Broadband availability and economic viability

Ripwave

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
if they are going to enable the exchanges...now i am not great at math and perhaps Muck can help here (he been the resident expert on what has been done , exchange wise that is, to date) but i believe they have only enabled 100 of something like 2000 exchanges (these figures are from memory, so dont bollock me if they are wrong)

so if we assume 1900 to go and as i recall, again from school, that we have 24 months to the end of 2005.

that works out ar 80 or so telecom exchanges per month to be converted

I think you'll find that something like the 80/20 rule applies (or maybe even 90/10).

80% of the population are served by 20% of the telephone exchanges. Don't expect significant uneconomic investment by oreillycom to deliver broadband to a small number of users on the "other" 80% of exchanges.

Fallschirmjager

Rip, thats a bit depressing....so its not so much a change as a rehash of the last marketing message from eircom....if i understand you correctly

bealtine

quote:

---

I think you'll find that something like the 80/20 rule applies (or maybe even 90/10).

---

I think they just had to bring out something, any old crap, to try and stop the gov'mint stealing their pitch.


But maybe people aka the gov'mint have finally realised that eircom
(Orielly.com) is using fud tactics (but then they are mere amateurs).


So nothing will change, as far as eircom is concerned, just a lot of useless waffle...

Ripwave

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
Rip, thats a bit depressing....so its not so much a change as a rehash of the last marketing message from eircom....if i understand you correctly

No, it sounds like they're pushing things a bit further than they were originally, but there will still be people too far from exchanges, or connected to exchanges where demand is just too low to justify the investment. Eircom won't deliver broadband anywhere that there isn't a competitive reason to do so - so if your town is too small to warrant a local wireless ISP, eircom won't feel under a great deal of pressure to serve you either.

shinzon

What it really means it that even with all this investment in broadband, there will still be small towns and villages that will never have access to Broadband only through satellite or wireless

Or may have no BB access at all

What a country we live in LOL

Shin

De Rebel

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
Rip, thats a bit depressing....so its not so much a change as a rehash of the last marketing message from eircom....if i understand you correctly

Jamie Smyth's regurgitation of David McRedmond's words included the following nuggets (See this thread)

"The company will also set up a website in January where people living in small towns and villages of less than 1,500 people without access to eircom's broadband product, I-stream, can register an interest to receive broadband.

When between 200 and 700 people register an interest for subscribing for broadband in that area, Eircom will seek to offer broadband using a range of different internet technologies."

Both of those are new "commitments" (the interest register and the delivery using a range of different technologies) from eircom. Neither is really much of a commitment, and it wouldn't be beyond Redmond/Smyth to be a tad confused about things, but it does show that there is some forward thinking going on, even if it is taking place under duress.

Ripwave

Originally posted by De Rebel
Jamie Smyth's regurgitation of David McRedmond's words included the following nuggets (See this thread)

"The company will also set up a website in January where people living in small towns and villages of less than 1,500 people without access to eircom's broadband product, I-stream, can register an interest to receive broadband.

When between 200 and 700 people register an interest for subscribing for broadband in that area, Eircom will seek to offer broadband using a range of different internet technologies."

Both of those are new "commitments" (the interest register and the delivery using a range of different technologies) from eircom. Neither is really much of a commitment, and it wouldn't be beyond Redmond/Smyth to be a tad confused about things, but it does show that there is some forward thinking going on, even if it is taking place under duress.

It's not much of a commitment. A "village" of 400 homes wouldn't have much difficulty topping the 1500 population mark, but I wouldn't want to be trying to get 200 homes out of 400 to sign up.

spongebob

This has been rumoured for a while, at least since the summer, I was told that Eircom had a plan for 220 exchanges.

150 Announced in January 2003
70 in December 2003 (the 88 Towns announced by Dermot Ahern - 20 already in the 150 Figure, all the new towns have only one exchange unlike the original plan which cincluded large Multiexchange towns)

220 Total.

There are 1100 exchanges, Eircom have committed to supplying DSL to 20% of exchanges covering a netch under 20% of the land area of the state. Anyone who lives in the other 80% will rely on Wireless projects.

