What's The Ideal Solution?

Thraktor

Just out of curiosity, I think it'd be interesting to know what posters on here think would be the ideal solution to Ireland's broadband problems. Meaning that, if Minister Ryan announced a brand new broadband policy, or a new government came in tomorrow and announced its plans, what would they have to announce for you to say to yourself "that's the perfect approach to bring Ireland up to speed"?

To get things started, here's a policy suggestion I posted in another thread. It's probably full of glaring technical flaws, but it's a start, at least.

Thraktor wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the only aspect of broadband provision where it would be unreasonable to expect effective competition between providers is the installation of last-mile infrastructure. Real competition in this realm would require hugely expensive duplication of infrastructure between providers, and more providers would actually mean higher, rather than lower costs to the consumer.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that providers could compete over backhaul provision and actual service provision (ie basic internet, IPTV, VOD, etc.). Hence, would it be possible for the government to provide the basic last-mile infrastructure, and let service providers compete over the rest?

I'll admit that my theory isn't very well thought through (particularly from a technical viewpoint), but it'd be interesting to get a bit of feedback on it from people who know the industry and technology better than I do. Basically, what I would propose is that the government installs a fiber-optic cable from the local cabinet to every home/business in the country. There would be six (let's say there are six operators) high-capacity links back to the exchange, then, one for each operator. Each operator has equipment in the exchange connected to their own backhaul.

When a customer wanted to sign up for broadband from an ISP, the provider would install an ONT on the customer's premises, then connect up their fiber cable at the cabinet to the ISP's switch/router. If a customer wanted to change ISPs, they would either simply be switched over at the cabinet, or, if the new ISP was using a different fiber technology, have a new ONT installed as well. Either way they would use the same fiber cable as before.

The advantages, as far as I can tell, from such a system would be numerous. First off, there would be actual competition between ISPs, as customers would have the choice of multiple operators and could switch for the cost of an ONT installation (which I would imagine ISPs would subsidise to attract customers).

Secondly, the platform would be (sort of) technology independent. Obviously all connections would be fiber, but the actual transmission tech used on the fiber could differ from one ISP to the next. This means that ISPs could start upgrading to 1Gbps, 10Gbps, etc. without any additional infrastructural investment from the government. The government-owned part of the network (the last-mile fiber) would be effectively future-proof.

The ISPs fees for use of the infrastructure (effectively the rent of using the exchanges, cabinets and last-mile fiber) could be auctioned off before-hand, with an upfront payment from auction-winners. This would provide funds towards the installation of the last-mile fiber, although whether it would go anywhere near covering costs I have no idea.

Of course, there are also a number of considerable problems inherent as well. For instance, the system would require an individual fiber cable to be installed from the cabinet to each house. This would be quite a bit more expensive than a PON-based solution, although that would tie the connection to a particular ISP. It would also probably be quite expensive to install a new cable to a newly-built house.

Also, there would be little indication beforehand as to whether the auction could raise enough funds to cover the government's costs, particularly at times like these when telecoms companies would have difficulty finding credit to pay for such fees upfront. Of course, I'm sure that the expense would be worth it to the government in the long term anyway, but that would be difficult to convince people of when the budget deficit is as large as it already is.

Also, I might as well say that suggestions should be within the realm of economic and physical reality, so no terabit FTTH, I'm afraid.

crawler

Fix LLU +
Start SLU +
Finalise Gov "10 point plan" (open duct access etc etc) +
Open access fibre in green and some brown field development +
Assign a big chunk of ASO spectrum to real broadband +
lots and lots of common sense and no vested interests

Sponge Bob

Next Up , SLU and the "Middle Mile" and end to end OAM issues .

Fun stuff , honestly

As for ducting, I really must restrain myself

crawler

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Next Up , SLU and the "Middle Mile" and end to end OAM issues .

Fun stuff , honestly

As for ducting, I really must restrain myself

100% agreed - restraint is the hard bit!!

Sponge Bob

The hard bit right now is the Middle Mile ....would you not agree Crawler ??

Ducting is a bloody awful mess , more so since all the correct overall policies and legal frameworks were seemingly in place and and the key decisions appeared to have been made between 2000 and 2002 ,

Have a look at this 7 year old document from Forfás to see what did not happen .

One quarter of our housing stock was built post 2002

watty

Ducts installed but no way to put fibre in. too small for robot, not suitable for blowing and they didn't leave a piece of nylon cord...

crawler

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The hard bit right now is the Middle Mile ....would you not agree Crawler ??

Ducting is a bloody awful mess , more so since all the correct overall policies and legal frameworks were seemingly in place and and the key decisions appeared to have been made between 2000 and 2002 ,

Have a look at this 7 year old document from Forfás to see what did not happen .

One quarter of our housing stock was built post 2002

I would agree - well probably 05/50 between last and middle. Core is relatively ok.