not be penalised for where they live - we don't pay extra for our telephone or electricity services and IMO Internet access is fast becoming an equally essential service.



Martin Harran

Victor

Originally posted by DonegalMan
Surely it's a fundamental principle of government that all citizens should get equal access to essential services and not be penalised for where they live

This is very out dated thinking and while there should a relatively standard price format. The rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidise someone deliberately builing their house in the middle of nowhere. How about all the city folk demand to have 6 acres of land arounf their houses?

Originally posted by DonegalMan
we don't pay extra for our telephone or electricity services and IMO Internet access is fast becoming an equally essential service.

for downloading you pr0n quicker?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Victor
This is very out dated thinking and while there should a relatively standard price format. The rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidise someone deliberately builing their house in the middle of nowhere. How about all the city folk demand to have 6 acres of land arounf their houses? for downloading you pr0n quicker?

It may come as a shock to you, Victor, but there are other uses for the Internet besides mucky pictures. Yours is an attitude that will not help us promote the cause of Internet access.

seamus

Originally posted by wexfordman
Just as an idea for the Governemt who is keen to rollout broadband to all, and bring about low prices to stimulate the market. Why does'nt charlie take VAT off of residential DSL lines ?

I have to agree with Victor here. There are far more important things that the Government refuses to remove VAT on. Consumer safety equipment being one of them.

Besides, removing VAT would only be basically bowing to eircom. Eircom don't care about residential customers. And that's a fact. They aim everything at corporate customers. Why do you think that every time an eircom rep is on the radio/news, they quote the price ex-Vat?

We have to force eircom to lower their prices, not deny ourselves of valid revenue.

BigEejit

Originally posted by Victor
This is very out dated thinking and while there should a relatively standard price format. The rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidise someone deliberately builing their house in the middle of nowhere. How about all the city folk demand to have 6 acres of land arounf their houses?

:rolleyes: apples and oranges Victor, compare like with like in future (your example is comparing services with property)

I dont think the idea was to provide wireless broadband to someone living in the sticks, I thought it was more for towns under 10000 people (under 5000?, under 2000?) that eircom wont go near .... and while its a tax break for the rural communities I cant see it affecting built up areas except that they pay 20% more (or whatever VAT is), but that would probably be offset by lower prices due to competition .....

[varying amounts of offtopicness]
Dont be going on about "its not fair that we pay tax on X and they dont, because we live in Dublin", there are lots of things in this state that we ALL pay for but are only available to people in Dublin on a day to day basis ......and there are other things that everyone have been paying for years and Dubliners and only being forced to pay now (bin charges?, I pay nearly €400, whats it in Dublin)
[/varying amounts of offtopicness]

spongebob

Originally posted by BigEejit
:......and there are other things that everyone have been paying for years and Dubliners and only being forced to pay now (bin charges?, I pay nearly €400, whats it in Dublin)

And its a public service in Dublin, the Bin Charges for the few Dubs who seem to bother to pay them are subsidised to the hilt. It must be 5 years since my charges were around €180 or whatever figure it costs in Dublin.

Lets get the Dubs to pay the market rate for getting rid of their (properly separated at source like in the country) rubbish and use the savings to subsidise BB . After all the solids will end up in the countryside anyway.

Consider it a "Hosting" charge for all the sh1te we get from Dublin .

M

Venom

Originally posted by Muck
Consider it a "Hosting" charge for all the sh1te we get from Dublin .

M

Didnt know you owned all the land in Ireland outside of Dublin bub.

seamus

Stay on topic lads......

SkepticOne

Originally posted by seamus
Besides, removing VAT would only be basically bowing to eircom. Eircom don't care about residential customers. And that's a fact. They aim everything at corporate customers. Why do you think that every time an eircom rep is on the radio/news, they quote the price ex-Vat?

Eircom quote the ex-VAT price in order for the price to look good. 45 euros sounds a lot better than 54 euros and leads to the perception that Eircom's broadband is reasonable value, therefore there's no need for the Government to do anything about their monopoly.

Removing VAT would simply help increase their profits since they don't have to compete at the wholesale level. It would be far better for the government to stimulate competition than stimulate demand.

Urban Weigl

Reducing the VAT would only make sense if Eircom's ADSL bitstream price was also set lower. For example, I can see the following working -- bitstream is set at 10 euros per month, and VAT is set at 13.5%.

Otherwise, it's just bowing to Eircom.

spongebob

Once you rate an item foir VAT you may NEVER remove VAT from that item.

