Eircom running out of money?

probe

Eircom's heavily indebted parent company Babcock & Brown's share price continues to sink like a stone. Its eircom subsidiary is also heavily indebted.

AFAICS they can't afford to upgrade their broadband infrastructure to give Ireland the speeds we take for granted elsewhere in Europe. With inflation increasing all over, interest rates are likely to increase further - putting a further drain on B&B/eircom.

A phone line + DSL service in Ireland costs about twice the price of a similar service in France. And is typically ten times slower. With an increasing use of the net for multi-media (Youtube and dailymotion.com and vimeo.com etc) Ireland's telecommunications infrastructure is in danger of grinding to a halt. Eircom still controls about 95% of DSL connections, using other telcos to issue invoices with different brand names to give the illusion of competition.

.probe

B&B share price chart: http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/CompanyInfoSearchResults.jsp?searchBy=asxCode&allinfo=&asxCode=bnb

lmimmfn

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

paulm17781

lmimmfn wrote: »

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

Unlikely that we'd see upgrades either way.

mcgovern

Whats stopping BT or any of the other providers from investing in their own network infrastructure?

pippip

mcgovern wrote: »

Whats stopping BT or any of the other providers from investing in their own network infrastructure?

I'm no expert but I'd say if you asked someone in BT that question it would be a long time before they'd stop laughing.

The eircom network is the result of decades of work and investment. There is no way any company could afford to create their own. Every single road in the country would have to be dug up.

I know eircom are a pack of "*&$*ers" but at the end of the day they are the only reason we have broadband in this country.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I know eircom are a pack of "*&$*ers" but at the end of the day they are the only reason we have broadband in this country.

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

They probably are as hated. None the less, we have broadband for a variety of reasons, not because of Eircom.

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

They probably are as hated. None the less, we have broadband for a variety of reasons, not because of Eircom.

I didn't really mean it in that sense. I mean't it more in the way of that those other companies that have entered Ireland probably used the eircom broadband to initially setup. i.e. from researching to general purchasing premises etc. Without Eircom many companies would have never been able to setup in the past (not just telecomm providers, all types of companies).....even if most have switched to cheaper competitors by now.

I really don't mind paying more for broadband than other Eu countries cause I feel every economy is different. I'd say providers in this country pay their staff more than these Eu ones, which means more public spending.

I do however feel that in the last 5yrs the irish broadband network as a whole has fallen behind at an unacceptable level compared to these countries. Which Eircom are just gonna blame on the irish government after they refused to invest in the new fibre optics line that Eircom want to put down.

jimmycrackcorm

who says upc are hated? Eircom are hated for charging for line rental before you even use their service. Every cent you spend with upc gets you something. Also for bb you can thank upc for forcing the other operators to try and keep up with faster bb.

pippip

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

who says upc are hated? Eircom are hated for charging for line rental before you even use their service. Every cent you spend with upc gets you something. Also for bb you can thank upc for forcing the other operators to try and keep up with faster bb.

Price wise and speed, UPC are great and probably the best value for money broadband out there but their customer service has and still is absolutely appalling.

Hank Scorpio

and eircoms isnt?

pippip

nuxxx wrote: »

and eircoms isnt?

Who questioned Eircom's?.....We hate them both.

penexpers

pippip wrote: »

I dont know about IBB or any of the others but I do believe UPC are NTL who yet again have been decades investing in their network and are hated by the public as much Eircom.

Well NTL is a result of Cablelink which was owned by Telecom Eireann.

penexpers

lmimmfn wrote: »

hopefully thell go bust so someone( government/other telecoms provider ) will buy them as a going concern and actually invest money in the network

I would put good money on BT buying Eircom.

pippip

penexpers wrote: »

Well NTL is a result of Cablelink which was owned by Telecom Eireann.

I know but it still isn't the same as BT suddenly saying lets install our own network throughout the country.

probe

It would be cheaper to build a fibre to the home system providing 100 Mbits/sec internet, telephone and virtually unlimited HDTV on demand and live etc compared with buying / rescuing eircom, given the huge debt burden, obsolete network infrastructure, and the poorly maintained condition of the line plant.

Fibre can supply the most remote farm houses without any degradation of speed or quality, and is very low maintenance. Ideal for a damp climate like Ireland’s which causes lots of problems with copper wire plant. The phone system in the Principality of Andorra is still owned by the state. The state has decided to install a triple play fibre to the home (FTTH/B) system to reach every building in the country. 30% of homes will have it by the end of 2008, 60% by the end of 2009 and all by end 2010.

