Mobile Broadband is best for Leitrim

thebman

So this was in my google ads in my gmail.

http://www.garrethmcdaid.com/?gclid=CMKatPeb25oCFcIUzAodpF8yrg

There seems to be a view about, promoted largely by members of Sinn Fein and Fine Gael, that the Mobile Broadband service that will be provided to Co. Leitrim under the National Broadband Scheme will not adequately serve the county’s broadband needs.

This might have been true 5 years ago, but these days, the development of mobile broadband is advancing far more rapidly than wired broadband, to the extent that mobile broadband will most likely the normal mode of delivery for residential customers within 5-10 years.

This makes sense, particularly in Ireland, where are network of telecommunications cabling is very old and where we have abundant space in our radio spectrum (because we don’t reserve big chunks of it for the military).

The cost of upgrading our network, particularly in rural areas where settlement is so dispersed, would be enormous, and by the time we completed it, mobile broadband will probably have outstripped wired broadband in terms of the speed it can deliver into a residential home.

Another advantage of mobile broadband is that it is portable: you can take it with you when you leave you home, or when you leave the country.

From that point of view, it would be ludicrous for the State to invest hundreds of millions of euro in upgrading the eircom network, particularly in rural areas, where it is over 30 years old.

Instead, we will extend the mobile reach in Leitrim through more masts and better signal management, so that Leitrim residents can avail of improvements in mobile broadband as they come on stream.

This is the same model of rural broadband delivery that is being used in the UK, Australia and the US.

To learn more about the National Broadband Scheme, go to http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/nbs

I clicked the link for vote Number 1 to see what it was about and thought I'd post this here for the experts to discuss. Are IrelandOffline Fine Gael or Sinn Fein?

Sponge Bob

McDaid is a Green Party candidate and evidently wants to be the Leitriim version of Eamon Ryan

There seems to be a view about, promoted largely by members of Sinn Fein and Fine Gael, that the Mobile Broadband service that will be provided to Co. Leitrim under the National Broadband Scheme will not adequately serve the county’s broadband needs.

Both Fine Gael and the Shinners are correct . Leitrim is not flat and the delivery of LOS dependent services in Leitrim will be a bitch .

on goes eamons acolyte

Instead, we will extend the mobile reach in Leitrim through more masts and better signal management

That would be true except that no proposals have actually been made by the Greens on the quadrupling of the number of masts that is required to deliver this silly green vision .

paulm17781

My favourite bit is

Article wrote:

The cost of upgrading our network, particularly in rural areas where settlement is so dispersed, would be enormous, and by the time we completed it, mobile broadband will probably have outstripped wired broadband in terms of the speed it can deliver into a residential home.

When you're putting "probably" in a "factual" document, you know it's wrong. He may as well have said "We'll all probably be able to get on the internet by thinking about it". That and he's wrong.

bealtine

thebman wrote: »

So this was in my google ads in my gmail.

There seems to be a view about, promoted largely by members of Sinn Fein and Fine Gael, that the Mobile Broadband service that will be provided to Co. Leitrim under the National Broadband Scheme will not adequately serve the county’s broadband needs.

And they are right, no Mobile Midband solution will ever serve "adequately", it might only if you believe the Minister, but for the rest of us mobile midband is a mobile version of broadband designed for email and light browsing.
I love my USB dongle and use it regularly but I wouldn't dream of using it as my primary means of accessing the internet. In fact I use my wifi to make calls rather than my mobile. The speeds I get on my usb dongle are just too variable for me to take it that seriously.

Does this make most engineers members of SF or FG...if so then we the engineers will sweep away these uneducated "lunatics". Hoping that this "might" happen and "praying" for it to pass will not make it so.
The last time we had these kind of "belief" systems was when Archbishop JC McQuaid sat on the throne and made up lots of stuff.
Green beliefs are akin to medieval beliefs pontificated by ancient pontiffs. Any Minister, who when questioned and confronted with evidence, say "you must believe me" is stuck in a belief system that is outdated and clearly wrong.
Persistence in this strategy, in the face of all the evidence that the strategy will not deliver, smacks of religious zeal.