The only Mod you can make is to move bands, currently we have 2 Bands 13.5% and 21% . €45*1.135 = €51.07 which is still probably the highest entry level DSL price in the EU from any Incumbent carrier.

If the minister brought in a NEW vat band of 5% it would be messy. Venom would probably start a compaign for Dublin Bus tickets to be in the 5% bracket. The farmers would want every Agri everything rated at 5%, Coeliacs would want THEIR food in there. The Vatman would be driven spare. The pressure on the Government would be enormous and continous.

Therefore my suggestion is that it be dealt with through a tax rebate/capital allowances for companies at the standard rate of 22% which is the same as a VAT exemption at the higher rate....more or less. Companies who get their VAT back also get this.

This for the high CPE acquisition costs in non DSL areas (which include some City areas) and to give that rebate only if a 3 year contract was effective with an Irish ISP.............suddenly the clamour starts to give the Dubs a tax rebate for paying their Bin Charges like the rest of us :D

(Sorry Seamus, I could not resist)

M

DonegalMan

Originally posted by Muck
Once you rate an item foir VAT you may NEVER remove VAT from that item.

Normally not one to doubt you Muck, but what is that based on? Seems strange.
Martin Harran

BigEejit

Lookit, we all know that €ircunts wont roll out broadband all over the place, just where they stand to make large quantities of cash in a short period of time ..... so a tax break on wireless broadband (and particularly on getting backhauls into place) would be a much better proposition in that there is a lot of competition, well, going by the quantity of companies that applied for - and were awarded - licenses was anything to go by.... everyone is happy, except maybe the existing wireless broadband operators .... but am I imagining it or did most of them get grants to set up their kit? (I know Amocom in Cork got grants)

Basically, fuck xDSL and fuck €ircon ..... give tax incentives/grants to wireless operators and watch broadband takeup go through the roof

spongebob

Originally posted by DonegalMan
Normally not one to doubt you Muck, but what is that based on? Seems strange.
Martin Harran

EU Regulations I think. Once an item is VAT rated it can never be Zeroed again. The only option is to introduce a low or nominal band and to stick it in there, I picked 5% as an example . The introduction of 0% VAT on any item that is curently VAT Rated is a non runner.

It may be possible to reclassify something into a non VAT category but that can also lead to headaches. Many products are classed as luxury goods 21% that should be essentials at 13.5% .

I cannot recall any product that was VAT Rated being removed from the VAT net, ever .

M

wexfordman

Yeah right, lets tax all the city people to subsidise the people who live in the country.

Listen, you wouldn't have ANY DSL in rural areas if Eircom couldn't skim the cream from the densely populated Urban areas. The only real competition that might make eircom drop their prices will come from wireless operators signing up large numbers of customers in built-up areas. If IBB or LEAP or whoever can get to the stage where they can announce that they're signing up 300 people a week at €30/month, the eircom spokesman claiming 1,000 a week at €54.45 is going to have a hard time explaining himself.

(And wireless will never be able to do this if it requires someone with a ladder coming out to install an aerial on your roof. Now that "self install" is the norm for DSL, it's going to be harder to justify the cost of an engineer install for wireless).

Ripwave,
What I'm trying to point at is a way to incentivise bb rollout throughout the country, not just localising it to city areas. Someone else (cant remember who mentioned)giving all city dwellers 6 acres of land in the country. Well thats one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard (even if it was sarcastic), and this boards members are generally more intelligent than trying to drive debates like this. I live in a country area, where my wifes family have lived for several generations. If you wnat to talk about subsiies, then give me a subsidy for all the free water and sewrage treatment as well as bin charges etc. Anyway, this argument is too stupid to continue.

My point was that there are moves in place already to stimulate demand in city areas, and it seems to be taking off with the 59 bb wireless licenses recently awarded. However, look at the areas where they are, all city and dense urban areas. Understandably, companies want to go where the bucks is, and all going well this will introduce good competition, and therefore lower prices, thats why Irish bb are offering 30euro BB in their coverage areas.

The idea of offering some sort of tax incentive for rollout of rural bb, is because on its own, there does not seem to be enough incentive for companies to do this. In the same way that we have/had tax breaks for urban renewel in seaside towns etc, it was to put an incentive for industry to kick off some business. Lets do the same for rural broadband, you have to give these companies some sort of help to offset the lower revenues they will make, otherwise they will rightly cherrypick (as has been done with the 59 wireless licences).