Everyone will get 100 Mbits/sec internet (up and down), broadcast TV, TV on demand, all channels HD capable, and multiple phone lines – even for people living at over 2000 m altitude, perhaps 15 km from the nearest town. The monthly cost is €49 – or €69 if you want to pig out on the TV selection and other options. Compared with eircom’s charge of about €75 per month for a phone line and an internet connection that typically averages 3 Mbits/sec, with no TV, no hope of HDTV, no video on demand, etc etc. (Andorra switched off analog TV broadcasting in September 2007 (replaced by DTT) – a feat Ireland looks as if it won’t achieve before 2099 at the rate things are not progressing!). The fibre system will be speed upgradable as technologies evolve and user demands change.

There are over 1 million FTTH users in Europe at the moment – mainly in France, Sweden, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, Iceland as well as Andorra.

Eircom is providing appallingly bad value for money to the Irish consumer, and they still retain about 95% of the DSL internet market in Ireland – by using re-invoicing companies to do a rebranding fiddle on consumers making them think they have competition.

The Irish state could put the installation of a nationwide FTTH network out to public tender, allowing individual service providers to access this nationwide infrastructure to deliver competitive services. Eircom’s poorly maintained, over-priced copper network is not fast enough to meet the multi-media needs of the consumer and business user in the 21 century and beyond. An FTTH system would not require the use of eircom’s expensive “telephone exchange” buildings – any more than a cable TV networks need to use them. This would save money for eircom’s competitors, who have to pay monopoly rents to share and get access to eircom assets.

Arrogant Eircom / Babcock & Brown have bled the Irish consumer with high prices and glacially slow service. Time to put the Irish telecommunications infrastructure on a proper and competitive footing to meet all foreseeable future demands. Of course there would be nothing to stop eircom becoming a service provider on a national FTTH/P network – but one suspects that the average user would opt for anything but eircom, given the choice!

.probe

http://www.sta.ad/ftth/index.html

The FTTH Council of Europe: www.ftthcouncil.eu

watty

Digiweb's independent of eircom DSL network depends on three 3rd party non-eircom fibre, their own fibre and the biggest dedicated to IP backhaul microwave network in the country and the high performance End User links on Proprietary Digiweb only Wireless gear.

eircom has the strangle hold on copper/ducts.

Spectrum is near exhusted without fresh allocations for another party (Smart/BT/UPC) to build a fresh Wireless Network.

UPC will have over 1/2 the houses covered with Broadband when they finish their last 1/3 of cable upgrades. Thus within 20 months the breakdown could be:

UPC 62% of houses passed
eircom 67% of houses served with copper (dropped from 82& at privatisation to 69% last year due to high line rental and mobile phone takeup).
Mobile phone ownership, 120% but about 75% geographic High Speed Coverage, but not true broadband.
Digiweb 80% wireless geographic coverage, 95% Households.

Fibre to home is very low.

pippip

Sounds like probe's solution is the best so far. If BT buy Eircom. we're back to where we were 5 or 10 years ago with a fairly large broadband monopoly and consumer choice out the window nearly. and in a year or so we'll be all giving out about BT.

watty

penexpers wrote: »

I would put good money on BT buying Eircom.

I wouldn't, not with over 1000 euro per person in Ireland debt and the amount of fresh investment in copper/fibre upgrades needed.

I'd guess B&B want to sell eircom retail to someone and Meteor + 3G licence to someone else. Reduce debt a little, take out most of sale profit and then sell the eircom wholesale sometime later when they are sure the Government won't pay for them to roll out fibre to kerb.

The climate has gone bad for selling at the moment though.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

I didn't really mean it in that sense. I mean't it more in the way of that those other companies that have entered Ireland probably used the eircom broadband to initially setup. i.e. from researching to general purchasing premises etc. Without Eircom many companies would have never been able to setup in the past (not just telecomm providers, all types of companies).....even if most have switched to cheaper competitors by now.

No no no no no.

Eircom brought broadband to us while most of Europe already had it. IBB were definitely offering it around the time of Eircom's launch and I think parts of Chorus were too. IBB took as long as they did because of when they got their license. Eircom took as long as they did because they dragged their heels.

Eircom did nothing to innovate the broadband market in this country, it was only when competition from non-telephone based companies started they started to pick it up. Other companies had their own independent offering, completely separate of Eircom.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

Nonsense. UPC, IBB, Digiweb and several others provide broadband with no dependency on Eircom.