This makes sense, particularly in Ireland, where are network of telecommunications cabling is very old and where we have abundant space in our radio spectrum (because we don’t reserve big chunks of it for the military).

True, but the important piece of spectrum is currently being used by the MMDS system and that system won't be going away any time soon.

Instead, we will extend the mobile reach in Leitrim through more masts and better signal management, so that Leitrim residents can avail of improvements in mobile broadband as they come on stream.

Dream on...

To provide Leitrim with any sort of decent mobile system there will have to be more masts than people. I fail to see how dotting the landscape of Leitrim with 100s of ugly masts can fit in with the green agenda. Think of all that horrid RF pollution...oh wait that's not on the green agenda anymore.
Think of the rolling hills of Leitrim with a mast on just about every hilltop.
Insanity in the extreme...

That honestly looks like a recycled Press Release from the DCENR with their "pie in the sky" beliefs.

trekkypj

That's daft.

Even if midband was sufficient *for now*, which it isn't, the telephone network will need to be replaced sooner or later. In Leitrim, as in Dublin or Cork.

What use are politicians who say it can't be done or shouldn't be done if they don't even understand the basics behind the technology? A forest of wireless masts would be visual pollution, and in ten years totally obsolete.

Fibre is fibre, and will be usable for the forseeable future, and if it needs replacing, once you put in the ducting, it just needs new wiring and gear at the exchange. As everyone knows it's the groundwork and the labour costs that are the main issue for laying out new networks.

The ineptitude of this government when it comes to telecommunications in this country is staggering - though I suspect that part of the blame lies with the mandarins in DCENR.

cgarvey

With such uninformed rubbish like that blog post, it's no wonder comments are closed.

leonvquinn

2 things:

Firstly:
I can only get Mobile broadband here in south Leitrim and while its pretty unreliable sometimes, its way better than not having it or anythig else! I kind of agree with Gareth that this is a fantastic technology and is the way forward if the providers can sort out coverage and reliability.

Secondly:
I voted for Gareth last time out as he's a local, he's a web developer and he's green. I was considering voting for him again until I checked out garrethmcdaid.com and his business site nightbluefruit.com both of which voice strong opinions but don't allow people to respond to them or discuss!!?

thebman

leonvquinn wrote: »

2 things:

Firstly:
I can only get Mobile broadband here in south Leitrim and while its pretty unreliable sometimes, its way better than not having it or anythig else! I kind of agree with Gareth that this is a fantastic technology and is the way forward if the providers can sort out coverage and reliability.

Secondly:
I voted for Gareth last time out as he's a local, he's a web developer and he's green. I was considering voting for him again until I checked out garrethmcdaid.com and his business site nightbluefruit.com both of which voice strong opinions but don't allow people to respond to them or discuss!!?

If he's a developer he knows the reality of mobile broadband (midband) technology as I'm sure someone from IO will explain shortly.

Basically it is useless for business which is what we should be developing broadband for. End users need broadband but since we have to develop it for business they will benefit from those developments.

I don't believe this government takes businesses need for broadband at all seriously.

leonvquinn

If he's a developer he knows the reality of mobile broadband (midband) technology as I'm sure someone from IO will explain shortly.

As far as I heard he himself could only get Satellite at one stage!

I'm a web developer myself and trying to work on an unreliable connection is insanity but like I said if it was only reliable and fast (when it works for me its as fast as anything else if not faster!) then its good technology. Don't forget its only relatively new technology and can only get better. Wouldn't take too many more masts to cover all areas although the 3/4 mile radius is surprisingly small.

PS - I ended up voting for him in the end as he managed to send me 3/4 email replies today of all days!

Sponge Bob

You must be the only one on the planet who can ssh over the grotty 3 network , legend !

watty

Mobile is never going to more than twice as good as building enough base stations for the datacoverage would mean 3 x more expensive voice and 6 x more expensive data to pay for the extra capex.