We are still awaiting one or two key announcements that will assist in the provision of BB to that 80% . The 3.5Ghz licences may do 10-15% but that still means that only 35% of the state has BB , by Geographic coverage.

I say this in the knowledge that Wireless BB will never achieve 100% coverage but there is still a lot to do , particularly with the ESB RTE Mast/SDH systems which have been built on the proceeds of our TV licences and ESB bills.

M

Ripwave

Originally posted by Muck
There are 1100 exchanges, Eircom have committed to supplying DSL to 20% of exchanges covering a netch under 20% of the land area of the state. Anyone who lives in the other 80% will rely on Wireless projects.

We are still awaiting one or two key announcements that will assist in the provision of BB to that 80% .

"land area" doesn't use broadband, Muck, people do.

You're as bad as McRedmond, but at least he gets paid to mislead.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Ripwave
"land area" doesn't use broadband, Muck, people do.

Those of us who live in the 80% of the land area are with Muck on this one, rip. We're not talking about hermits in thatched cottages here: I live in a fairly well-populated area five miles from a major town, and wireless is the only option we'll ever have.

Ripwave

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Those of us who live in the 80% of the land area are with Muck on this one, rip. We're not talking about hermits in thatched cottages here: I live in a fairly well-populated area five miles from a major town, and wireless is the only option we'll ever have.

You're with Muck on what, exactly, oscarBravo? That you want the rest of us to subsidise uneconomic services because you live too far from a telephone exchange to get DSL?

Muck regularly castigates oreillycom spokespeople for double-speak and misleading use of statistics. And then he indulges in exactly same tactics.

He does a disservice to the people he claims to be speaking for, and to Ireland Offline.

As long as 50% of the population in areas that can get broadband can't even be bothered to use narrowband, you don't have strong grounds for any claiming that you're being hard done by because commercial companies don't find you an actractive customer.

machalla

Theres your answer. Move to Dublin, Galway, Cork or Limerick.

The friendly locals in those areas will no doubt welcome newcomers with open arms as usual. Choose from a vast array of easily affordable houses and appartments.
Get a phone line thats guaranteed to be DSL capable.

Or maybe not..

Just as well the government has some social interest in trying expand access to BB. Private companies have no interest in anything outside of large urban areas nor ever will have (obviously).

Given that not eveyone lives in a large urban area or given current trends could ever afford to do so. Or would even want to.

MarkR

Laying the backbone is hopefully just the start. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

bealtine

quote:

---

You're with Muck on what, exactly, oscarBravo? That you want the rest of us to subsidise uneconomic services because you live too far from a telephone exchange to get DSL?

---

Let the damn culchees use parafin lamps shure havent they always used them.
WTF should anybody pipe water to their houses, shure havent they always gone to the well?

Do the words "digital divide" mean anything to you?

Luckily the gov see BB as a spur to growth in the sticks...and this kind of closed minded " stuff the culchees" thinking isnt part of their agenda (hopefully).
Just because we don't live in ripoff Dublin does not mean we shouldn't have services...

In fact its this brain dead thinking that keeps this country in the lowest of the low
in all the OECD bb charts and keeps us nicely in the grip of that ripoff orielly.com.

To my mind IOFFL is about bringing bb to all in Ireland Inc not just those who happen
to live in big towns.

Oh BTW I'm not a culchee...

viking

Originally posted by Ripwave
It's not much of a commitment. A "village" of 400 homes wouldn't have much difficulty topping the 1500 population mark, but I wouldn't want to be trying to get 200 homes out of 400 to sign up.

It will be extremely difficult indeed. Whats much more scandalous is the fact that Eircom have moved the goalposts when it comes to minimum signups. Originally they were looking for 100 signups as per this article regarding Kenmare:

...if 100 potential subscribers express interest in ADSL, [Eircom] will push ahead with ADSL investment in the area months earlier than was previously planned

They have now effectively made it nearly impossible for smaller towns to meet this new target of 200 signups.

viking

machalla

They have now effectively made it nearly impossible for smaller towns to meet this new target of 200 signups.

