Can I believe this?

Maxwell

Received a phone call from eircom last night asking me the reasons I cancelled my account with them and transferred to another supplier. I told them it had nothing to do with price, but the lack of broadband and as long as I didn't have broadband I would stay with any other supplier than eircom. So surprise surprise, she actually asked me to stay on hold and she would do all she could to check to see if or when my exchange would become enabled.

*My exchange is small (but I only live 1 mile from it and am in a new hosue with new lien) and I think an engineer once told me that there was only 5 ISDN lines attached to it, so I told this to the woman in order for her not to waste her time as I believed the exchange would not ever be enabled due to the low numbers of lines connected to.*

She came back to me and informed me that I will receive an automatic call in 2 week (early August) and an engineer will be despatched to my house to check suitability. She said that my exchange definitely will be enabled and it will definitely happen this year. I didn't believe her and told her so, but she then said that her eircom are under severe pressure to get broadband rolled out and her sister also works in comreg and she has information that every house in Ireland will eventually be enabled to have broadband due to the rebuilding of the network in other wire than copper (can't remember the name she said)

So should I believe her, that I will actually get broadband?

I don't, but Im secretly hoping it will happen

Opinions?

Creamy Goodness

i wouldn't believe it.

there's nothing stopping you staying with your new supplier until you have proof that your exchange is enabled.

perhaps if you name your exchange people here can tell you if it's enabled or not.

Maxwell

Thanks Cremo.

My exchange is Ardcroney. Its a small exchange near Nenagh.

Can someone on here check for me? Would appreciate any insight as I can't get a straight answer from other eircom employees (and I have tried)

Thanks

kaizersoze

Here is a list Sponge Bob posted in January. Ardcroney isn't on it but ring the number at the top and they should know.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50696975&postcount=48
I'd say it's sales BS tbh.

Blaster99

Maxwell wrote:

she has information that every house in Ireland will eventually be enabled to have broadband due to the rebuilding of the network in other wire than copper (can't remember the name she said)

Fibre? Yeah that's going to happen in Ireland any time soon, not.

I presume we're talking changing provider for calls here, yes? Just change. It won't affect your broadband situation one bit.

Maxwell

Thanks for the link

I actually changed from eircom 6-12 months ago - it looks like they want to win back customers. The thing was that at no time did she ask me to connect back to eircom, she was just checking out my broadband problem. She just said that they would be back to me in 3 weeks with an automatic call and call out in order to get me connected?

Maxwell

Just rang the number and this is what the guy had to say:

Operator:I have the list in front of me and Ardcroney is not on the list - so I don't know if it will be enabled - these are just the summer rollout

I ask: Well is there any number I can call to check if and when my exchange will be enabled?

Operator: Well you could give head office a ring, but they won't give you the information "over the phone" (this is a phone company ffs) I don't think they know when the next exchanges will be enabled.

I ask: So there is nowhere I can ring and I just have to wait and see

Operator: Yeah, pretty much. I can only go on the information I have on my screen

I ask: But will I ever get it?

Operator: Oh yes, all exchanges are to be enabled my the end of the year. So yours will definitely get enabled.

I ask: But we don't know when

Operator: No, not at the moment, but with the pressure on from the governement, they all have to get done though.

I ask: Thanks

......So its a continues game of wait and see from my side. Still can't see eircom getting me broadband to be honest. No organisation or forward planning. How come they don't know what is going to be happening from now till Dec - I mean how can they meet targets if there are none set?

damien

eircom have stated publicly and privately they are not going to upgrade every exchange. Misinformed sales people are nothing new.

govinda

damien.m wrote:

Misinformed sales people are nothing new.

Absolutely :mad:

I received a letter from Gaelic Telecom yesterday telling me that Eircom Sales have been contacting GT customers making all kinds of wild promises about cheaper calls etc (including line rental and calls for €15 per month!). Eircom called us a week ago, I wasn't around to take the call but contacted the Winback team when I heard to tell them not to call again. (can't join NDD as we're ex-directory)

It doesn't surprise me that they'd use potential broadband availability to entice you to move back as well but as Cremo says, there's nothing stopping you staying with your current provider until such time as they enable the exchange...and you should tell them that

lucernarian

Eircom made it very clear that they won't enable every exchange when new exchanges with fibre backhaul are not enabled. That sub-exchange in Athy is a prime example. I know a user served by it was on RTÉ news a while ago when they did an article about broadband availability (I think).

Foxwood

Maxwell wrote:

Operator: No, not at the moment, but with the pressure on from the governement, they all have to get done though.

Aren't elections wonderful. Just wait for an announcement that the Government is going to subsidise eircom to the tune of a couple of hundred euro per man, woman and child in the country (all 4.2 million of us) to roll out broadband to everyone, and that we should all vote FF cos "they got us broadband".

Blaster99

MAN's and GBS's aren't free either.

Altreab

Blaster99 wrote:

MAN's and GBS's aren't free either.

true but they also allow competitors to Eircom to provide a decent service to areas that Eircom dont give a damn about!!

1huge1

Altreab wrote:

true but they also allow competitors to Eircom to provide a decent service to areas that Eircom dont give a damn about!!

that being preety much everywere...

gerryo

Maxwell wrote:

eircom are under severe pressure to get broadband rolled out and her sister also works in comreg and she has information that every house in Ireland will eventually be enabled to have broadband due to the rebuilding of the network in other wire than copper (can't remember the name she said)
Opinions?

Even when your local exchange gets enabled, no guarantee's.:(

I had the experience recently of being informed (by an Irish broadband supplier - NOT Eircom) that my local exchange was now enabled.

I did the line tests, their site test said yes, Eircom's test said maybe, so I applied for broadband. The line status was changed in a few days to read line not suitable. I have one of those carrier/pair gain/DAX lines (not sure what they are really called ) & will never get broadband as there is not enough copper available & there are no more copper rollouts planned.:mad:

I think comreg might force Eircom to offer some sort of broadband to all their subscribers by 2010, but that's too long to wait.

Maxwell

gerryo wrote:

Even when your local exchange gets enabled, no guarantee's.:(

I had the experience recently of being informed (by an Irish broadband supplier - NOT Eircom) that my local exchange was now enabled.

I did the line tests, their site test said yes, Eircom's test said maybe, so I applied for broadband. The line status was changed in a few days to read line not suitable. I have one of those carrier/pair gain/DAX lines (not sure what they are really called ) & will never get broadband as there is not enough copper available & there are no more copper rollouts planned.:mad:

I think comreg might force Eircom to offer some sort of broadband to all their subscribers by 2010, but that's too long to wait.

Yes, I aware that I could be very disapointed and facing a huge wait.