Rubbish! IBB and Digiweb both use DSL - effectively re-selling eircom's DSL services. While wireless is OK for people on the move, it has scaling problems in terms of population density and speed which make it a non-runner as a long term provider of broadband services to a mass market as speeds that can compete with fibre, particularly in a multi-media environment.

As someone else says, UPC is just as hated as eircom. Cable TV broadband also has scalability problems when everybody in an area uses it at the same time. The speed and capacity available to individual users dries up.

There is nothing to stop UPC becoming another service provider on a national FTTH platform. Then we'd be able to add "anyone but eircom and UPC" to the FTTH "hate list"!

.probe

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

No no no no no.

Eircom brought broadband to us while most of Europe already had it. IBB were definitely offering it around the time of Eircom's launch and I think parts of Chorus were too. IBB took as long as they did because of when they got their license. Eircom took as long as they did because they dragged their heels.

Eircom did nothing to innovate the broadband market in this country, it was only when competition from non-telephone based companies started they started to pick it up. Other companies had their own independent offering, completely separate of Eircom.

They may have been around, still doesn't mean everyone went for Eircom first. I don't know anybody from back when broadband entered households that didn't have Eircom broadband first.

paulm17781

pippip wrote: »

They may have been around, still doesn't mean everyone went for Eircom first. I don't know anybody from back when broadband entered households that didn't have Eircom broadband first.

You should probably meet more people then. :P

Honestly, you're wrong on this. Eircom did nothing to invigorate the broadband market, they made too much from dial up.

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

Rubbish! IBB and Digiweb both use DSL - effectively re-selling eircom's DSL services. While wireless is OK for people on the move, it has scaling problems in terms of population density and speed which make it a non-runner as a long term provider of broadband services to a mass market as speeds that can compete with fibre, particularly in a multi-media environment.

IBB only started this recently. Digiweb do DSL as one of about 12 products. Both were wireless when they launched. I think wireless is limited but back in the 512k days, they could easily match Eircom on price and availability. There are several others who offer broadband without a phoneline. UPC maybe hated but that's not the point of this thread. They still offer broadband without dependency on Eircom.

crawler

watty wrote: »

Digiweb's independent of eircom DSL network depends on three 3rd party non-eircom fibre, their own fibre and the biggest dedicated to IP backhaul microwave network in the country and the high performance End User links on Proprietary Digiweb only Wireless gear.

eircom has the strangle hold on copper/ducts.

Spectrum is near exhusted without fresh allocations for another party (Smart/BT/UPC) to build a fresh Wireless Network.

UPC will have over 1/2 the houses covered with Broadband when they finish their last 1/3 of cable upgrades. Thus within 20 months the breakdown could be:

UPC 62% of houses passed
eircom 67% of houses served with copper (dropped from 82& at privatisation to 69% last year due to high line rental and mobile phone takeup).
Mobile phone ownership, 120% but about 75% geographic High Speed Coverage, but not true broadband.
Digiweb 80% wireless geographic coverage, 95% Households.

Fibre to home is very low.

So have Digiweb stopped selling bitstream watty?

Also there is NO shortage of spectrum - L-Band, new 3.5Ghz, ASO, GSM refarm - you're talking crazy man....not like you!!!:D

(poster respects Watty greatly - puts it down to SAD - due to weather!!)

pippip

paulm17781 wrote: »

You should probably meet more people then. :P

Honestly, you're wrong on this. Eircom did nothing to invigorate the broadband market, they made too much from dial up.

I don't deny Eircom's overcharging, but this still lead to money into the infrastructure which as mentioned by everyone else houses most competitors. I just cant see how we would have half the network, however bad, we have now without Eircom. Sure others would have stepped up but again how would they of paid for their network of lines?

PS...I still hate Eircom.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

IBB only started this recently. Digiweb do DSL as one of about 12 products. Both were wireless when they launched. I think wireless is limited but back in the 512k days, they could easily match Eircom on price and availability.

"back in the 512k days" being the operative words!

We have to plan for the future, not the past.

We are quickly moving to an HD video on demand world. Where people watch what they want, when they want it.

Multiple TVs. HD with bigger and bigger flat screens. Music downloads at better quality (anything but i-tunes!). Tele-commuting with video meetings involving lots of people at different locations. etc etc.