Odd that isn't it?

Mind you I think Ripwaves whole point (despite sounding like the usual Dubin uber alles) is that a commercial company like Eircom, sharholder owned is not going to do anything except attempt to maximise its profit margins. It has no social contract with consumers. We are simply cash cows to it. And if we are not all juicy, fat and in large herds then they have no interest in us.

Government intervention is in a social and economic context which is not profit driven (apart from increased taxes from more economic activity). Also the advantages lie in possibly allowing people to start up business and work outside of the major urban centres.

Which is nice.

Ripwave

Originally posted by bealtine
Just because we don't live in ripoff Dublin does not mean we shouldn't have services...

There's the old beal bocht again. I didn't say that you shouldn't get services. I said that using misleading statistics to claim that you're being unfairly denied those services doesn't reflect well on Muck, or on Ireland Offline.

I don't have a problem with the Government encouraging economic development by building infrastructure wherever they think it will pay off (even if the payoff takes 10 or 15 years). I do have a problem with suggestions that you've some sort of right to cheap broadband so that you can play XBox live, or download DivX copies of Lord of the Rings.

In fact its this brain dead thinking that keeps this country in the lowest of the low in all the OECD bb charts and keeps us nicely in the grip of that ripoff orielly.com.

Huh? You need to read a little history, bealtine. The fear of political pressure requiring them to deliver the same service throughout the country was a factor in preventing eircom rolling DSL out when they were still owned by the State. (It wasn't the only factor, by a long shot). Now, the Government can't or won't force oreillycom to deliver such services, so the only "brain dead thinking" going on is by those who swallow Mucks deliberately distorted statistics.

BTW, Oreilly.com are the publishers of many fine technical books.

To my mind IOFFL is about bringing bb to all in Ireland Inc not just those who happen to live in big towns.

Here's what Ireland Offline say in their objectives:

Working to bring real competition to a market characterized by resellers of the services Eircom choose to offer and enabling rural communities to provide for their own connectivity needs where it is not commercially viable for a third party to do so.

Even Ireland Offline recognize that it may not be commercially viable to deliver boradband to everyone. Complaining about the 20% who may never get DSL before everyone who should be able to get it has it is premature, to say the least!

oscarBravo

(Time for everyone to take a deep breath, methinks.)

I don't think Muck ever intended to suggest that Eircom should be required to roll out DSL everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, Muck: the point is to make sure that people don't fall into the trap of assuming that Eircom's 80% promises mean that all but the remotest of island-dwellers will be offered DSL over the next couple of years.

Speaking for myself: I'm not that interested in DSL. The possibilities for community-based wireless broadband schemes look a lot more interesting.

bk

Originally posted by Ripwave

You need to read a little history, bealtine. The fear of political pressure requiring them to deliver the same service throughout the country was a factor in preventing eircom rolling DSL out when they were still owned by the State. (It wasn't the only factor, by a long shot). Now, the Government can't or won't force oreillycom to deliver such services, so the only "brain dead thinking" going on is by those who swallow Mucks deliberately distorted statistics.

Just a small correction there Ripwave.

Eircom never worried about having to rollout DSL to everyone in the country, they have always known that it would be impossible and that the government would not force them to do it.

This excuse was simply FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) spread by Eircom types as one of their many excuses for taking so long to rollout DSL.

The simple truth is that Eircom never wanted to rollout DSL as it cuts into their very valuable per minute dial-up charges. It was only when FRIACO was introduced that Eircom became interested in DSL.

wexfordman

I got into a debate about Dublin v Rural on this board a while ago and I could'nt beleive what I was reading. I cant beleive this site is debating something so pathetic, I had creditied memmers with a bit more cop on than that. Sorry to see its come up again.