She did mention that eircom were not installing fibre anymore,but another type of cable that is similar to the one being used in England. Its a far superior cable and will mean that all houses with a phone line will be able to receive broadband. I don't think she knew how long such a proposal would take, but she seemed very confident about it - even though I kept protesting about it.

The longer this goes on, the more chance I will end up with some scrap satellite service as i don't think I can take 14.4k anymore!!!:mad:

Maxwell

THE TRUTH ABOUT BROADBAND

(OR THE FINANCIAL REASONS WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE BROADBAND)

Eircom at the moment are the principal suppliers of broadband in this country.Eircom are a company with shareholders who, understandably, require a dividend on their investment.
Eircom used to be a semi state company controlled by the Minister for Communications who at that time was able to say to Eircom (or Telecom Eireann as it was then known) "bring broadband to the Aran Islands" or "bring broadband to Malin Head" and it would be done. Why ? Because Telecom Eireann did not have to make a profit. It was owned by the State and operated for the good of the State so it would do what the Minister instructed and provide broadband to Malin head and lose money in so doing.
Then some years ago our Government decided to sell off the family silver and Telecom Eireann was sold off and it became Eircom and the minister was no longer it's boss.
And then along came broadband and Eircom decided(not unnaturally)that it would only provide broadband in heavily populated areas where they would have the best chance of a return on their money.(don't forget the shareholders)
And the Minister jumped up and down but could do absolutely nothing about it and because he knows that this is a fait accompli has now embarked on giving grants to local rural communities to provide their own broadband !
And then along came Esat BT and Smart and a host of others and they all have one thing in common with Eircom .......SHAREHOLDERS ! They want to provide all sorts of broadband packages but do they want to go to Malin Head ? Surprise! Surprise ! NO. They want to deal in all the heavily populated areas in which Eircom are now dealing so a price war has erupted. This is excellent news if you live in these areas but not much use if you live in downtown rural Ireland.
I am sure that most rural dwellers will have a pain in the face being bombarded on a daily basis with TV,Radio and Magazine advertising for Eircom broadband and for so and so's broadband etc. etc. knowing that it will never come their way. Why ? Because there is no money in bringing broadband to rural areas and therefore it is not going to happen.

THE TECHNICAL REASONS WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE BROADBAND


For those of you who would like to know, the system operates as follows:
Broadband is carried on the old "twisted pair copper wire". Because of the quality of the copper Eircom are experiencing failure rates of up to 23% in some areas at the moment. This means that if Eircom enables an exchange in your area you are still not guaranteed to get broadband as there is a one in four chance that your line will fail.

Also when the mini boom started in the sixties and seventies and people wanted 'phones in their houses Telecom Eireann, rather than install new lines, put "splitters" on existing lines so that they could serve more than one house with the same cable.
Once there are splitters on your line you cannot receive broadband.


Broadband is by it's nature a short distance traveller. What this means is that you can only receive broadband within approximately 4 miles of an enabled exchange. This 4 miles is not as the crow flies but is the length of cable i.e. up one road, down the next etc.etc..
So you may find that you live in an area where the exchange has been enabled for broadband but you are more than 4 miles from the exchange ....SORREEEEE!!!

If you are lucky enough to be offered broadband by Eircom and you decide that you would like to surf the net at a speed of say 1mbs. Eircom will offer you a contract for RADSL. This means Rate Adaptive DSL in technical jargon. In simple English it means that the further you are from the exchange the lower your speed will be at peak times and you must accept this. For instance if you live 2.5 miles from the exchange you could find yourself surfing at 512kbs. instead of the 1mbs. for which you have paid. Do you get a rebate ? NOPE!


So you see why,with so many logistical problems in delivering broadband that Eircom and their competitors are sticking to the cities and large towns.


I forget to mention the court cases.Eircom are involved in a number of court cases at the moment with various parties over the supply(or non supply) of broadband access to same.Familiar as we are with tribunals in this country it is safe to assume that these cases could run until 2008.. or 9.... or 10 ???
thus screwing up the system even further.


Did I hear you say Wireless ?
As an alternative to ADSL telephone broadband there are a number of firms providing wireless broadband.This involves sending broadband by wireless signal. The company provides a mast on top of a high building and if you can see the mast you can receive. This is called Line Of Sight Technology.
This is where the old shareholders rear their head again.
The best place to provide this type of technology is in a heavily populated area where you put up a mast on the top of a tall building and you then have access to thousands of subscribers.
How about Malin Head ? NO CHANCE.

Having said that there are a number of community based wireless schemes on the go at the moment and more are being planned as part of a Government "Initiative".

The fact that the Government are now giving grants to Community Groups to provide their own broadband is a sure sign that they have run out of options and are acknowledging that in order to get broadband, Rural Ireland must "go it alone" as the big telecom companies are not interested and the Government cannot force them to develop an interest.
I am quite sure that all of you who are reading this will have been told by sales staff in Eircom that broadband will be available in your area "soon". That is what their superiors have told them to tell everybody and these sales people believe it .
The real truth is that these trigger programmes which Eircom have are a joke. They ask you to "express interest" in having broadband and when they get enough expressions of interest from a particular area they will then provide broadband there - and pigs might fly !!.
For the real lowdown on Eircom's "Trigger Programmes" and a host of other Eircom "information" put out by their spin doctors click on www.comwreck.com/blog_20_may12.html and have a good laugh. Another good site to go to for to get further enlightenment on all of the spin being put out by Eircom is www.irelandoffline.org If you are a rural dweller and have been living in hope that Eircom's promise of broadband "soon" will someday be realised, a browse through either of these sites will unfortunately bring you down to earth with a bang.

They tell it like it is folks !


So if you are like the little boy waiting for Christmas for Santa Clause and you are waiting for Eircom to provide broadband in your area "soon" then give up waiting and sign up for our service now.
If in the future we are proved wrong then you have no contractual obligations to us you merely cancel your subscription and join Eircom.




.....I will still have to pay for my eircom phone line and each call I make. So my costs will go up and I still cant use my equipment the way I want to i.e. streaming/downloading/online gaming/wireless.

1huge1

Two things

do you live in malin head?

and you can't blame the other companies for were they offer broadband they can only offer it were eircom have unbundled the exchange

cgarvey

1huge1 wrote:

and you can't blame the other companies for were they offer broadband they can only offer it were eircom have unbundled the exchange

Eh? A registered telco can unbundle most exchanges. They choose which ones they want stick their equipment in. There are civil, space and aircon issues in some of them, but the LLU providers are definitely choosing which exchanges they want in. The choice is based on simple economics. Maybe you can't blame them for that choice, but the reason they are not in the small exchanges is their choice, not eircoms.