Someone else made a coment about self install etc not being possible because of having to put aerials on the roof. Well true, self install may be possible (except for something in near distance like ripwave from Irish bb). So what if it is'nt possible, I'm still willing to pay someone a couple of hundred euro to put in an aerial on my roof. Its a business model that chorus (ouch) have used, and works. They do it for an average monthly revenue of 30 euros for tv only,,,,

I'm just a bit surpirsed to see so many obstacales presented to this idea on this forum.
I take the point about the problems with giving vat/tax breaks muck pointed out, but again, could there not be something done similar to the tax incentives given over the last decade for urban renewal ?
wexfordman

Ripwave

Originally posted by DonegalMan
Surely it's a fundamental principle of government that all citizens should get equal access to essential services and not be penalised for where they live - we don't pay extra for our telephone or electricity services and IMO Internet access is fast becoming an equally essential service.

Housing a a far more "essential" service than Internet access IMO, and nobody from outside Dublin seems to want to have it priced at the same flat rate country wide.

Until relatively recently, people outside Dublin did pay somewhat more to use their phones than Dublin people, simply because they were more likely to have to call Dublin to deal with the Civil Service, or many businesses. But the underlying "infrastructure" cost was priced the same all over the country primarily because there was only one provider. You can be sure that if Dublin and Cork had their own local telephone companies, phone lines in Dublin would not be the same price as phone lines in Donegal. (They'd probably be higher, they way things are working now). For example, cable TV doesn't cost the same everywhere, because the cost was decided locally, by different comapnies).

Much the same goes for Electricity, though it's more complex in that Dublin "imports" most if it's electricity from powerstations outside Dublin. And because the infrastructure cost is built into the "product", rather than being a seperate charge, it's much harder to make a straight "X is subsidising Y" argument.

The key point is that eircom is only ever going to have a single price for it's basic broadband package. And that will mean that eircom users in high density areas will be effectively subsidising eircom users in low density areas (and eircom will hold back on rolling out products that can only be delivered in high denisty areas, because of the political flak they'll have to deal with). But because there are/will be mutiple Wireless operators, offering different products, with different overheads, in quite limited areas, we're likely to see a range of prices. The only hope for Rural broadband users to see significantly lower prices is for successful Wireless deployments in high denisty areas to create genuine competitive pressure for eircom. The downside of that is that Rural wireless providers might actually be hurt by that, because they'll have far less scope for growing their user base to make up for a lower price. (€50/month seems to have become the norm for these providers, and, high installation charges aside, it puts them in the same ballpark as DSL. If competition in the wireless market in the cities drives that baseline down to €30-€35, rural wireless providers might not be able to keep up).

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
I live in a country area, where my wifes family have lived for several generations. If you wnat to talk about subsiies, then give me a subsidy for all the free water and sewrage treatment as well as bin charges etc.

How much per head of population does Wexford County Council get from central government? How much per head of population does Dun Laioghre/Rathdown County Council get? Or Fingal County Council? When you've got that information to hand, I'll be happy to debate the issue with you. Decisions about how to spend that money are made locally, and unless you've got data showing that the Dublin councils get more per head of population, then yes, you'd be stupid to continue the arguement.

(Until 1979 we all paid for these services locally, including people in Dublin. In 1979, FF promised to abolish domestic rates if they got re-elected, and fund those services from exchequer funds. But the money is paid to local givernments to allocate as they see fit. I don't know what non-Dublin councils have been spending their money on since then - milage allowance for councillors, maybe?)

spongebob

Originally posted by Ripwave

The only hope for Rural broadband users to see significantly lower prices is for successful Wireless deployments in high denisty areas to create genuine competitive pressure for eircom.

In even plainer terms, wireless is necessary in Dublin too in order to pressurise Eircom.

The downside of that is that Rural wireless providers might actually be hurt by that, because they'll have far less scope for growing their user base to make up for a lower price. (€50/month seems to have become the norm for these providers, and, high installation charges aside, it puts them in the same ballpark as DSL.

Agreed, the sweet spot for the next while will be €49.99 a month.

If competition in the wireless market in the cities drives that baseline down to €30-€35, rural wireless providers might not be able to keep up).

They will not come under the same pricing pressure in Rural areas. Wireless is currently essential for local loop competition in Urban areas but could easily lose out in a price war if Eircom hacked their DSL prices to c.€40 a month INCL Vat.