Perhaps the only solution to any of this is to ask the Government to withdraw all subsidies for everything, i.e Health, transport, Communications, road, rail. Then we can all moan about the cost of everything, but not attack each other over who gets tax money for BB and who does'nt, or who feels they are more entitled than the other.

The other solution of course is that we all recognise the fact that the government steps in when the market does not, or where it is economically unfeasible for the market to do so. Fibre rings were not being built around major towns by the market, the governments steps in and helps build it. Rural broadband is not econimically feasible, so the governemtn steps in and helps build it. Both pretty reasonable prospects to me, and not really worth attacking like minded people who are interested in ensuring a service is provided to all, at a reasonable cost.

wexfordman

spongebob

Originally posted by Ripwave
There's the old beal bocht again. I didn't say that you shouldn't get services. I said that using misleading statistics to claim that you're being unfairly denied those services doesn't reflect well on Muck, or on Ireland Offline.

McRedmond peddled the usual crap to tame journos in oreillycom , The IT , RTE and the rest to the effect that Eircom would have 100% coverage in 15 Months (Mar 2005) .

McRedmond and his PR ****e, spewed to an uncritical bunch of fat hacks in Dublin, sticks in my craw. This is more especially so when the available stats prove clearly, as I said, that Eircom will only cover 20% of the Country max unless Eircom propose to deploy some form of ****ing DSL that hasn't been invented yet. Then I have to listen to some apologist trying to justify this inaccuracy, slob journalism and the PR spin. Theres always one around but at least you could simply tell Ardmore to go **** himself every time HE showed up.

Where are these ****head journalists and their dumb complacent moronic ****head editors based I ask you, in ****ing South Dublin thats where. There is a HUGE MASSIVE ENORMOUS difference between 100% and 20%, even in ****ing South Dublin . Then these pricks call themselves the National media FFS.

When these Skangerzone vs de Bog arguments break out I usually like to remind the denizens of Rural Wicklow that a mere 5lb of the finesht Gelignite will ensure that THEIR water isn't wasted on the Dubs who show such little gratitude for it . That should get some interesting ANALysis in the Irish Times the next day.

M

query

Isn't it reverse spin to state that only 20% of the country will be covered? You're talking about geographic rather than population coverage. So would you be happy if 80% of the geographic area was covered but only 20% of lines?

Less than 5% of the biggest exchanges cover almost 50% of lines. It's just a fact of life.

dahamsta

Originally posted by query
Isn't it reverse spin to state that...

When it comes to spin, I say play them at their own game. They're not even very good at it, they only get away with it because the talentless hacks in Oirland wouldn't know good investigative journalism if it came up and etc etc.

adam

spongebob

Unlike our useless National Media I quote and link original source material behind my assumptions before I state a conclusion based on them. I am then kind enough to ensure that the information is available to all Boards users to reanalyse and prove my theses is wrong . If it is wrong then tough.....on me.

20% it is until I am proved wrong. Thats before I start on the towns with 1500 persons who will NOT get covered and the towns without 1500 persons who already have DSL .

Then add in those towns that were lied to by Eircom on the subject of demand triggers , Kenmare (who will get DSL anyway) and Kinnegad who will not despite their population exceeding 1,500 .

OH! Dont dis IoffL if you are really only trying to dis me .

M

bealtine

quote:

---

Huh? You need to read a little history, bealtine. The fear of political pressure requiring them to deliver the same service throughout the country was a factor in preventing eircom rolling DSL out when they were still owned by the State. (It

---

Thats complete nonsense as you well know. eircom didn't want to roll out DSL
before because they would lose money on it and it required forward thinking
on their part. Not one of their strong points considering the paltry investments
in infrastructure made by oreillycom over the last few years.

Also, I'd like to remind you that towns do not exist in isolation from their
surrounding countryside. For how long have the thick culchees been subsidising
Dublins infrastructure? So using your logic the "culchees" should start charging the economic value of this subsidisation soon.
So therefore town/country live in a symbiotic relationship we subsidise you but when it suits the townees they whinge about "economics"


Thats my final word on the subject.

wexfordman

"I do have a problem with suggestions that you've some sort of right to cheap broadband so that you can play XBox live, or download DivX copies of Lord of the Rings. "

Just an add on to my previous post, and a response to Ripwaves comment above which I dont really get, and I have heard mentioned before on this board.