.cg

gerryo

Maxwell wrote:

...Did I hear you say Wireless ?
... The best place to provide this type of technology is in a heavily populated area where you put up a mast on the top of a tall building and you then have access to thousands of subscribers.
.

Why do wireless suppliers persist with this business plan?

Best place for wireless in rural areas.
Heavily poulated towns are already served with DSL & Cable.
For ordinary consumers, wireless means an antenna on the roof + another cable entry point in the dwelling. If they already have a phone line or cable TV, it's easier to go with the operator you have (assuming the service meets their needs).

Wireless suppliers could get guaranteed customers outside the DSL/cable TV reach, customers who won't be switching suppliers that often (they don't have the option).

Wireless makes sense in populated areas for mobile users, this is better served by 3G services or wireless access points in hotels/pubs/public areas.

I guess wireless operators have to be seen to operate in urban areas to be taken seriously in the marketplace. As I see it, given the choice of operating in a market segment where there is a price war, or cornering a (rural) segment, I'd take the one that has less competitors (usually means better profits).

1huge1

cgarvey wrote:

Eh? A registered telco can unbundle most exchanges. They choose which ones they want stick their equipment in. There are civil, space and aircon issues in some of them, but the LLU providers are definitely choosing which exchanges they want in. The choice is based on simple economics. Maybe you can't blame them for that choice, but the reason they are not in the small exchanges is their choice, not eircoms.

.cg

my mistake i was misinformed

cgarvey

gerryo wrote:

Why do wireless suppliers persist with this business plan?

Simply, for economic reasons. Most, but not all, WISPs are profit driven and therefore want to only invest in areas with large potential. A site in Dublin City Centre might cost a bit more in rent, but it's a lot easier to get decent backhaul, cheaper to do installs (milage, etc.) has a far greater potential customer base (even with competition), to name but a few benefits.

A WISP operating in remote rural areas have to try harder (which usually means spend more) to get backhaul in place, have less people served by one site, and have longer to travel for installs.

.cg

Foxwood

gerryo wrote:

As I see it, given the choice of operating in a market segment where there is a price war, or cornering a (rural) segment, I'd take the one that has less competitors (usually means better profits).

On the other hand, you only need (say) 1% penetration of the potential market to make a transmitter pay for itsef in a built up area, but you might need 10% penetration in a lower density area.

(Those are made up numbers, I'm just pointing out that there are other considerations to bear in mind. A low population density area wouldn't support the investment needed for certain types of wireless technology)

Niall_Stevenson

Altreab wrote:

true but they also allow competitors to Eircom to provide a decent service to areas that Eircom dont give a damn about!!

Hi Guys,

The Department of Communications' Group Broadband Scheme grant has just come to an end, with abysmal results. According to a recent article in Silicon Republic, just 30 out of the 120 approved projects are up and running at this stage, at a cost to the taxpayer of 4 million euro.

The DCMNR Group Broadband Scheme was supposed to help rural communities to get broadband into areas that the larger commercial companies are not servicing. However, the implementation of the scheme left a lot to be desired. The worst aspect of the scheme was that all 120 projects were announced simultaneously and given the same 1 year timeframe to get their projects up and running in order to claim back the grant - in theory up to 55% of the startup costs.

Now, what happens when 120 communities, from Malin Head to Mizen Head, are all looking for equipment, backhaul, installers, etc, all at the same time? The DCMNR grant effectively created artifical shortages of equipment and services in the market - leading in turn to long delays (at best) and higher prices (at worst). Nett effect: communities were unable to obtain the equipment and services in the allotted timeframe, or if they did, they paid a premium for same (probably 55% dearer!!).

Another effect of the DCMNR grant was to make the market for the provision of broadband in rural areas extremely lopsided. How (or why) can a commercial broadband provider with no grant compete with a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer? This makes no sense in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized telecommunications market.

In my area, the taxpayer-funded Group Broadband Scheme has been extremely slow to get broadband rolled out to the dispersersed rural communities - over 17 months now since the Call For Proposals - but their presence has probably had the effect of dissuading potential competitors from entering the area.

It is interesting to note that the Athenry group scheme has over 25% of its customers in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell - to the detriment of the potential customers living outside the DSL range of these towns - and completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the DCMNR grant scheme. So it's not just Eircom who "cherry pick" the easy customers and ignore the ones living 3 km or more from the exchanges. And the Athenry group scheme is not exactly a model example of openness and accountability either - have a look at

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=540

especially the thread called "Are there not enough frequencies available in Craughwell?". I'm beginning to think that the ACGBS is really just another name for Eircom!

Regarding the MAN costs - 170 million euros of taxpayers' money sunk into this with little or nothing to show - again, it's difficult to see how the DCMNR can talk about "fully liberalized" markets while at the same time making the field decidedly lopsided.

So please, DCMNR - no more "grants", no more "free" money. Just step aside and let the market sort it out without your "help".

My 2c worth!

Niall

jbkenn

The Department of Communications' Group Broadband Scheme grant has just come to an end, with abysmal results. According to a recent article in Silicon Republic, just 30 out of the 120 approved projects are up and running at this stage, at a cost to the taxpayer of 4 million euro.

I would beg to differ,the GBS has not come to an end,there is a third round planned, when, or what, the nature of the third round will be, is open to speculation.
I would love to know the basis of the silicon republic article, as I for one, involved in 3 GBS projects, have never been contacted by silicon republic, and, to my knowledge neither has anyone involved in numerous other GBS projects.

The DCMNR Group Broadband Scheme was supposed to help rural communities to get broadband into areas that the larger commercial companies are not servicing. However, the implementation of the scheme left a lot to be desired. The worst aspect of the scheme was that all 120 projects were announced simultaneously and given the same 1 year timeframe to get their projects up and running in order to claim back the grant - in theory up to 55% of the startup costs.

Not true, the GBS Phase 1 and Phase 2 were announced over a 14 month period, and, depending on location the grant ranged from 18% to 30% to 55%

Now, what happens when 120 communities, from Malin Head to Mizen Head, are all looking for equipment, backhaul, installers, etc, all at the same time? The DCMNR grant effectively created artifical shortages of equipment and services in the market - leading in turn to long delays (at best) and higher prices (at worst). Nett effect: communities were unable to obtain the equipment and services in the allotted timeframe, or if they did, they paid a premium for same (probably 55% dearer!!).

Have you some facts to back up this assumption?

Another effect of the DCMNR grant was to make the market for the provision of broadband in rural areas extremely lopsided. How (or why) can a commercial broadband provider with no grant compete with a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer? This makes no sense in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized telecommunications market.

Again have you some facts to back up this assumption, two of the projects in phase 1 were awarded to Eircom, and it was open to any commercial operator to exploit the opportunity, why they chose not to do so, I can only speculate.