Eircom have a plan to do around 14% of the state with ADSL. The other 86% will ONLY have Wireless. While they may be displeased with paying €50 where the townies are getting similar for €35-€40 that is the price one will pay for distance from services. At the moment , many are stuck in Pairgained backwaters with 16.8k Analogue. You pay €20 a month extra but if that saves you half a day of travelling to a meeting a month, given rural distances, it is actually cost effective at the higher rate.

Given the appaling Tail costs for leased lines, Wireless is also a brilliant leased line substitute in Rural areas so there are advantages in the uncontended non DSLareas as well.

One bitch is the CPE though, save where there may have been an MMDS install in the past.

M

wexfordman

Ripwave,

Your talking about the price of rural broadband, all I am aiming at is availability. In a very short space of time, city dwellers should have a number of options for bb suppliers, be it wireless or adsl.

All I am talking about is for the government to incentivise the rollout of BB to rural areas. Make it a bit more affordable for companies to offer wireless in rural areas, based on the fact that they will have fewqer customers per base station and hence it makes it more difficult for them to provide the service. Whatever the debate is about rural/urban bb, the fact of the matter is it HAS to be made available throughout the country, to every household. I'm just suggesting an option to make it easier for companies to do this. Its my tax money thats going to pay for these fibre rings that they are building as well, even though I'm never going to be able to take advantage of it. If the government puts my tax money into providing infrastructure for urban dwellers, it can bloody well do the same for me.

With wireless soon to become more available in the city areas, I'm sure that eircom are going to beef up rollout in these areas to fight the competion, and rural areas will not get the same push and so will get left behind again.
Wexfordman

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
Your talking about the price of rural broadband, all I am aiming at is availability. In a very short space of time, city dwellers should have a number of options for bb suppliers, be it wireless or adsl.

Because the market is there. That's why Dublin airport has 30 or 40 flights a day to London, and Galway airport doesn't, and it's why the M50 has 45 minute delays on the WestLink, and the Mullingar by-pass doesn't.

All I am talking about is for the government to incentivise the rollout of BB to rural areas.

No, you're talking about SUBSIDISING the price paid by rural dwellers for this product. You can dress it up any way you want, but the bottom line is that you don't want to have to pay the true economic cost of getting access to this service.

Make it a bit more affordable for companies to offer wireless in rural areas, based on the fact that they will have fewqer customers per base station and hence it makes it more difficult for them to provide the service. Whatever the debate is about rural/urban bb, the fact of the matter is it HAS to be made available throughout the country, to every household. I'm just suggesting an option to make it easier for companies to do this.

That's fine (though I don't buy the notion that it has to be made available throughout the country, if it's not economically feasible to do that). Now why the insistence that the "incentive" only be made available to rural dwellers? Why would the incentive be any less effective if it was available to city dwellers as well?

Its my tax money thats going to pay for these fibre rings that they are building as well, even though I'm never going to be able to take advantage of it. If the government puts my tax money into providing infrastructure for urban dwellers, it can bloody well do the same for me.

And now the truth comes out - it's the old beal bocht again.

Guess what, Wexforman, those "fibre rings" will be of f-all use to the vast majority of boards users. In fact, rural users will get far more benefit from them than anyone in Dublin, because when you do eventually get wireless, it'll probably backhaul to the nearest fibre ring, and save money over back hauling to some other piece of infrastructure.

With wireless soon to become more available in the city areas, I'm sure that eircom are going to beef up rollout in these areas to fight the competion, and rural areas will not get the same push and so will get left behind again.
Wexfordman

eircom are pretty much as beefed up as they can be in the city areas already. Expect any competitive response from eircom to come on the price front (with a tighter squeeze between the wholesale and retail prices, to screw IOL and UTV even harder).

wexfordman

Re: Rural broadband price/.

quote:

"Because the market is there. That's why Dublin airport has 30 or 40 flights a day to London, and Galway airport doesn't, and it's why the M50 has 45 minute delays on the WestLink, and the Mullingar by-pass doesn't."

quote:

Well Ripwave, perhaps your right. Lets let the Market take over. Lets let the market take over and let the "Market" sustain and provide services like, Dublin Bus, DART, LUAS, Water supply, sewage works, bin disposal, THE M50, The Port tunnel.......blah blah blah. BB is and will become as essential a service as all of the above, theres no difference.


"No, you're talking about SUBSIDISING the price paid by rural dwellers for this product. You can dress it up any way you want, but the bottom line is that you don't want to have to pay the true economic cost of getting access to this service."