Whatever about what people USE bb for, whats the distinguishing point between urban and rural users of BB when it comes to what its going to be used for ? Rural users will use BB in exactly the same way as Urban users, or is it the case that Urban users are a bit more sophisticated ? Would it be okay for rural BB to come to us culchies as long as we promise not to use it or Games and Porn, and to swear that we will use it for only what the Dubs aprove of ?

I really hate myself for even stooping to this type of argument, but its my tax money thats funding urban BB rings etc, and I cant stand the fact that some people are happy to take this money/subsidy as long as it applies only to them

wexfordman

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
"I do have a problem with suggestions that you've some sort of right to cheap broadband so that you can play XBox live, or download DivX copies of Lord of the Rings. "

Just an add on to my previous post, and a response to Ripwaves comment above which I dont really get, and I have heard mentioned before on this board.

Whatever about what people USE bb for, whats the distinguishing point between urban and rural users of BB when it comes to what its going to be used for ?

What's up, Wexfordman - is the truth not good for you that you have to put words in my mouth to argue your case? The only distinction being made is by those who claim that they somehow are being discriminated against because they can't get broadband where it's not commercially viable for someone to deliver it to them.

If government subsidies to build infrastructure to encourage job growth and decentralization means that there's spare capacity that local ISPs can use to deliver cheaper residential broadband, then great, go for it. Just don't call for the subsidies without making the economic case first.

Rural users will use BB in exactly the same way as Urban users,

They just don't want to pay whatever it costs to deliver, apparently.

If companies could make an economic return on delivering broadband to every house in Ireland, you'd have it already. If the government thought they could get a return on subsidising the delivery of broadband to every house in the country, they might do that too.

I really hate myself for even stooping to this type of argument, but its my tax money thats funding urban BB rings etc, and I cant stand the fact that some people are happy to take this money/subsidy as long as it applies only to them

Fine - come and dig the bloody things up, and plant them in your green fields instead. The Government isn't investing my taxes in delivering cheap broadband to me either, Wexfordman, but you don't see me complaining about them investing in getting the infrastructure in place so that eBay can avail of IDA grants in Athlone, instead of setting up in Dublin.

As I said earlier, when 50% of the people in areas that can get broadband can't even be bothered to use narrowband, you simply don't have a case for claiming that you are in any way "entitled" to broadband.

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
I got into a debate about Dublin v Rural on this board a while ago and I could'nt beleive what I was reading.

And surprise, surprise, the debate wasn't started by the Dublin side that time either.

Rural broadband is not econimically feasible,

Some Rural broadband is not, and will never be, economically viable. Calling for broadband availability in 100% of the land area is calling for money to be poured down the drain, and undermines calls for reasonable and effective investment by the Government to support the deployment of Broadband where it makes most sense.

Broadband is not (yet) like Electricity. It probably won't take 30 years to complete the "Rural e-Connection program", but it's not going to happen in 3 years either.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by wexfordman
I got into a debate about Dublin v Rural on this board a while ago and I could'nt beleive what I was reading. I cant beleive this site is debating something so pathetic, I had creditied memmers with a bit more cop on than that. Sorry to see its come up again.

These debates tend to descend into worthless bickering very quickly while ignoring the real issues.

IMO, the real issue that is being ignored not simply whether enough money is being pumped into rural broadband, but whether it is being targetted correctly to maximise the number of people who can get broadband and what sort of broadband will be delivered.

The Government has recently announced that 88 towns are to get what is being referred to as "community broadband exchanges". This is not broadband and the question is will they make any difference to the availablility of broadband in the targetted towns?