Watch this "HD" video (preferably in any browser other than IE), clicking the bottom left and bottom right icons to play in full screen mode. While it has far better quality than youtube stuff - it could be 10 times better with a widescale FTTH/B infrastructure in place...
http://www.vimeo.com/384694

.probe

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

"back in the 512k days" being the operative words!

We have to plan for the future, not the past.

We are quickly moving to an HD video on demand world. Where people watch what they want, when they want it.

Multiple TVs. HD with bigger and bigger flat screens. Music downloads at better quality (anything but i-tunes!). Tele-commuting with video meetings involving lots of people at different locations. etc etc.

Which has nothing to do with "who we wouldn't have broadband without."

Wcool

crawler wrote: »

So have Digiweb stopped selling bitstream watty?

Also there is NO shortage of spectrum - L-Band, new 3.5Ghz, ASO, GSM refarm - you're talking crazy man....not like you!!!:D

(poster respects Watty greatly - puts it down to SAD - due to weather!!)

So what is stopping other ISP's from setting up their own infrastructure?

Is it the law? Maybe the law has led to an anti-competitive market?
Or is wireless technology not cheap enough?
Or is the speed increase you would get with let's say WiMAX not high enough to compete with cable? I don't see any movement on the wireless front, there must be a reason?

But the same applies to your company Crawler: is there a reason why Smart does not go beyond the 'easy' exchanges in high density areas?
I really would like to know the answer.

Does Eircom not allow you into their exchanges? or can they put in the cables from the exchange cheaper than any other? or do they charge a fortune? Or does Smart have no money to make the investment? I mean, surely you must be able to compete easily here.

Why not a step by step approach, slowly (every year x number exchanges more) but I got the impression that enabling new exchanges by competitors has stopped too, unless it's a completely new estate.

But even BT, who has some money or can borrow it, is not moving.

I just can't get my head to it...

paulm17781

Wcool wrote: »

So what is stopping other ISP's from setting up their own infrastructure?

Cost.

Most other companies have their own fibre or deals with providers to use fibre. It's the getting to people's houses is the expensive bit. UPC are spending a fortune upgrading their network and that's part fibre part copper (co-ax) to send fibre to each home would be a very expensive task. Then you have the need for exchanges or similar etc.

probe

If you had a single, nationwide, FTTH/B fibre network, it could be open to every service provider to use it. There is nothing to stop Digiweb, IBB or anyone else migrating their customer base to a 100 Mbits/sec open shared fibre infrastructure.

The state has invested a fortune in metrpolitan area networks (MANs) - the missing link is the "last mile" - that requires FTTH/B. Otherwise its capacity is largely going to go to waste.

While UPC has done a half-baked DOCSIS2 network modernisation, their "last mile" isn't fibre either.

The common missing link is the "last mile" of connectivity. There is absolutely no point in duplicating this. All that is required is a mechanism to roll it out in an open and competitive manner.

.probe

Wcool

paulm17781 wrote: »

Cost.

Most other companies have their own fibre or deals with providers to use fibre. It's the getting to people's houses is the expensive bit. UPC are spending a fortune upgrading their network and that's part fibre part copper (co-ax) to send fibre to each home would be a very expensive task. Then you have the need for exchanges or similar etc.

I get your point and of course it is valid, but why is the cost so high?
In other countries many more providers lay down their own cables. Of course it is not always a fair comparison as the Netherlands has a high population density and afaik in Sweden there is mainly Fibre to Home in Stockholm (high density). But, it seems most ISP's abroad think they will get a return on investment.

Could it be that most ISP's are actually happy with the status quo (except UPC who can smell the triple play (phone, bb and tv) is within reach?

Yes, they all make a small buck, but who cares, you don't have to do anything for it

Wcool

probe wrote: »

The common missing link is the "last mile" of connectivity. There is absolutely no point in duplicating this. All that is required is a mechanism to roll it out in an open and competitive manner.

.probe

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

paulm17781

Wcool wrote: »

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

That's what the bulk do albeit wireless. MANs and ESB fibre are a huge amount of our broadband. Building the last mile and necessary exchanges etc. is hugely expensive, Ireland is too small a market to bother.

While I hate Eircom as much as any of you. If you had any idea what it's like in there you'd understand. Imagine being a company in a competitive environment with far more staff than you need who own ~35% of the company and are resistant to change. B&B would love to innovate more but innovation can mean jobs in the telecoms industry.