At the minute they only plan the network with enough basestations for voice as the data charge per mbyte is currently about 1/150th to /500th of the voice charges.

Put simply no-one would pay for the kind of infrastructure needed for MOBILE data at Broadband reliability and speed. It's only ever going to be designed rollouts for "on the go" low cap data. Voice calls pay for it.


You'd need FOUR to NINE times as many masts if LTE was to replace real broadband. Even then, forget 10Mbps to 20Mbps BB, you're talking about sustained 2Mbits performance. (depending on number of subscribers)

If only about 6 people per cell used it and no voice calls, then yes you could have 1Mbps performance with simply nationwide voice 3G coverage without extra density of masts.

cgarvey

leonvquinn wrote: »

I kind of agree with Gareth that this is a fantastic technology and is the way forward if the providers can sort out coverage and reliability.

That's a dirty big IF to throw in there, so casual, like

That, too, is the issue. To sort out coverage, they'd need many, many more base stations (an issue covered extensively by IrelandOffline in a briefing doc available on the site).

To sort out reliability (other than normal issues like hills/forests/nuclear bunkers/etc. affecting signals), they'd need to increase capacity even more, plus allow for nomadic connections, especially at peak times. 3G doesn't lend itself to being able to do that easily or cheaply.

As Watty says, the high cost of doing either of those would need to be further subsidised by voice minutes and/or higher charges for voice/data. They're at the upper end of the sweet point as it is, so I can't see that happening.

Yes, LTE will be an improvement, and will be welcomed as such, but it's as far away as a decent rural broadband service as 3G is. Couple that with the fact that DSL, cable, FWA will all have come on in that same time frame.

Gareth was talking nonsense, presumably to defend the party line. Above all, he wasn't willing to discuss the issue, in a medium that lends itself to discussion, and a medium he should have a great deal of experience with, being a web developer.

3G/LTE midband has a place in "broadband" provision in Ireland, and needs to be encouraged as such. Labelling it the be all and end all of broadband delivery (i.e. the NBS) is just a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Sponge Bob

He got 105 votes, the quota was 667 .

garrethmcdaid

This thread popped up in one of my Google alerts so I thought I'd respond.

As far as I know, IrelandOffline wrote a report which outlined their views on the NBS. This report detailed the limitations of Mobile Broadband, which we are all aware off, but did not propose an alternative solution.

Fixed line connectivity, either through new digs or upgrading eircoms existing last mile infrastructure, is obviously the silver bullet, but its completely impractical, both in terms of its economic cost and the timescale of the project.

Furthermore, issues exist in terms of EU Competition Law, and if we wanted to use the eircom infrastructure, we'd have re-nationalise eircom, which would mean adding eircom's €3bn worth of corporate debt to our current deficit of €15bn, and that's before we spend a cent on actually upgrading the network.

It would then take at least 4 years to actually upgrade the network, and you'd still have blackspots where homes are over a certain distance from exchanges. And you'd have to deal with the issue of many new rural homes not actually having any copper connecitivity at all, by virtue of the fact that their owners have chosen not to install an eircom connection.

Obviously, the speeds, latencies and contention ratios that this will make available are not the same as are available through fixed line connectivity, but the service will be a vast improvement on the shared copper-pairing dialup speeds that are currently available in many rural areas.

Issues also relate to mast capacity, in that inadequate availability of masts decreases the number of available cells which in turns increases contention.

However, IrelandOffline, to my knowledge, have never acknowledged that the entire NBS is subject to approval of the EU Commission vis a vis State Aid Rules, and the State is not allowed to fund new masts in areas where existing LOS services are available or have the immediate potential to become available. That is why only certain areas of certain counties (Leitrim being an example) are included in the NBS.

Finally, the potential of 4G LOS technologies like HSPA+ is not being acknowledged by IrelandOffline. HSPA+ will greatly reduce both latency and contention on mobile networks, and provide theoretical speeds of up to 22mbps. HSPA+ can also be acheived on existing infrastructures through software rather than hardware upgrades, which is particularly attractive in terms of the scalability of the NBS.