In my area, the taxpayer-funded Group Broadband Scheme has been extremely slow to get broadband rolled out to the dispersersed rural communities - over 17 months now since the Call For Proposals - but their presence has probably had the effect of dissuading potential competitors from entering the area.

Again assumption, it could also be the case that a commercial operator could see no commercial case for providing service to the area. FYI no GBS was allowed to commence until approved by DCMNR.

It is interesting to note that the Athenry group scheme has over 25% of its customers in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell - to the detriment of the potential customers living outside the DSL range of these towns - and completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the DCMNR grant scheme.

Not true, the GBS, in my experience was based on the DED (District Electoral Division) of the area, in many cases, this also included the large town in the area. I would also point out that at the time of the call for proposals, none of these areas were DSL enabled, however on the announcement of the GBS allocations, Eircom were miraculously able to enable the exchange, in one case 2 days after the GBS went live, in another 2 weeks, in the third the exchange is currently surrounded by Eircom vans.

So it's not just Eircom who "cherry pick" the easy customers and ignore the ones living 3 km or more from the exchanges. And the Athenry group scheme is not exactly a model example of openness and accountability either - have a look at

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=540

especially the thread called "Are there not enough frequencies available in Craughwell?". I'm beginning to think that the ACGBS is really just another name for Eircom!

That thread seems to be no more than a "BMW" by some individual with his own agenda, and to equate the ACGBS with Eircom is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

Regarding the MAN costs - 170 million euros of taxpayers' money sunk into this with little or nothing to show - again, it's difficult to see how the DCMNR can talk about "fully liberalized" markets while at the same time making the field decidedly lopsided.

I agree with you here, in my experience the MAN projects have no relevance to the projects I am involved in.

So please, DCMNR - no more "grants", no more "free" money. Just step aside and let the market sort it out without your "help"

Again assumptions, how many GBS projects have received any grant payments, in my case you will be glad to hear all 3 projects have not received a cent of taxpayers money, nor will they.

jbkenn

Niall_Stevenson

Hi Jbkenn,

Thanks for the followup and discussion. I hope you don't mind me making an observation - you seem to be a bit nit-picky with what I posted and are asking for verification and proof, numbers, facts and figures, etc. I wasn't aware that this was necessary, and I certainly didn't want to express an opinion that looked more like a thesis or legal document. But I can - and will - supply sources and references for all figures mentioned in my post if necessary. I note with interest that you do not feel obliged to provide references and suchlike to support your own opinions!

When I said that the Group Broadband Scheme *grant* has come to an end, I meant just that - the Second Phase of the scheme is now over in the sense that the grant claim period expired on July 14th or so. The First Phase is long over. And it is not known if there will be a Third Phase to the scheme in its current form. My source? Minister Dempsey, in recent interviews!

http://www.enn.ie/frontpage/news-9710986.html

You questioned the veracity of the SiliconRepublic article:

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single6661

I have been in touch with John Kennedy recently (who is very busy at the moment!) and I will report back here when I find the source of his figures. As a matter of interest, I have been trying to get these numbers from DCMNR for some time - the number of projects up and running, the number of subscribers, the amount of money actually drawn down (as opposed to monies allocated) - without success. I understand that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications has been asking the exact same questions, as have other groups, such as IBEC - and all are met with the same blank response. If government and opposition TDs and senators and a large group like IBEC cannot get the facts and figures, then Niall Stevenson, private citizen, has an even slimmer hope!

When I see EUR 25 million of taxpayers' money being spent in this way, where the officials concerned are either unable or unwilling to divulge the most basic information about the scheme, I am remined of the project management maxim: if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

Regarding the implementation of the scheme, the projects in the second phase were all announced at the same time - in August 2005 - and were given the letter outlining the 1-year grant period:

http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/Minister+Noel+Dempsey+Announces+43+More+Projects+Approved+Under+County+and+Group+Broadband+Scheme.htm

Perversely enough, the grant "clock" was ticking since July 14th, so the communities that were awarded the grant were robbed of over 1 month of grant claim time before they were informed of the grant "support". (source: letter of offer from DCMNR. Ask any GBS!)

You ask if I have some facts to back up my assumption regarding the effects of having all projects competing for goods and services in the same timeframe. Well, if we had a time machine, we could go back to 2005 and maybe somehow stop the GBS in its tracks and then go back to 2006 and observe the effects. Or we could apply some common sense and take the word of a number of independent parties and observers over the past two years. I have been involved with a number of group schemes - both grant funded and non-grant funded and have contacts, colleagues and associates in the broadband provision industry, who have the same opinion. As a matter of fact, one of the smaller service providers recently collapsed *because of* the group scheme. My contact told me that he met Minister Dempsey and asked him *not* to implement the scheme in this manner (batching and announcing all projects simultaneously). In addition, I have a letter from one of the Regional Broadband Co-Ordinators confirming the difficulties experienced by both communities and service providers in dealing with the Department of Communications.

Regarding the Athenry GBS and the DED, you are incorrect on a number of levels. First, the population of Athenry is 2100 (source: CSO) and is therefore ineleigible for the GBS grant (source: DCMNR website). Second, the Eircom exchange in Athenry was DSL-enabled before the location of the GBS mast (source: Eircom press release). Third - and most importantly - the ACGBS project proposal made no reference to Athenry town centre as part of the project area, which was supposed to address the rural hinterlands surrounding Athenry and Craughwell. Source: ACGBS proposal, DCMNR letter of offer, ACGBS website (www.athenrybroadband.com).

You say that the 3 projects that you were involved with received no grant money. That's great - and that fits neatly with what I said! The GBS grant, while nice in theory, was in practice a millstone around the necks of the various communities and companies associated with it. The GBS grant caused delays in getting these projects off the ground (the evaluation period was a heck of a lot longer than the 6-week period mentioned at the CFP stage), caused artifical spikes in demand and subsequent shortages of service and equipment in the market and entailed large amounts of pointless bureaucracy. In my area, the non-funded community scheme is up and running and providing a much better service to larger numbers of people at lower cost than the 55% grant-aided GBS. Go figure!

Niall

gerryo

cgarvey wrote:

A site in Dublin City Centre might cost a bit more in rent, but it's a lot easier to get decent backhaul, cheaper to do installs (milage, etc.) has a far greater potential customer base (even with competition), to name but a few benefits.
.cg

Ok, this is true about the potential customer base, however, customers in Dublin (other places also) have options like cable or DSL. I personally know people who got wireless, then went to DSL or cable because the service was cheaper when it became available.

Guess the cost of install is usually borne by the the customer, so operating in a large populated area makes operators more money due to faster installs, however, in the long term, will these customers stay with wireless, guess it depends on the service? When a customer moves off wireless, the operator has to send an un-installer = no revenue from that activity.