Well, I'd like to see you try and pay the TRUE ECONOMIC COST of all of the services above. Not that I think you should, I'm quite happy for the government to subsidise these services, and dont begrudge you any of it (except maybe the waste disposal charges cause it discourages people from being responsible for their own waste)

Also, the government is already effectively subsidisng bb rollout, just not in rural areas. Hence fibre rings and grants to the likes of Amocom etc. I beleive ESAT BT also got significant grants from the gov to upgrade exchanges etc. If thats not a subsidy, then I dont know what is. I'm not against this in any way whatsoever, I just think it should also be done in rural areas too.
quote:


"That's fine (though I don't buy the notion that it has to be made available throughout the country, if it's not economically feasible to do that). Now why the insistence that the "incentive" only be made available to rural dwellers? Why would the incentive be any less effective if it was available to city dwellers as well?
quote:"

The incentive should be made available in the same sort of manner that the government is giving an incentive (or trying to) to urban BB by putting in these fibre rings. I'm not asking for anything that has not been done to some extent already. Urban BB has already been subsidised by the governemnt, and should continue to do so until "market forces" allow it to walk on its own two feet. What I am trying to suggest (and its only a suggestion by the way), is a way in which "market forces" can be encouraged to develop and provide rural BB services.

As to your "economically feasible" argument, well if thats the case, again, how economically feasible is the Luas ? Take the government incentives out of that and see how much its going to end up costing a weekly pass... See if the market would decide to build this on its own initiative, no it would not, but the governemtn rightly decided to build it.


"And now the truth comes out - it's the old beal bocht again.

Guess what, Wexforman, those "fibre rings" will be of f-all use to the vast majority of boards users. In fact, rural users will get far more benefit from them than anyone in Dublin, because when you do eventually get wireless, it'll probably backhaul to the nearest fibre ring, and save money over back hauling to some other piece of infrastructure."

I doubt very much a fibre ring around portlaoise is going to be of any use for rural dwellers, but I would like to see the governemnt put in some sort of rural infrastructure to provide wireless backbonebackbone for rural wireless servcies, yes. Quite easy to do without having to run fibre around the county. There is already plenty of rural backbone networks around to provide these services, its just not encouraged enough.

The governemnt providing these rings is also effectively an investment by the gov to "cheapen" the infrastructure costs for alternative bb supliers. What exactly is the difference in what I am talking about ?
quote:


"eircom are pretty much as beefed up as they can be in the city areas already. Expect any competitive response from eircom to come on the price front (with a tighter squeeze between the wholesale and retail prices, to screw IOL and UTV even harder)."

And one of the main reasons why you may see cheaper BB and price reductions by Eircom is cos Irish BB are offerring BB for 30 euro per month. Great to see it. Well, if your "Market forces" come into play here and IOL/UTV get screwed thats your theology, not mine

wexfordman

Victor

Originally posted by wexfordman
The idea of offering some sort of tax incentive for rollout of rural bb, is because on its own, there does not seem to be enough incentive for companies to do this. In the same way that we have/had tax breaks for urban renewel in seaside towns etc, it was to put an incentive for industry to kick off some business.

All this did was distort the housing market and encourage under-used second homes. And look at how screwed up the housing market became. If you subsidise rural broadband, companies will provide rural broadband to suit the tax regime, not demand.

SkepticOne

Any increased competition, whether in rural or urban areas, will benefit the country by increasing rollout and lowering prices.

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
Well, I'd like to see you try and pay the TRUE ECONOMIC COST of all of the services above.

How much do you think it would cost the economy in lost productivity if there was no public transport at all? A hell of a lot more than the "subsidy" to Dublin Bus, which is far lower than in equivalent European cities.

Public transport isn't subsidised to make it cheaper for Urban dwellers to go to the cinema or a pub in town. It's "subsidised" because the country needs workers to get to offices and factories.

Subsidies for rural broadband (no townies need apply), doesn't come anywhere near that level of societal good.

Also, the government is already effectively subsidisng bb rollout, just not in rural areas. Hence fibre rings and grants to the likes of Amocom etc. I beleive ESAT BT also got significant grants from the gov to upgrade exchanges etc. If thats not a subsidy, then I dont know what is. I'm not against this in any way whatsoever, I just think it should also be done in rural areas too.

No, it should only be done in areas where it makes economic sense to do it. The government believes that those fibre rings and grants will pay themselves back in terms of increased employment opportunities. Where's your economic justification for rural wireless subsidies?