The choices both the current Government, or any Government, are faced with in terms of rural broadband are basically to wait for the market to deliver fixed line connectivity (which will probably never happen) or to fund (to the maximum extent possible under EU Law) the rollout of 3G/4G technology.

The development of greater mast capacity will also allow for the fluid rollout of 4G technologies like HSPA+, and whatever else comes down the line re. mobile broadband in future, which is likely to compare very well to what becomes available over fixed lines.

As such, I do think the NBS is the best solution for Leitrim, in that the alternative appears to be for the State to do nothing and allow people figure things out for themselves.

I am a web developer myself, and I live in an area that will never have fixed line connectivity. I've completed work for lots of small businesses and major corporations, and I've managed major revenue generating websites for airlines all from my home office. I currently operate off a 512kbps wireless link provided by a local supplier. A good 3G connection would vastly improve my connectivity.

BTW, if someone could refer me to Ireland Offline's proposals re. rural broadband, I'd be very appreciative.

trekkypj

Speaking as a fairly proficient internet user who is sadly in a broadband blackspot in rural North Kilkenny, I can speak with some authority on the subject, as it is a hobby horse of mine. We have been without broadband for over a decade while other parts of the country first got DSL and then fixed wireless internet. We are one of the very few places that have no mobile coverage. None.

I have been a customer for twelve months with 3 Ireland while in university in Limerick and Maynooth. I have experienced serious connectivity issues with respect to website access in urban areas with 5-bar 3G connection (according to the modem). So despite not having coverage at home, fair enough considering where I live, I was prepared to use it while in town and out and about.

Even after I updated the firmware of my Huawei E220 modem and changed the software to Huawei's own which makes it work properly with XP, I still experienced problems, even at off-peak times. All in all it's been a pretty miserable experience. For several months I perservered when other customers ditched the service due to sub dialup speeds, dropped connections, monstrous latency issues and lack of support for non HTTP protocols such as SMTP and FTP.

The service gradually became usable but was still far short of promised speeds or reliability. I know the limitations of the technology - I'd have been happy with a stable 256k connection. But I am STILL getting problems with loading particular sites in the middle of Kilkenny City today! (including this thread, by the way). One travel site works, another doesn't. I can't read the Irish Times online but I can read the BBC and RTE websites. Why is this? Poor configuration of their proxies, no doubt.

There's no doubt that improved 3G Internet access is a good thing. I plan on buying a netbook with a built in 3G modem so I can avail of it. Sadly, it won't be as a customer of 3 Ireland. My contract is up in 6 months and i won't be renewing.

This is why I don't believe broadband from 3 Ireland is an effective solution to rural broadband problems. Nor from the other providers - my experience has been that it's neither fast enough nor stable enough to have a useful internet experience for anyone but the most casual users. What if I'm trying to transfer money from my bank's online site and the session times out? Or paying for books on Amazon? How do I figure out whether it's gone through or not? Not very smart to rely on 3G then, is it?

3G is for on the go devices like netbooks and smartphones like the Blackberry or iPhone 3G. It's not really suitable for home or business use where there's more than a small amount of use. Leitrim should have 3G, of course it should. But not as a primary broadband solution. Fixed wireless or DSL would perform better and offer more stability.

There's a lot of spin and hype about concerning the Rural Broadband Scheme. It's not broadband, it's midband. It's not suitable for the task envisaged because it's not able to cope with very large numbers of users. And especially in hilly areas it is highly problematic to get a decent signal, even if a mast is available in the area. This has been very well documented by users of the service, many of whom were very vocal here and on other websites about their dissatisfaction with the service.

The sad truth is that we don't need the State to buy eircom to get DSL. What is needed is for Eircom to sell its network assets only (not the residential service or Meteor) to the state or to industry controlled network access entity. Of course it won't happen any time soon, any more than I'm going to be made President of the US.