With some urban dwellers having restrictions on external antenna's (new apartment buildings seem to enforce these restrictions), wireless might not be an option, even if it's available.

In rural areas, there is often less choice, customer churn is reduced. A rural customer is probably going to stay long term, = better for operators.

You are correct, it's easier/more cost effective to provide services in towns/cities.
However, there are some services that are a good 'fit' for large population areas, e.g., cable TV works for large urban centres, won't be feasible in rural areas. DSL (over copper wires) works well in urban centres, many exchanges/sub exchanges, distances to customers are usually shorter than rural areas.

Wireless can work well in urban areas, but it's just another service in a (possibly) crowded market. It really works in rural areas (aside from the issues with LOS, etc) it does not need copper wires or crews digging up roads. I'm just surprised operators can't see the potential gold mine in rural areas, the service is easier to sell, there is less competition, customers have less choice.

Blaster99

I appreciate that this is a minor point in the scheme of things and without having any facts or figures of any description, it seems remarkable that the piddly number of subscribers that have availed of a GBS could have had much of an impact on worldwide demand of broadband equipment.

gerryo

Foxwood wrote:

A low population density area wouldn't support the investment needed for certain types of wireless technology)

Yeah, it does depend on the technology, but if these low pop. areas are already deficient in other services readily available in larger urban centres, there is potential for additional services.

Depends on the operator/technology deployed, but triple play (or quad play) seems to be the buzz word these days. Wireless operators who get in , get customers connected for data are in a position to offer more services, which is possibly going to lead to increased revenue.

Guess rural users are going to get services when the town/cities are saturated & sales drop off.

eircomtribunal

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

...I understand that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications has been asking the exact same questions, as have other groups, such as IBEC - and all are met with the same blank response. If government and opposition TDs and senators and a large group like IBEC cannot get the facts and figures, then Niall Stevenson, private citizen, has an even slimmer hope!...

Would fully agree with your general view (and the specifics, too) about the workings of the GBS.

I talked to Adrian Weckler, after his somewhat stupid (sorry A.) angle in an article about GBS figures (link to sbpost article broken, but snippet in post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51528793&postcount=1) and he had the same experience: no figures available, neither from DCMNR nor the schemes, except from Eircom for the ones done by Eircom.

And no figures given can only mean one thing: figures are not looking convincing. Up to now it was a convenient argument by the DCMNR, when asked about the meagre DSL availability in Ireland and especially the digital divide, to say: "and for the rural areas we have provided € 25 million for the community broadband schemes. Now let's talk about the important issue of demand stimulation..."

BTW Are the proceedings at that last Oireachtas Committee hearing published by now? Can't find the link.

Don't think the question about GBS figures was asked, despite my lobbying TDs to do so. It was mentioned that only one GBS scheme availed of the MAN as backhaul.

P.

Foxwood

gerryo wrote:

Depends on the operator/technology deployed, but triple play (or quad play) seems to be the buzz word these days. Wireless operators who get in , get customers connected for data are in a position to offer more services, which is possibly going to lead to increased revenue.

Wireless operators who can figure out how to make 27 users pay for a quarter of a million euros worth of kit will make a killing.......

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Another effect of the DCMNR grant was to make the market for the provision of broadband in rural areas extremely lopsided. How (or why) can a commercial broadband provider with no grant compete with a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer? This makes no sense in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized telecommunications market.

I disagree. In Kinnegad, our GBS went live on 1st June 2005. 6 months later eircom decided to upgrade the exchange even though broadband was available to consumers through "a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer". Likewise, all ISPs involved in a GBS should have a business plan that incorporates entry by a competitor into their market otherwise they'll see their business disappear very quickly.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

In my area, the taxpayer-funded Group Broadband Scheme has been extremely slow to get broadband rolled out to the dispersersed rural communities - over 17 months now since the Call For Proposals - but their presence has probably had the effect of dissuading potential competitors from entering the area.

In my experience in Kinnegad, we also had terrible problems in getting the service rolled out. However this was due to, in my opinion, the County Council's slowness to grant permission for the base station to be installed on the water tower (only available high site in Kinnegad) and then their refusal to allow an existing power point to be used to draw the 50W needed to power the base station.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

It is interesting to note that the Athenry group scheme has over 25% of its customers in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell - to the detriment of the potential customers living outside the DSL range of these towns - and completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the DCMNR grant scheme. So it's not just Eircom who "cherry pick" the easy customers and ignore the ones living 3 km or more from the exchanges.

In theory, if potential customers are living outside of a DSL area then they can form their own community group and go the GBS route for their own particular area(s). So in fairness to the scheme, it doesn't exclude communities that are not served by broadband. The problem is invaribly due to a lack of someone to get off their backsides and contact their Reg. Co-ord to get the ball rolling.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

So please, DCMNR - no more "grants", no more "free" money. Just step aside and let the market sort it out without your "help".

The market was failing, the gov. stepped in and did "something". That "something", while not perfect, was better than nothing and there are communities that now have broadband as a result who would never had received it otherwise.

I do agree though that the fact that the numbers are not available is worrying as that could indicate a less than impressive rollout/takeup.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

As a matter of fact, one of the smaller service providers recently collapsed *because of* the group scheme.

Who was it?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

I disagree. In Kinnegad, our GBS went live on 1st June 2005. 6 months later eircom decided to upgrade the exchange even though broadband was available to consumers through "a scheme that is being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer". Likewise, all ISPs involved in a GBS should have a business plan that incorporates entry by a competitor into their market otherwise they'll see their business disappear very quickly.

Hi Viking,

Thanks for the reply. You make some very good points. One of the difficulties that I have had in this debate is getting numbers, facts and figures from the various Government/State bodies, particularly the Department of Communications and the Western Regional Assembly, for both the Group Broadband Scheme and the Schools Broadband Scheme. I have also tried to make contact with other GBS schemes to see if there is/was any commonality in their dealings with the DCMNR, with limited success (actually, no success at all!). In my opinion, the DCMNR and the Regional Broadband Co-Ordinators were unwilling to facilitate any such contact, possibly because they did not want the possibility of a large number of community groups forming a pressure group.

Regarding your scheme in Kinnegad, was this a "late" starter from the 1st round or an "early" starter from the second round? It seems unlikely to be an early starter from the second round, as the deadline for proposals was the end of April 2005, and as far as I know, all schemes in the second round were announced in August 2005. The letter of offer was dated July 14th 2005 and expenditure before 14 July 2005 or after 14 July 2006 was not eligible for grant funding.