It's absolutely not worth anyone's time rolling 100Mbps fibre to one remote house in the country and I don't see it happening this century. Anyone who thinks Eircom should do this should set up their own telecoms company and see what it'll cost and what the ROI on it is. Then maybe you'd see why they don't do this.

Hank Scorpio

if its solely cost why do most other european countries have it, or at least a much stronger infrastructure!

Theres underlying reasons and 1 company to blame

we got Rate adaptive DSL on old worn out copper wires lol

Mantel

Wcool wrote: »

I get your point and of course it is valid, but why is the cost so high?
In other countries many more providers lay down their own cables. Of course it is not always a fair comparison as the Netherlands has a high population density and afaik in Sweden there is mainly Fibre to Home in Stockholm (high density). But, it seems most ISP's abroad think they will get a return on investment.

Could it be that most ISP's are actually happy with the status quo (except UPC who can smell the triple play (phone, bb and tv) is within reach?

Yes, they all make a small buck, but who cares, you don't have to do anything for it

It's not just cost of the fiber, it's the cost of digging up the streets. None of the existing companies really want to plough that much cash in to something that could make them go bust and end up like NTL, they got cut off the body like an infected limb for UPC to pick up.

Magnet seem to be the only ones taking advantage of new develotments where fiber has been rolled out and planned for in the construction phase. Wether it's them paying for the fiber or developers laying it down themselves and renting it to them I don't know.

In Sweden alot of the cities own the FTTH and allow ISP's to used it and then the Government invenst and encourage investment in infrastructre - http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/070308-war-brewing-over-swedish-broadband.html

It does help when you have a government body actively helping the broadband situation along....

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

if its solely cost why do most other european countries have it, or at least a much stronger infrastructure!

Theres underlying reasons and 1 company to blame

we got Rate adaptive DSL on old worn out copper wires lol

Bad planning and low density (politicians).
Lack of motivation (government).
Lack of competition (Cable co.s).
Low return on investment due to low spread out densities. (Government).

We do have a lot of fibre, I believe most of it is dark at the minute. There are load of reasons to this and Eircon are a small part. I stress I hate them but people seem to quick to blame them without understanding any of it.

crawler

stuff like this leads to uncertainty - uncertainty leads to non investment.

Very hard to make a business case fly when you don't know what your underlying costs will be.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0862.pdf

Hank Scorpio

paulm17781 wrote: »

Bad planning and low density (politicians).
Lack of motivation (government).
Lack of competition (Cable co.s).
Low return on investment due to low spread out densities. (Government).

We do have a lot of fibre, I believe most of it is dark at the minute. There are load of reasons to this and Eircon are a small part. I stress I hate them but people seem to quick to blame them without understanding any of it.

Dude
Eircom own all the copper. If it took them over a year to change my 1mb to 2mb even tho i was pay for it i think thats give a good idea of there company.
They sent out enginners who were unable to find the "enter" key on my keyboard.
They messed up there upgrades big time.
They charge 179euros + for broadband higher than the "new" residental package.
They ignore other resellers problems on there lines in a attempt to make them move back to eircom.
If you do end up moving they will send people out to your doorstep in a bid to get you back and continuously ring your home phone. They promised upgrades in january to get done by JUNE and there still not even finished.
They leave buinesses down without broadband for several days.
They dont employ any irish staff in the technical department.
They overcharged 56K when in the uk it was free, i remember i used to get 200 + irish pounds bills.
I emailed about the upgrades and got a reply 3 weeks later saying "sorry" for the delay.
Please dont defend this company, there a bloody mess and the sole reason were in this pithole

probe

Wcool wrote: »

This is absolutely intriguing: what if a company could use the MAN and country wide networks as a backbone but then build exchanges that provide the last mile to the homes wireless? Thus bypassing Eircon copper altogether and no need to put in expensive fibre.
I think wireless technology and cost of it for those distances are more than good enough?

You don't need an "exchange" to provide the "last mile" in an IP based network. An exchange is an antiquated circuit switching entity that is only required at the point of interface to other obsolete circuit switched telecommunications networks.

To provide 100 Mbits/sec internet + say 3 MPEG4 HDTV video streams supporting video on demand or broadcast TV and other gadgets is going to require about 200 Mbits/sec into each household. If you have 100 houses in an urban cluster (ie within radio range) that requires 20,000 Mbits/sec of an air interface to compete. Which will require wireless cellsites on every lamppost and for them to be connected by a fibre backbone. You might as well run the fibre to the house! Far Cheaper and more reliable - less stuff to go wrong / less maintenance costs. No payments to the ESB for "unbundling" their lampposts for mounting transmitters and connecting them with a power supply. Not to mention all the screaming and shouting about radiation from all these cellsites on each lamppost!