It's an unsatisfactory situation for everyone in rural areas. There needs to be greater education and awareness for people who aren't tech saavy in rural areas so that they're not bamboozled by ideas that 3G and LTE is going to magically give them broadband.

I would like to see IrelandOffline put together a proposal for bridging the digital divide between urban and rural areas. I think it's something that is missing from the debate. There's no comprehensive proposal been presented by anyone that I'm aware of beyond the usual weasle words from Government and industry groups.

I also hope that groups like digital21 can help change the situation in this country. Given the fact that the state's coffers are full of red ink, i doubt it.

garrethmcdaid

trekkypj wrote: »

The sad truth is that we don't need the State to buy eircom to get DSL. What is needed is for Eircom to sell its network assets only (not the residential service or Meteor) to the state or to industry controlled network access entity. Of course it won't happen any time soon, any more than I'm going to be made President of the US.

eircom's last mile network is its only asset of any value. The rest of it isn't worth anything, so you'd effectively be buying eircom, even if you could come up with legal mechanism to force eircom shareholders to part with their only asset.

The current bidding on eircom is about €95m, for which you get the network and €3.9bn worth of debt. That means if you buy the network only, you're going to pay about €3.8bn for it.

And as I've pointed out, that's before you spend a cent on upgrading the network.

So, let be conservative and allow annother €1bn for a network upgrade, so we're at €4.8bn.

For this €4.8bn, we'll deliver fixed line broadband into about 40k rural homes, which comes in at about €120k per home.

And that's before the EU Commission start poking around.

clohamon

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

However, IrelandOffline, to my knowledge, have never acknowledged that the entire NBS is subject to approval of the EU Commission vis a vis State Aid Rules, and the State is not allowed to fund new masts in areas where existing LOS services are available or have the immediate potential to become available. That is why only certain areas of certain counties (Leitrim being an example) are included in the NBS.

Which part of EU decision 475/07 (25/09/2007) precludes the government from offering a solution to all unserved areas?.

garrethmcdaid

clohamon wrote: »

Which part of EU decision 475/07 (25/09/2007) precludes the government from offering a solution to all unserved areas?.

Link?

475/07 refers to the Commission v. Poland and deals with taxation of energy suppliers.

watty

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

So, let be conservative and allow annother €1bn for a network upgrade, so we're at €4.8bn.

For this €4.8bn, we'll deliver fixed line broadband into about 40k rural homes, which comes in at about €120k per home.

And that's before the EU Commission start poking around.

You could be 1B low...

But anyway for 1/2 that money you could give people mostly 20Mbps, and only 10% down to a real low contention 3Mbps equivalent to DSL. Universal mix of FTTH, FFTC, VDSL (from Exchange or FTTC), Cable and Fixed wireless.

Completely bypassing eircom. They have been made almost worthless by repeated leverage byouts, pension deficit, asset stripping, lack of investment and fall in lines from 82% to 66%

garrethmcdaid

watty wrote: »

You could be 1B low...

But anyway for 1/2 that money you could give people mostly 20Mbps, and only 10% down to a real low contention 3Mbps equivalent to DSL. Universal mix of FTTH, FFTC, VDSL (from Exchange or FTTC), Cable and Fixed wireless.

Completely bypassing eircom. They have been made almost worthless by repeated leverage byouts, pension deficit, asset stripping, lack of investment and fall in lines from 82% to 66%

Even if you could do it for 50%, which I would fundamentally dispute, and which is still €60k per home, would you consider that to be an equitable use of taxpayers money?

ie

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

trekkypj

Just a note regarding the Competition issue.

It's only an issue if the proposal isn't cleared with the EU first. If it can be precleared with them beforehand (and there is a mechanism for this) by showing that it would promote competition (through equal access for all operators), there's no reason why a fibre broadband programme would become unstuck.

Ideally you're looking for backhaul fibre to all exchanges with the option of fibre to cabinets for rural areas. I'm not an expert and yes it all costs money but if the operators were to collaborate (like Vodafone and O2 are starting to doby sharing mast sites and equipment) then the money can be found over time.