Your point about Eircom DSL-enabling the exchange is interesting and I think that it is a pattern that has been repeated time and time again. However, my understanding of the GBS was to facilitate the provision of broadband in areas that the large commercial players had neglected. It doesn't take much imagination to see that sooner or later, Eircom would enable more and more exchanges, so it would make more sense for the GBSs to target areas *outside* the DSL range - the "dispersed rural communities" in the hinterlands of small towns and villages. It was never my understanding that the purpose of the scheme was to somehow compete with Eircom on its own doorstep! Other threads have highlighted the problems associated with this approach - it raises serious questions about fairness and competition in what is supposed to be a fully liberalized market. If you were a bank manager or suchlike, would you provide a loan to a small community group of volunteers that planned to compete with a gigantic predatory telecoms monopoly like Eircom, the former using wireless technology (to be built), the latter using the existing wired infrastructure and DSL (already present), targetting customers within DSL range of the Eircom exchange? If this doesn't make sense to you (it doesn't make any sense to me), then why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?

On the flipside, I think that the effect of the GBS was to "stimulate" Eircom into action, possibly as a spoiler tactic. Well, for whatever reason, Eircom magically DSL-enabled a lot of exchanges, which I think may not have happened without the "notion" of the GBS.

The service provider that collapsed was Ildana.

Niall

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Regarding your scheme in Kinnegad, was this a "late" starter from the 1st round or an "early" starter from the second round?

We were one of the early ones from the 1st round, as mentioned in my post it took a while to get it launched though, lots of red tape and dithering by our County Council.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

However, my understanding of the GBS was to facilitate the provision of broadband in areas that the large commercial players had neglected.

It is to facilitate broadband provision in areas that any commercial player neglected, its not simply a GBS v. Eircom stand off. The scheme is technology neutral, the community group chooses what provider they partner with from the ones that are willing to provide a service to the community.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

It doesn't take much imagination to see that sooner or later, Eircom would enable more and more exchanges, so it would make more sense for the GBSs to target areas *outside* the DSL range - the "dispersed rural communities" in the hinterlands of small towns and villages.

The GBS doesn't "target" anybody specifically, its definitely community-led. If your area is not served by any broadband and broadband is not currently scheduled to be available in the short-term then your community can avail of GBS funding.

Don't forget, when the GBS was first announced, eircom's rollout strategy wasn't clear. AFAIR, it was only announced at the same time that the Dept. announced the GBS project, co-incidence perhaps?

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

If you were a bank manager or suchlike, would you provide a loan to a small community group of volunteers that planned to compete with a gigantic predatory telecoms monopoly like Eircom, the former using wireless technology (to be built), the latter using the existing wired infrastructure and DSL (already present), targetting customers within DSL range of the Eircom exchange? If this doesn't make sense to you (it doesn't make any sense to me), then why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?

If a community group of volunteers had a decent, viable business plan then I think the "loan" would be considered.
If that same community group was in partnership with an existing broadband provider (which is the case in most GBS live areas) and a decent viable, business plan was in place then I reckon the chances of receiving that "loan" would be greatly increased.

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

In my opinion, the reason behind the GBS is social inclusion.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

On the flipside, I think that the effect of the GBS was to "stimulate" Eircom into action, possibly as a spoiler tactic. Well, for whatever reason, Eircom magically DSL-enabled a lot of exchanges, which I think may not have happened without the "notion" of the GBS.

I agree with you on that.

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

The service provider that collapsed was Ildana.

Ildana chased nearly every GBS in the country and they were involved in a fair few, presumably to increase business/make profit etc. How would they collapse because of the GBS, surely if the GBS was costing them money then they would not have been involved with the scheme? I thought they collapsed after a failed merger and as a result of large debts?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

Hi Viking,

Thanks for the great posting! I hope you don't mind if I make one or two comments in return.

I think that you misinterpreted my comments about the taxpayer funding the provision of an alternative broadband service provider in areas where such services already exist (with no help/handout from the taxpayer).

The GBS project was supposed to be about bringing broadband to places forgotten or ignored by the Eircoms - rural hinterlands and communities well below the 1500 population threshold. I am all in favour of this. However, I am not in favour of the taxpayer supporting any GBS scheme that wastes time, effort and money in attempting to provide broadband in areas that already have broadband because (1) it is unfair competition for those that provide a service without a handout from the taxpayer (2) it is illegal to claim grants for areas not outlined in the GBS proposal - certainly not the urban centre of a town such as Athenry which is well above the 1500 limit, and (3) it is unfair on those communities living just outside Athenry as they have been effectively robbed of their one option in order to provide an urban dweller with multiple options.

You say that you are turning my argument around "somewhat", but I have to say that I have some difficulty in recognizing what you have thrown back to me! Of course I support youthreach, social housing, childcare facilities and so on - whether they are in Athenry, Galway or in Dublin or at the top of Ben Bulbin - and regardless of whether they impact me or not.

viking wrote:

Ildana chased nearly every GBS in the country and they were involved in a fair few, presumably to increase business/make profit etc. How would they collapse because of the GBS, surely if the GBS was costing them money then they would not have been involved with the scheme? I thought they collapsed after a failed merger and as a result of large debts?

Well, are you asking me or telling me? I know the Ildana story quite well and have close contacts "on the inside". The failed merger happened after the collpase, not the other way around. The large debts were as a result of a number of things, but mostly the lengthy delays in getting schemes up and running, cashflow resulting from bureaucracy, delays, obstruction and red tape dealing with the DCMNR and the GBS. Your own experience in Kinnegad and dealing with Last Mile, the DCMNR and the County Council / Regional Broadband Co-Ordinator suggests that a waiting period of 12-24 months from project submission to fund drawdown is not unusual. In business, delays cost money - unless you have some way of cryogenically freezing your salaried staff and thawing them out when the DCMNR cheque comes in the door. Add in the costs of obtaining a commercial ComReg license, office rental, equipment, purchasing/renting mast sites, obtaining backhaul and a million other items that cost money. All these costs had to be "carried" by Ildana for an inordinate period of time, meanwhile they have little or no income until they actually connect customers to their network.

Niall

Blaster99

viking wrote:

"Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for it?" - Funding is provided through the National Development Plan and part financed by the European Union. The NDP funds projects all over Ireland in "education, roads, public transport, health services, social housing, rural development, industry, water and waste services, childcare and local development". Using your argument and turning it around somewhat, I can pose the question "Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for funding Youthreach/social housing/childcare facilities etc in Athenry, Galway when it has no direct impact on me?"

In my opinion, the reason behind the GBS is social inclusion.

Because if eircom is going to enable an exchange six months later, the broadband rollout would have cost the taxpayer zip. Hence GBS funding in such a scenario is probably a waste of money. Nobody is going to build social housing unless the Government does it, so it's not a valid comparison.