Only when this question is answered is it worth arguing over the rural/urban issue. It could well turn out that the population centres listed will end up no better off than isolated houses and vilages.

spongebob

These exchanges will frequentyl be no more than a good size street cabinet or something that looks like an abandoned Container but with lots of fibres terminated in there and their being placed suspiciously close to the local Eircon exchange to facilitate unbundled lines for , emmmm, ....VDSL anyone or FTTH ?

Rural areas will not have much access to 5Mbit+ technologies as they will naturally rely on Wireless which will hopefuly deliver something like 1-2Mbit . That itself would be a big improvement on the pairgained crap that Eircon peddle with speeds of 16-20k max but that is a realistic best case scenario for about 2007 .

If the best case scenario is met then the Government strategy could look like they planned it that way all along. Dermot Ahern will probably be Taoiseach by then

M

wexfordman

Right Ripwave, lets see where we agree and disagree on this so.

"Some Rural broadband is not, and will never be, economically viable. Calling for broadband availability in 100% of the land area is calling for money to be poured down the drain, and undermines calls for reasonable and effective investment by the Government to support the deployment of Broadband where it makes most sense."

Where exactly did I say 100% availability Ripwave, and who's putting words in who's mouth now ?

(100% availability is something we should be aspiring for however, economically viable or not). If you listened to some of the sensible proposals we are putting forward, perhaps you might have a better understanding of what we are saying. rather than dismissing every solution as "economically unviable so forget it".

I do agree it will never be (not for a long time at least) economically viable for 100% availability, but I disdagree that the service should not be made available purely on this basis. What I am sure of, is that BB will become as essential as the modern day telephone service, and as such the government needs to do all and as much as it can to ensure and encourage as near to 100% availability as it possibly can. Its not doing this yet, but is on its way.



In the old days of P&T it was not economically viable to run copper all over the country just so people could have the convenience of having a phone line in the house. While many people regard it as essential infrastructure, it was'nt then and still is'nt. We could all share a public phone box 10 miles down the rd or in the nearest village, but we dont. We could have taken your argument then and ensured we only had 01 prefix's, shoved everyone up to dublin and left the rest of the country digging fields with their hands. Thankfully we chose not to and the government heavily subidised the building of a NATIONAL telecoms network, not a Dublin only one. Where would we be if we had gone the other way ?

In more recent times, telcos in this country did not see it econimically viable to rollout BB to large towns, never mind cities, thats why we have recent announcements of 140 million euro susbidies by the governemt to try and help make it more viable. As you said yourself:-

If companies could make an economic return on delivering broadband to every house in Ireland, you'd have it already

Similarly, if it was economically feasible, or if it is economicaly feasible to do it in these 88 towns, then they also would have it already, but they dont.


As I said earlier, when 50% of the people in areas that can get broadband can't even be bothered to use narrowband, you simply don't have a case for claiming that you are in any way "entitled" to broadband.

Well a simple answer to this one is for me and most other rural dwellers, narrowband is not even an option. ISDN mostly unavailable, and analogue restricted to such low speeds as to make in unusable and overly expensive. As the argument goes, in order to encourage take up, you have to provide a service that is firstly usable, and secondly afforable. Interesting that Eircom have often used a similar argument as to yours for not rolling out bb, cos they say the takeup is'nt there. Thankfully this seems to be changing, Ericom have been forced to reduce prices, and will probalby have to do more so in the near future when they have to competed with companies given Government subsidies via either cash investment or a helping had to build cheap affordable backhaul. Its this subsidised competion which wil force ericom to react, bring prices down and hence drive up the take up. A

Also where did you get your figure that 50% of people in areas with BB dont bother to use narrowband ? And what are the reasons behind it ?

Wexfordman

Wexfordman

Ripwave

Originally posted by wexfordman
Right Ripwave, lets see where we agree and disagree on this so.

"Some Rural broadband is not, and will never be, economically viable. Calling for broadband availability in 100% of the land area is calling for money to be poured down the drain, and undermines calls for reasonable and effective investment by the Government to support the deployment of Broadband where it makes most sense."

Where exactly did I say 100% availability Ripwave, and who's putting words in who's mouth now ?