It'd be a better use of money than propping up Anglo.

With respect to Leitrim, surely fixed wireless broadband would perform well in that part of the country?

trekkypj

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Even if you could do it for 50%, which I would fundamentally dispute, and which is still €60k per home, would you consider that to be an equitable use of taxpayers money?

ie

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

Well that's not a bad idea.... And in fairness we're talking about a one-off capital investment that will not need to be repeated for a considerable time. Just like the wires on the poles have been in use (and only maintained occassionally) for 40 years on average. You have to consider the long term cost not the immediate cost.

But really what we're talking about is streaming video content and large files for business and commercial use. Teleworking, videoconferncing all require bandwidth in abundance.

And just because it's a rural area doesn't mean it should be left behind. How on earth can there be balanced economic development if there isn't investment in basic infrastructure in rural areas? Laying Fibre in rural areas will become the new electrification scheme. If we don't do it we'll never have that 'knowledge economy' the politicians lovingly dream of - because to properly innovate, you have to be able to serve all potential customers on this island. Rural as well as urban.

The government is tasked with ensuring balanced development takes place instead of lobbing it all in Dublin/Cork/Limerick and their suburban belts. If they can't do it themselves they have to give incentives for private businesses to do so.

The technology used isn't an issue as long as it delivers. 3G/LTE from what I've seen thus far is not the answer in the medium or long term. I appreciate not everyone agrees but that's what I believe.

garrethmcdaid

trekkypj wrote: »

Just a note regarding the Competition issue.

It's only an issue if the proposal isn't cleared with the EU first. If it can be precleared with them beforehand (and there is a mechanism for this) by showing that it would promote competition (through equal access for all operators), there's no reason why a fibre broadband programme would become unstuck.

The NBS was submitted for Commission approval and was one of the reasons why it was delayed for so long.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2007/Minister+Ryan+welcomes+State+Aid+clearance+for+the+National+Broadband+Scheme.htm

One of the conditions attached was that masts could only be funded in EDs where existing services did not exist or where it was likely would not exist.

Whether or not a fibre program would pass muster is matter for debate, but given that there are already lots of fixed wireless providers who can potentially expand their networks, and entirely state-funded cabled solution would attract considerable scrutiny.

trekkypj

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The NBS was submitted for Commission approval and was one of the reasons why it was delayed for so long.

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2007/Minister+Ryan+welcomes+State+Aid+clearance+for+the+National+Broadband+Scheme.htm

One of the conditions attached was that masts could only be funded in EDs where existing services did not exist or where it was likely would not exist.

Whether or not a fibre program would pass muster is matter for debate, but given that there are already lots of fixed wireless providers who can potentially expand their networks, and entirely state-funded cabled solution would attract considerable scrutiny.

Re. funding of masts - That may be the case, but it hardly makes practical sense when *in theory* there is coverage but it's useless for the purposes of broadband.

I'd hope that such a fibre network would be a non-profit joint venture between the State, Eircom and the other operators solely for the purposes of access and maintenance. I'd argue that it was a strategic asset and thus exempt in the national interest. But then, I'm not the Minister.

Been a while since I looked at an EC law textbook... But I did learn a lot about competition law theory while in college. I must take a look and see what the procedure is...

clohamon

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Link?

475/07 refers to the Commission v. Poland and deals with taxation of energy suppliers.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/ii/by_case_nr_n2007_0450.html#475

watty

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Even if you could do it for 50%, which I would fundamentally dispute, and which is still €60k per home, would you consider that to be an equitable use of taxpayers money?

ie

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

No, it's €2.4B for the entire state to have real BB. 40% of Secondary schools are on Satellite.

So it's nothing like as much as 60K per home. A three tier service with 30% at 100MBps+ , 60% at about 20Mbps+ and 10% at 3Mbps to 10MBps.

Better than the current arrangement where < 15% get more than 20Mbps and maybe 12% can get nothing,

thebman

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

So no rural business needs broadband?