Having said that, GBS is a completely open funding process and eircom could have bid for it in nearly every case instead of competing with it later. Sounds like major mismanagement on eircom's part, if you ask me. While I'm not really a fan of GBS you can't really fault its transparency in this way. It requires no central strategy, it's up to each community to make the case.

It's not terribly surprising that most GBS schemes targetted areas that subsequently got some other form of commercial broadband. A GBS needs customers much like eircom/IBB/Digiweb/whoever and the successful ones are of course those where there are a lot of people who want broadband and can't get it.

It would seem to me that the MAN approach is better and if coupled with mast infrastructure it would potentially be excellent. With carrier-neutral infrastructure you make sure it's feasible for many companies to provide a service, possibly even including eircom, as you take a lot of pain out of the equation.

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

The GBS doesn't "target" anybody specifically, its definitely community-led. If your area is not served by any broadband and broadband is not currently scheduled to be available in the short-term then your community can avail of GBS funding.

Hi Viking,

Just another point. I live about 10 km outside Athenry, so DSL isn't available for me. There *is* a taxpayer-funded GBS in the area which was approved in the 2nd round. However, for reasons that I am unable to figure out (and it's not for the lack of asking), they decided to put access points in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell and one quarter of their customers are in these areas - all within DSL range of the exchange and some even have both. This was never part of the submitted ACGBS plan and it unclear why this is being funded by the DCMNR. What *is* clear is that there are still many potential customers in my area - some of whom even funded the setting up of the ACGBS Co-Op - and who still cannot get broadband or cannot get an indication as to when it might be available, now over 18 months after the public meetings.

Unlike your scheme in Kinnegad, the ACGBS went down the "Community Owned and Operated" route. However, the Co-Op founders have decided not to bother with all that "legal" stuff, like elections, AGMs, accountability, etc - despite receiving all their funds from the taxpayer and the community. Have a look at the forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=540

especially the thread "Are there not enough frequencies available in Craughwell" for an example for how not to do it!

Niall

viking

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

Just another point. I live about 10 km outside Athenry, so DSL isn't available for me. There *is* a taxpayer-funded GBS in the area which was approved in the 2nd round. However, for reasons that I am unable to figure out (and it's not for the lack of asking), they decided to put access points in the urban centres of Athenry and Craughwell and one quarter of their customers are in these areas - all within DSL range of the exchange and some even have both. This was never part of the submitted ACGBS plan and it unclear why this is being funded by the DCMNR. What *is* clear is that there are still many potential customers in my area - some of whom even funded the setting up of the ACGBS Co-Op - and who still cannot get broadband or cannot get an indication as to when it might be available, now over 18 months after the public meetings.

Thanks for the background information on where you are coming from with your views, I wasn't familiar with the ACGBS setup. I can see now why you're frustrated with the GBS.

The ACGBS setup you described does indeed sound strange. You may have mentioned it already but was DSL enabled prior to the intial GBS application being made by the community group? Sounds like you should FOI the department for information regarding the GBS in your area, email the Minister and let him know about your concerns over where the mast was placed and the lack of coverage the majority of your co-op have.

If DSL existed in an area prior to the initial GBS application then funding should not have been approved. If DSL arrived after funding was approved, it raises some questions:

"should funding be cancelled since the terms of the GBS are now breached?"
or
"should the GBS continue because the application met the initial requirements at the time?".

The former is unfair on the community who put a lot of hard work into the application and unfair on the BB provider who put time/effort/money into it. The latter could be argued (as you have done) is unfair on eircom and other providers since they have not received funding for their service.

I'm of the view that the GBS should continue as initial requirements for funding were met.

Xian

viking wrote:

If DSL existed in an area prior to the initial GBS application then funding should not have been approved.

Less stringent conditions applied to the 2nd round of funding:

"Eligible communities with populations up to 1,500 (based on CSO 2002 Census data) may apply. Communities within this population size may combine to form aggregated proposals. Larger towns may also apply where the projects address the broadband needs of an underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland."

Niall_Stevenson

Xian wrote:

Less stringent conditions applied to the 2nd round of funding:

"Eligible communities with populations up to 1,500 (based on CSO 2002 Census data) may apply. Communities within this population size may combine to form aggregated proposals. Larger towns may also apply where the projects address the broadband needs of an underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland."

Thanks Xian,

Two things. First, the population of Athenry is 2100 (according to CSO 2002, probably more like 3500 now) and is therefore ineligible to receive grant support. Regardless of when the Eircom exchange became DSL-enabled. Period.

Second, the ACGBS proposal made no mention of servicing the urban centre of Athenry or any "underserved/unserved suburb or hinterland". None. Zero. Zilch. In any case, the location of the mast - about 100 mtr from the Eircom exchange (!!) - makes it unsuitable to serve anyone except for those very close to the mast - and also the Eircom exchange - and certainly does nothing for anyone on the outskirts of the town or rural hinterlands whose Eircom line is "unsuitable" for DSL. And if it's not mentioned in the GBS proposal, then it's an open and shut case. If it's not in the proposal then it's not eligible for funding. Period.

Niall

Sponge Bob

Niall_Stevenson wrote:

The large debts were as a result of a number of things, but mostly the lengthy delays in getting schemes up and running, cashflow resulting from bureaucracy, delays, obstruction and red tape dealing with the DCMNR and the GBS.

And thats the only sensible thing you said really.

The GBS scheme was crippled by the DCMNR, they deliberately sought to impede the financing of the schemes and deliberately affected the casflow and ongoing viability of many small competent ISPs nationwide .

I know of one scheme which

1. is up and running
2. was delayed for approval for months because the DCMNR had given their application a cursory reading and refused to accept its viability simply because it DID NOT MENTION satellite ......they did not use satellite at all.
3. has exceeded its coverage targets and now services over 50% of ALL households in its catchment area meaning 50% penetration.
4. has still not got a penny.

The DCMNR basically did not give a **** and still has not paid a shekel. They are damn lucky they survived . Poor oul Ildana , not uniquely, has been shafted by the DCMNR who have simply refused to honour their committments and put rural Irish projects in grave peril with their iniquitous bureaucracy .

Dempsey has now gotten rid of all the Regional BB Officers listed on his website (try ringing your local one about GBS3 if you wish) so there can be no GBS 3 save on a national basis and by dealing with Dempsey himself and his minions . Having comprehensively shafted all the local and regional players Dempsey is busy rewriting the T&Cs so that ONLY eircom can get GBS3 funding. He may get his wish .

The arrogant sod also refused to answer the 33 questions put to him by his own Dáil committee on the issue (and other issues too ) a few months back.