Fibre is cheap. The main cost of installing it in an urban area is digging up the streets. There are other ways of stringing fibre around!

Keep it simple. Fibre end to end.

.probe

Wcool

probe wrote: »

....

While UPC has done a half-baked DOCSIS2 network modernisation, their "last mile" isn't fibre either.

....
.probe

Assuming you are correct, why did they not put in the best technology that is available now and make sure they don't have to dig up the cables again in 5-10 years? Or was the upgrade mainly in the exchanges (no digging). Or is fiber cable too expensive? It seems to me, UPC is in the unique position to make Eircon obsolete right now...

Hank Scorpio

eircom announced in June 2007 that from the 30th of July line rental charges would increase by €1.18 bringing line rental charges - already the most expensive in Europe to a total of €25.36 per month for a PSTN analogue line, one source indicated it was the highest line rental charge in the world. Also announced was an increase of between 4.8 and 4.9% on local and national calls.(electricnews.net 15-06-2007 http://www.electricnews.net/article/47455.html. These moves have been criticised as excessive profit-taking and abuse of a dominant position in the market.

source;wikipedia

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

Dude
<snip>
Please dont defend this company, there a bloody mess and the sole reason were in this pithole

Tell me, what do you know about the running of Eircom, the union problems, the high level off staff, the cost of running the company etc.? I'm not defending them, I hate them. You've no idea how long I've hated them for and how happy I was when I got UPC boradband and my Blueface IP line and said good by to Eircom forever.

The thing is, while I hate them, I know quite a bit about them and I realise that there's more to this than "Eircom suck". If you had any idea what's involved in running Eircom you'd know. B&B want to split the company 35% said no (staff) B&B want to update all the exchanges 35% said no. B&B want to start rolling out fibre (by passing the exchanges) 35% said no.

There's a lot more to this than you realise and it's not a case that they're like this because they don't want to innovate, they just hit brick walls every way they go.

Also, I dislike them for the reasons you mentioned too. If B&B could fire ~50% off all staff and buy out that 35%, you'd see a very different company today.

Wcool

probe wrote: »

You don't need an "exchange" to provide the "last mile" in an IP based network. An exchange is an antiquated circuit switching entity that is only required at the point of interface to other obsolete circuit switched telecommunications networks.

To provide 100 Mbits/sec internet + say 3 MPEG4 HDTV video streams supporting video on demand or broadcast TV and other gadgets is going to require about 200 Mbits/sec into each household. If you have 100 houses in an urban cluster (ie within radio range) that requires 20,000 Mbits/sec of an air interface to compete. Which will require wireless cellsites on every lamppost and for them to be connected by a fibre backbone. You might as well run the fibre to the house! Far Cheaper and more reliable - less stuff to go wrong / less maintenance costs. No payments to the ESB for "unbundling" their lampposts for mounting transmitters and connecting them with a power supply. Not to mention all the screaming and shouting about radiation from all these cellsites on each lamppost!

Fibre is cheap. The main cost of installing it in an urban area is digging up the streets. There are other ways of stringing fibre around!

Keep it simple. Fibre end to end.

.probe

Yes that makes sense if you want to transport TV over the web.
But is there no company out there that is willing to sell VOIP and BB only? That way you wouldn't need a lot of infrastructure as the speeds don't have to be 200M per second, etc.
Just leave the telly to the satellite or UPC. Concentrate on BB.

Hank Scorpio

paulm17781 wrote: »

Tell me, what do you know about the running of Eircom, the union problems, the high level off staff, the cost of running the company etc.?

The cost of running any large company is high, think of the cost for BT and other resellers since there actually renting the eircom lines

I'm not defending them, I hate them. You've no idea how long I've hated them for and how happy I was when I got UPC boradband and my Blueface IP line and said good by to Eircom forever.