Interesting.

trekkypj

€2.4bn over (lets say) 40 years of reasonable life seems reasonable for what you're getting - NGN for almost certainly every household in the country.

Of course you'd have to add maintenance and repair costs to that but somehow I doubt the ducting or fibre is as likely to need fixing as those copper wires (which corrode over time) on poles (which get knocked to the ground in storms and if left unreplaced fall over and/or rot eventually).

The amount of decrepit poles and dodgy old copper wires I've seen in my home place alone suggests the rural network badly needs replacing anyway. Some of the worst have been replaced at home since the exchange is being worked on for DSL.

But if hundreds of millions are going to be spent on replacing the network before it collapses, you may as well spend it on fibre and ducting as poles and copper. Probably cost less in the long run if its done soon, all at once.

garrethmcdaid

clohamon wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/ii/by_case_nr_n2007_0450.html#475

The document makes quite clear that the NBS constitutes State Aid and that the designation of EDs is a sufficiently mitigating factor to allow to to proceed.


eg

In view of the above, the Commission considers that the notified measure will grant an
economic advantage to the Preferred Bidder and to third party operators. The measure
is publicly funded, has a potential of distorting competition and has an effect on trade
between Member States. Therefore the Commission regards the notified measure as
constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1) of the EC Treaty.

...

The approach chosen by the Irish
authorities clearly identifies which geographic areas should be covered in order to
establish the areas for which public funding will be granted. By consulting with all
stakeholders in a transparent manner, the Irish authorities also minimize distortions
of competition with existing providers and enable these operators to plan their
activities. The approach adopted for the "blue areas" strikes a reasonable balance
between the interests of broadband users and operators.

garrethmcdaid

thebman wrote: »

So no rural business needs broadband?

Interesting.

Any business that requires >2mbps and is located in a non-serviced rural area has strategic planning issues.

I'll challenge you to give me an example of any country in the EU where rural areas are served by fixed line or fixed wireless services offering speeds greater than 2mbps.

The NBS was never about supplying 20mbps to rural areas. It was about supplying a scalable service.

And for what its worth, I run a business in a rural area on a 512kbps connection. If I need to VC I can do so at my local County Enterprise Board. I don't use Skype because all my Ireland and UK calls are free under my BT Business Package.

Demand for 20mbps in rural Ireland is minimal in the extreme. It would be complete folly to spend multiple billions on wired broadband to every rural home when 3G can satisfy 95% of market demand for €170m.

People seem to have very short memories.

The Community Broadband Scheme was by no means perfect, but it was offering fixed wired broadband to rural homes for around €40 per month 4 years ago, but demand was no where near what was originally anticipated.

dahak

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

ie

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

Well as has already been said the €2.4bn figure was given to to cover the whole country both rural and urban. During rural electrification similar comments were probably made regarding electric kettles and televisions, maybe VOIP and MMORPGs will be seen that way in another generation.

Talking of electrification, the kind of grand broadband project that Watty mentions has clear parallels with one of the key infrastructure projects of the early Free State. The Ardnacrusha hydroelectric project was a massive undertaking at the time it was built, costing 1/5 of the Free States annual budget and supplying almost all of the states electricity needs for a number of years after it opened. With the power available people used it and found new ways to use it.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Any business that requires >2mbps and is located in a non-serviced rural area has strategic planning issues.

Debatable, some businesses have to be at specific locations and they don't get a choice in that location. Think tourism and and agriculture as an example. While they might not require > 2Mbit/s having it available may provide opportunities that might be otherwise missed.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

I'll challenge you to give me an example of any country in the EU where rural areas are served by fixed line or fixed wireless services offering speeds greater than 2mbps.

I could be smart here and say Ireland, where wired and fixed wireless are available in rural areas (though close to exchanges or in line of sight to current masts). I presume what you meant is there any European country that has universal coverage at speeds greater than 2Mbit/s. I don't have the information to answer that question, I'm sure that there others here do, though that makes the assumption that Ireland should always be a step (or five) behind other countries in Europe in providing services.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The NBS was never about supplying 20mbps to rural areas. It was about supplying a scalable service.