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote:

The GBS scheme was crippled by the DCMNR, they deliberately sought to impede the financing of the schemes and deliberately affected the casflow and ongoing viability of many small competent ISPs nationwide .

Deliberately? Like the same red tape any public funding has associated with it, or are you suggesting something more sinister? I mean if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive. Sure, in a better world that wouldn't happen, but such is life. However, if you're suggesting that this was above and beyond the norm in a deliberate attempt to achieve something, what did they do, and to achieve what?

Sponge Bob wrote:

Dempsey is busy rewriting the T&Cs so that ONLY eircom can get GBS3 funding.

Have you got ANY source for that, at all? Reading that (both in and out of context) really sounds like childish mud slinging, but then maybe you're right, which is why I'm asking first! That is assuming that GBS3 is even happening, which nobody has confirmed (doesn't stop the speculation, though). So, back that one up SB!

.cg

oscarBravo

cgarvey wrote:

...if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive.

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but one of the promised changes between rounds 1 and 2 was that grants would be paid out promptly.

Sponge Bob

cgarvey wrote:

Deliberately? Like the same red tape any public funding has associated with it, or are you suggesting something more sinister?

Deliberately. They simply refuse to travel out to inspect schemes to verify they are up and running and this refusal goes on for months and months .

cgarvey wrote:

I mean if GBS applicants were expecting cash to be handed out on time, they were being naive. Sure, in a better world that wouldn't happen, but such is life. However, if you're suggesting that this was above and beyond the norm in a deliberate attempt to achieve something, what did they do, and to achieve what?

No application received by the end of april 2005 in GBS 2 has been funded in full save maybe where the application came from Eircom but I am not sure . They DO NOT travel out to inspect eircom schemes which is pretty cheeky .

Not paying anybody anything for 15 months after receipt of a properly completed application form is beyond the call of duty for any diligent bureaucrat ....surely .

cgarvey wrote:

]Have you got ANY source for that, at all? Reading that (both in and out of context) really sounds like childish mud slinging, but then maybe you're right, which is why I'm asking first! That is assuming that GBS3 is even happening, which nobody has confirmed (doesn't stop the speculation, though). So, back that one up SB!

here is the list of GBS co ordinators, ring them up or email them yourself and find out if they are still GBS co ordinators . They have all been redeployed to other tasks because there will be no regional GB work for them ever again. They have officially had nothing to do about GBS since April 2005 anyway.

GBS3 will really be a national non tender and which is awaiting some clarification or pre clearance from the EU Commission and which will go to eircom. My source is pretty good as always .

It will be called a GBS <maybe> and will use GBS funds from that multi year €25 m budget of Dempseys <definitely absolutely including other peoples allocations > but there will be no local or regional input as contracting partners or SLA setters or as ISPs. The G bit is gone, the BS remains of course

There is an election coming up after all and Dempsey is under quite serious pressure at present to do th'oul rabbit and hat job for his backbenchers. He got awful schtick at a backbenchers conference in leinster house early this month.

jwt

So nothing to do with GBS schemes where the participants have not achieved the required levels and if an audit were done those GBS schemes would be required to hand money back?


Something that would be embarrasing to everyone.

And if you don't audit one but audit another then everyone assumes that something hokey is going on?

I have had ongoing conversations this year with Joe Tighe GBS co-ordinator for Meath this year and as recently as three months ago.

John

Sponge Bob

There are non compliant schemes. Of course there are.

There are compliant schemes where the department simply refuses to verify compliance and uses this as an excsue not to disburse.

oscarBravo

jwt wrote:

So nothing to do with GBS schemes where the participants have not achieved the required levels and if an audit were done those GBS schemes would be required to hand money back?

This implies money being paid out without an audit being done. Apart from SB's suggestion that Eircom weren't audited (and nothing would surprise me), I've yet to hear of a scheme being paid for in the absence of an audit.

We've had financial and technical audits, and - believe me - they checked the subscriber numbers. Thoroughly.

Haven't seen a cheque yet.

jwt

Maybe my logic is screwy here so hear me out.

A sizeable amount of money has been paid out from GBS funding.

4 million plus if memory serves?

So some GBS schemes have recieved funding?

And, of these, some will not be compliant?

And if some are non compliant do you just audit ones you "know" are compliant?


Or are you saying that NO money ever was paid out to any GBS anywhere anytime?

If you are making the case that no one has been paid an FOI request will get the results in 6 weeks.

As far as audits I am referring to initial subscriber numbers and subscriber numbers at a later date.

John

viking

oscarBravo wrote:

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but one of the promised changes between rounds 1 and 2 was that grants would be paid out promptly.

This is what I heard too, the grants were also to be "front-loaded" meaning that a bigger percentage would be available at the start of the rollout when it was needed most.

cgarvey

Sponge Bob wrote:

Deliberately. They simply refuse to travel out to inspect schemes to verify they are up and running and this refusal goes on for months and months.

So if that's the case, surely Ildana would have gone down the road of legal action? 15 months is excessive, agreed.

I don't doubt the coordinators being chopped (and you've offered proof of that)

Sponge Bob wrote:

GBS3 will really be a national non tender and which is awaiting some clarification or pre clearance from the EU Commission and which will go to eircom. My source is pretty good as always .

That's still speculation though, isn't it? I mean GBS3 hasn't been confirmed, let alone the format of it yet, has it?

Niall_Stevenson

viking wrote:

This is what I heard too, the grants were also to be "front-loaded" meaning that a bigger percentage would be available at the start of the rollout when it was needed most.

There are (were) three different options for claiming the grant:

Option 1: build the network, launch it and attain the agreed minimum subscriber target number (as stated in the proposal) - then lodge a claim for the grant.

Option 2: build the network and launch it. Then claim 90% of the grant. The remaining 10% can be claimed when the minimum target subscriber number is attained.

Option 3: build the network. Then claim 70% of the grant. Launch the network, then claim another 20%. Then attain the minimum target subscriber number and claim the last 10%.

I think than it all cases - options 1, 2 and 3 - the majority of the costs are incurred in building the network. So the community or BISP has to take a fairly large leap of faith by spending their own money up front before being able to claim back the grant.

An important point to note is that the grant is based on vouched, validated expenditure that was previously approved in the GBS project plan. A number of GBSs misinterpreted the words "70% of the grant", etc to mean that they would receive 70% of the grant amount. This was highly misleading and a point that the DCMNR refused to budge on.

I have heard of substantial GBS grants (EUR 10,000 or more) being held up for weeks or months because of delays in accepting a EUR 10 receipt.

In the case of another GBS that I know of, the first GBS grant payment took about 4 months of constant negotiation, phone calls, emails, etc to secure.

I really pity any GBS or BISP who availed of option 1 above and had to endure months and months and months of delays from the DCMNR.

Niall