The whole damn argument started over Mucks cage rattling about 100% geographical coverage. If you want your own private threads, you'll have to start them yourself.

In the old days of P&T it was not economically viable to run copper all over the country just so people could have the convenience of having a phone line in the house. While many people regard it as essential infrastructure, it was'nt then and still is'nt. We could all share a public phone box 10 miles down the rd or in the nearest village, but we dont. We could have taken your argument then and ensured we only had 01 prefix's, shoved everyone up to dublin and left the rest of the country digging fields with their hands. Thankfully we chose not to and the government heavily subidised the building of a NATIONAL telecoms network, not a Dublin only one. Where would we be if we had gone the other way ?

Nice one, Wexfordman - redefine the phone infrastructure as non-essential, and then pretend that it it's a good model for the rollout of broadband, as though the phone system was extended to the whole country within 5 or 6 years of telephony being introduced to the country.

The Phone system was extended to the whole country precisely because it _WAS_ considered essential - Garda stations, post offices, doctors and hospitals justified the roll-out. For years, there were only one or two truck lines linking many towns and villages, and any additional phones within the town would have to share a line. If you remember, there were waiting lists of 5 or 6 years at times to get a telephone installed. If that's your recipe for the deployment of Broadband........

Also where did you get your figure that 50% of people in areas with BB dont bother to use narrowband ? And what are the reasons behind it ?

The CSO recently published statistics to the effect that only 42.3% of households even have computers, and only 33.6% of households have computers with an internet connection. The highest rates of computer and internet usage were in the Mid-East region (57% of households have computers, and 46.7% are connected to the internet).

wexfordman

This is Fun!!!!



Nice one, Wexfordman - redefine the phone infrastructure as non-essential, and then pretend that it it's a good model for the rollout of broadband, as though the phone system was extended to the whole country within 5 or 6 years of telephony being introduced to the country.

Again you are putting words into my mouth ripwave. Firstly I never said it was a good model for the rollout of BB. And if you read previous posts, I dont think there was any mention of building a network, more of utilising existing infrastructure to roll out rural BB, most of it wireless. I never once mentioned building a new network, I and others spoke of using infrastucture in an effecient way to provide what is to be an essential service.

With regards as re-defining the phone infrastructre as non-essential. Once again you are mis quoting me, I said it was not essential to have it in everyhousold back then (and if you want to be pedantic about it, it still is'nt essential to have it in everyhoushold), but it is and it should be a right and a convenience for everybody to have it. I never questioned the essential needs of a phone infrastructure for garda, hospitals doctors etc. We could have applied a similar solution to what you are saying for BB and provide it only to essential services etc, and let everyone else walk to the nearest payphone to call auntie!!!

Also, when comparing the rollout of a bb network as to the initial rollout of the old p&t, well I should hope we have come a lot further since then, and we have. Wirelss networks to cover the majority of the geographioc country have been built in very short periods of time in this country (9-12months), take digifone as an example. 9 months from grant of licence to a live NATIONAL service.

As to your CSO statistics, very interesting... And to my mind gives even higher priority to the rollout of BB infrastructure. If we have such a low usage of the internet at home, we are obviously behind and something needs to be done to encourage the take up of it, so that we have are seen to have a good e-literate population, and not some backwater country still stuck in the dark ages.

If you want to educate your population to be e-literate, you have to be pro-active, educatiive, and more importantly, you have to ensure that people have the facilities, and by facilites, I mean people have to have access, 28k dial up connection is not access, and does not allow people to use the internet to its full potential, and as such does not allow the growth of e-commerce etc.

Using the CSO statistics as a reason for not providing infrastructure is like saying we did'nt need to build schools, cos only 1/2 the population ever went to "hedge schools" so no one is going to go to a proper school. Lets not bother with investing and building universities or colleges, cos only a few people go to the ones we have so far.

Wexfordman

Moriarty

Split from Minster Ahern responds to Eircom's call for rural broadband funding diversion thread as its off topic.

wexfordman

This thread is more about rural bb availability rather than bb economics!!