NBS Horror: EU to blame, claim DCENR

clohamon

Commissioners Neelie Kroes (Competition) and Viviane Reding (Information Society & Media)) must be wondering what they have to do to get a bit of gratitude.

Having bent over backwards to excuse the NBS from EU state-aid regulations, and having thrown €30M of ERDF money at the scheme for the minister to award as he saw fit, the EU is now the butt of some pre-emptive scape-goating.

262. Deputy Seán Connick asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources his plans to provide access to broadband services to individuals who live in areas not covered by the national broadband scheme and who cannot access broadband for local infrastructural reasons. [2657/09]
Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): EU State Aid and competition rules prevent States from intervening in the areas already substantially served by broadband. While recognising that some premises within substantially served areas may have difficulties for whatever reason (long lines, pair gains, no line of sight etc) in receiving a broadband service, the NBS scheme cannot cater for such limited instances. It is expected that over time, competing service providers would be attracted to offer services in such areas, given that those areas are already commercially viable for the existing service provider(s).

A half-truth, a red herring, and lastly an inspiring fable about what could happen if you’re patient. As no head-on porkies were told, its all ok. The fact that the answer conveys the direct opposite of the truth as to who’s responsible is ‘unfortunate’.

Deputy Connick , armed with the above Dail-certified answer to his question, can now return to his uncovered constituents and inform them in good faith why the NBS won’t be coming to them and who is to blame.

Sponge Bob

clohamon wrote: »

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Eamon Ryan): EU State Aid and competition rules prevent States from intervening in the areas already substantially served by broadband. While recognising that some premises within substantially served areas may have difficulties for whatever reason (long lines, pair gains, no line of sight etc) in receiving a broadband service, the NBS scheme cannot cater for such limited instances. It is expected that over time, competing service providers would be attracted to offer services in such areas, given that those areas are already commercially viable for the existing service provider(s).

Good find Clohamon. The fact that some areas to be served are already "SUBSTANTIALLY" covered and that the DCENR knew that on the cutoff date for mapping ..early august 2008...will further muddy the issue .

I think substantial is 70% but could be anything from 51% to 80%.

cgarvey

"limited instances" made me giggle. All be it closer to the truth if 3G is now broadband, but still!!

watty

the NBS scheme cannot cater for such limited instances. It is expected that over time, competing service providers would be attracted to offer services in such areas, given that those areas are already commercially viable for the existing service provider(s).

Ermm... 10% to 20% of the population. Maybe MORE people than are getting NBS.

If they are not covered because the phone line is too long and the Radio Waves are blocked, no existing commercial operator in the area will cover them, ever.

Mr_Man

If a market is already heavily saturated by an (monopolistic) incumbent, and the remaining potential customers are all 'difficult', ones basic economics would suggest that the odds of a new entrant are low to non existent.

M.

watty

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/35&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

We claim 100% Urban, 99% Suburban, 73% Rural in Dec 2007
Some of those are hard to beleive.

The 1 Billion is apportioned according to NEED, not population so our inaccurate statistics stand against us

"The Commission calls on the Council to adopt these proposals as soon as possible so that money can already be committed in 2009."

Also

"It is the responsibility of Member States and regions to select the projects that can best serve their areas following the established eligibility and selection rules within their rural development programmes. Projects are not imposed centrally by Brussels, but selected by the Member States and they should reflect the needs identified at national, regional and local level in the context of the National Strategy Plans for rural development."

clohamon

watty wrote: »

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/35&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

We claim 100% Urban, 99% Suburban, 73% Rural in Dec 2007
Some of those are hard to beleive.

The answer probably is in the methodology. (as applied to the full Dec 2006 report)

1. Eircom breakdown their statistics into Urban, Rural and Very Rural instead of Urban, Suburban and Rural. So there may be some tricking around with the translation to the EU categorisations

2. IDATE conduct the survey by means of written questionnaire, with follow-up over the phone from London. There is no physical check in Ireland on any of the claims made. ( See coverage below)

3. The only sources of DSL statistics are either Eircom themselves or COCOM who receive their information from Comreg who in turn get it from Eircom. ie Eircom is the only source.

4. The definitions of broadband DSL availability and speed

Speed: anything greater than or equal to 128kbps (ie just overlaps ISDN territory)

% Coverage : all those connected to an exchange with a DSLAM (note: no physical checking if DSLAMs were present)
% Eligibility: as for coverage but with a functional line (but note, no DSL incumbents supplied eligibility statistics to IDATE)
% Penetration: as for eligibility but actually connected at >=128Kbs (ie just overlaps into ISDN territory)

5. DSL suppliers other than Eircom were assumed to have the same geographical distribution as Eircom.

Unfortunately the full dec 2007 data and methodological reports aren't available yet but you can get the dec 2006 ones here and here

watty

So the statistics are rubbish.

Eircom SENSIBLY rarely enables a line for DSL unless it does 1Mbps. Occasionally under pressure, 512kbps.

Real DSL line failure rate?
Fixed Wireless LOS failure rate I don't believe is even collected.

Over 40% of Secondary Schools use Satellite for Internet. That suggests those figures are rubbish.

We SERIOUSLY need REAL failure rates for Cable, DSL and Wireless covered areas for our campaigns and alternative plans.

It's not enough to say the NBS is rubbish and existing BB is often too contended, too high latency or too slow.

Sponge Bob

watty wrote: »

Eircom SENSIBLY rarely enables a line for DSL unless it does 1Mbps. Occasionally under pressure, 512kbps.

Or if you BEG on bended knee I have known of someone getting a stable 256k DSL connection at about 5 miles from the exchange . They understand the laws of physics and are happy for what they get ....the alternative being GPRS or Satellite .

Over 40% of Secondary Schools use Satellite for Internet. That suggests those figures are rubbish.

This was the case when those statistics were compiled and the statistics are such outrageous BS that only Comreg could have come up with them ....under instruction from Eamon Ryan no doubt

However a lot of secondary schools were swapped onto DSL last summer so the current figure is under 40% .

We SERIOUSLY need REAL failure rates for Cable, DSL and Wireless covered areas for our campaigns and alternative plans.

It's not enough to say the NBS is rubbish and existing BB is often too contended, too high latency or too slow.

This is true but it is closely guarded ...partially for commericial reasons and partially because Comreg and Eamon Ryan conspire that it be so .

It is one thing to be sh1te but quite another to admit it .

Having said that the coverage of DSL has improved dramatically since 2007 . Lots more exchanges done and much further reaches allowed through the line checks.

watty

If you can dramatically improve coverage then 100% and 99% can't be right