If i could get UPC i would move too, but i cant

The thing is, while I hate them, I know quite a bit about them and I realise that there's more to this than "Eircom suck". If you had any idea what's involved in running Eircom you'd know. B&B want to split the company 35% said no (staff) B&B want to update all the exchanges 35% said no. B&B want to start rolling out fibre (by passing the exchanges) 35% said no.

i see your point, however how much work in involved in enabling exchanges around the country? Many many people are still without DSL .
The 56k overcharging was ridiculus 2c + a minute on peak times, i mean common.. This was before DSL became common of course.
Finally there line rental is once again astonishing.. the highest in the world? I understand there is problems but they are a private company making there own decisions. They`ve been abusing there stance and ripping off irish consumers for years.

There's a lot more to this than you realise and it's not a case that they're like this because they don't want to innovate, they just hit brick walls every way they go.

It still doesnt give them the right to completly overcharge for a service which is one of the worst in europe.

Also, I dislike them for the reasons you mentioned too. If B&B could fire ~50% off all staff and buy out that 35%, you'd see a very different company today.

They should because from what i seen of there "engineers" and "techs" it has been far from top dollar.

paulm17781

nuxxx wrote: »

It still doesnt give them the right to completly overcharge for a service which is one of the worst in europe.

This is exactly where you're missing the point. They want to change for a good service but hit brick walls. They can't improve.

Their engineers and techs are often awful because they are phone people, not IP people. That and they own 35% of the company so can't be fired.

BT renting lines is cheaper than having to maintain all these lines. High line rental costs have to cover their over staffing levels etc.

I'm going round in circles here so I'm giving up on this thread. The point is that there is much more to Eircom than you realise. While I don't blame you for hating them, there is a certain naive ignorance to what you say. I'm just trying to point out that you don't really know a lot about them and with out knowing the facts your argument becomes very weak.

Hank Scorpio

dude my point is they overcharged and ripped off the republic for years and are still doing it. They abused there dominance in the market.
you cant argue that
and btw im talking about eircom
not 50% this and 35% that , eircom as in the PLC so please , iv seen enuff of them

watty

crawler wrote: »

So have Digiweb stopped selling bitstream watty?

Also there is NO shortage of spectrum - L-Band, new 3.5Ghz, ASO, GSM refarm - you're talking crazy man....not like you!!!:D

(poster respects Watty greatly - puts it down to SAD - due to weather!!)

No. Digiweb does Bitstream DSL. But you know who makes the most money out of that. If you could lease / buy C.O. space & lines, then that would break the monopoly. I see Comreg discussions on exchange / plant costs are ongoing, now that a line RENT reduction has been agreed.

Yes lots of Spectrum, but Comreg needs to licence it and someone has to make radios for it. In terms of spectrum & Radios to work it this year, a different story.

GSM actually should simply migrate to EDGE 2.0 and hypothetical EDGE3.0 even EDGE 2.0 can out perform HSDPA loaded with 6 modems per sector and has better efficiency. 3G was a con. Too little, too expensive for licences and possibly too soon (giving too poor a performance 384k).

ASO should not release more than 100MHz (150MHz max) as the TV guys should be able to do HD and compete with Rupert. It's maybe 5 years away here. Of course ideally to provide high speed only one operator should have the physical network (20MHz x 6 for reuse for interference free dense cells)

probe

Wcool wrote: »

Yes that makes sense if you want to transport TV over the web.
But is there no company out there that is willing to sell VOIP and BB only? That way you wouldn't need a lot of infrastructure as the speeds don't have to be 200M per second, etc.
Just leave the telly to the satellite or UPC. Concentrate on BB.

If you leave TV to satellite or UPC, you have to pay two bills - €30 to 80 ish for TV depending on the number of channels + another €40 or so per month for BB. You end up with a sub-optimal infrastructure, duplication of everything.

If you have a motorway between two cities it takes all types of traffic - cars, trucks, buses, oil trucks, motorbikes, etc. There would be no point building separate highways for each type of vehicle. Rational economics and efficiency.

.probe

watty

Even 200Mbps to the home can't compete with Broadcast for TV. Sorry..


But I agree, rather than the NBS and further MANs etc a State funded Fibre to kerb for everywhere is what we should do. Cheap. Then 50Mbps to 200Mbps VDSL and/or 50Mbps to 200MBps DOCSIS3.0 Cable depending on location/topology. That would be very cheap and reduce the digging.

The operators then connect the last 2m to 200m (a rural house could be 200m from road).

Option for IPTV for operators that want to pay the serious cost of true VOD rather than a poor broadcast copy of terrestrial/Sat/Cable. You only need about 50 broadcast channels to do 98% of people's viewing. Use IPTV/Cable/Satellite for the other 2%. Competition.