The incentive should be made available in the same sort of manner that the government is giving an incentive (or trying to) to urban BB by putting in these fibre rings.

Government isn't giving an incentive to "urban" BB. It's investing in infrastructure that it believes will generate an economic return (I'm not convinced myself, but nobodies saying that they're being built to give cheap pr0n to the masses). The rings are being built in urban areas, because it would be utterly stupid to build them in rural areas. Why? Because it's not economically justified. And neither are rural-only subsidies for wireless broadband.

As to your "economically feasible" argument, well if thats the case, again, how economically feasible is the Luas ? Take the government incentives out of that and see how much its going to end up costing a weekly pass... See if the market would decide to build this on its own initiative, no it would not, but the governemtn rightly decided to build it.

The Government decided to build it because it was supposed to save society more than it cost to build (and then Mary O'Rourke got involved, and bollixed it altogether, but that's another story altogether).

The governemnt providing these rings is also effectively an investment by the gov to "cheapen" the infrastructure costs for alternative bb supliers. What exactly is the difference in what I am talking about ?

You're talking about a straightforward subsidy for rural users, with no attempt at an economic justification. "I want broadband, and I want the government to subsidise it". The fibre rings project was justified by the government on the basis of encouraging inward inverstment, and creating jobs. Sounds different to me.

And one of the main reasons why you may see cheaper BB and price reductions by Eircom is cos Irish BB are offerring BB for 30 euro per month. Great to see it. Well, if your "Market forces" come into play here and IOL/UTV get screwed thats your theology, not mine

What, you want to government to subsidise them as well? Only for rural dwellers, or will we all get a slice of that cake?

Fallschirmjager

is there even a small chance we could get this back on a discussion about broadband...anyone...anyone..bueller...anyone....


i live in a village outside dublin and one of the few ways we can all help each other is with the introduction of broadband.

i drive to and from dublin and am now leaving at 6.20am to get in..what is my point?

well, here it is....if broadband came to my town -- i guess that at least 1 or 2 days a week a i would work from home. Now what does that mean to you? well if even a small percentage of the travelling public could do that - what is the improvement in quality of life issues for all..i would guess it will start small but grow very quickly. I personally think a lot of the future office centre technology will be distributed. Imagine companies that could hire you for a few weeks on and off. I would suspect that would suit a lot of home workers. And i dont just mean call centres..it could apply to any information based technologies. the cost for companies would be massively reduced, no rental (or very small), no expensive worker insurance blah blah blah. Now the thing it needs is infrastructure. The goverment invests billions in roads and ignore the one that will fundemetally change how we do business. Now we subsidy the roads, we subsidy fecking everything as i see it...and i think the issue of using tax breaks as a way of encouraging this is hardly rocket science. no one likes paying for anyone else...i dont , you dont...but imagine we did not invest in education all those years ago...you have to have a vision of what is possible, something that is sadly missing in consceutive irish governments. we need a vision and if tax breaks are it, then so be it..personally i dont think they will work but , thats just my opinion.

surely we all agree that BB is critical....well it we accept this we can move forward away from the ridiculous towney versus country crap....

its the 21st century...jesvs can we please , please move on......

NOW ANYONE ELSE GOT AN IDEA ON INCREASING GROWTH?

Fallschirmjager

typo...caps lock stuck on...mistake with the capital letters...sorry

wexfordman

Fallsm,

I agree, I did not mean this to turn into a townie/city debate, it was just a suggestion on how to see if we can ensure that BB rollout is prioirtised nationwide, not just in urban areas, both because as you said it is an essential, or will become as essential as the N25 to a lot of people, and also because, I just bloody want it too. Theres no argument whatsoever,with regards to the need/neccessity or benfits of BB on a nationwide basis. But I do feel that some public money needs to be put into rural bb, and that was what I was suggesting, as all the public money that has been spent so far, is in the majority, for urban areas. Thats fine, no argument, and if you were to look at prioritising rollout, this is where you would go first, but lets not forget the nationwide aspect of it.

Anyway, you got to me before I could get the dig in about essential infrastructure in Urban areas like "The Spike", and the huge financial and social benfits that has given to the country, and how well that money was spent.

I would however like to ask Charlie for some money for a "Spike" of our own out here in the sticks (Cork, not Wexford by the way). And seeing as we are building our own Spike, lets stick and SDH radio and a couple of omni antenna for BB on it.

Oh look, I got the dig in. hehehe


Wexfordman