The NBS may be many things but scaleable is probably not on the top of the list. If you're interested in how scaleable the mobile internet is, have a look at the Ireland Offline NBS Briefing document

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

And for what its worth, I run a business in a rural area on a 512kbps connection. If I need to VC I can do so at my local County Enterprise Board. I don't use Skype because all my Ireland and UK calls are free under my BT Business Package.

I'm very tempted to quote the Monty Python 'four yorkshire men' who walked uphill both ways in the snow
In your personal situation the lack of high speed broadband connection doesn't seem to be a limiting factor, but that doesn't mean that for others it is. If for example your own personal situation changed and you needed to do much more video conferencing or you needed to make a lot of business calls to the US or China would your views on this change.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Demand for 20mbps in rural Ireland is minimal in the extreme. It would be complete folly to spend multiple billions on wired broadband to every rural home when 3G can satisfy 95% of market demand for €170m.

Well a lot of rural areas have poor to zero access to any decent connection at the moment. Once people get access their demand tends to increase. I'd say it's unknown what the demand for 20 Mbit/s access is in rural Ireland, is there a reason why the demand for it would be much less in rural areas than in urban ones?
The The NBS is in no way equivalent to meeting 95% of the undeserved demand at the moment not to mention the quality and speed issues with mobile internet. The €2.4 billion figure is also for the whole state, not just the rural areas. It is also worth pointing out that there are many urban areas in this country that are also grossly under-serviced with regards to access to broadband.

watty wrote: »

No, it's €2.4B for the entire state to have real BB. 40% of Secondary schools are on Satellite.

So it's nothing like as much as 60K per home. A three tier service with 30% at 100MBps+ , 60% at about 20Mbps+ and 10% at 3Mbps to 10MBps.

Better than the current arrangement where < 15% get more than 20Mbps and maybe 12% can get nothing,

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

ie

investing €2.4bn to allow use rural dwellers use Skype and participate in MMORPGs?

Well as has already been said the €2.4bn figure was given to to cover the whole country both rural and urban. During rural electrification similar comments were probably made regarding electric kettles and televisions, maybe VOIP and MMORPGs will be seen that way in another generation.

Talking of electrification, the kind of grand broadband project that Watty mentions has clear parallels with one of the key infrastructure projects of the early Free State. The Ardnacrusha hydroelectric project was a massive undertaking at the time it was built, costing 1/5 of the Free States annual budget and supplying almost all of the states electricity needs for a number of years after it opened. With the power available people used it and found new ways to use it.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

People seem to have very short memories.

Yes they do :rolleyes:, the ESB website has the following account about one opinion at the opening of Ardnacrusha.

The extent of the growth in demand and the achievement of continued efficient operation at Ardnacrusha and the use of its electricity is shown by the following quotation from the "Morning Post" newspaper of London, when it was built in 1929: "The present needs of Southern Ireland," said the newspaper, "cannot be more than about 50 million units per annum, whereas the scheme provides 150 million units. The Irish people... with such an excess of power... may all be electrocuted in their beds".

Proving the sceptics wrong, Irish power consumption did achieve the 150 million units the newspaper referred to, within just six years and by 1970 rural use alone was more than 1,000 million units.

garrethmcdaid

I think this figure of €2.4bn needs to be removed from the debate.

It arose because I estimated that it would cost €3.8bn to buy the eircom network, and €1bn to upgrade it, which is a reasonable estimation given eircoms current market cap and corporate debt levels.

Someone else said it would cost half that (€2.4bn) to rollout an entirely new network to *every* house in the country.

Its hardly a scientific analysis.

bealtine

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

I think this figure of €2.4bn needs to be removed from the debate.

It arose because I estimated that it would cost €3.8bn to buy the eircom network, and €1bn to upgrade it, which is a reasonable estimation given eircoms current market cap and corporate debt levels.

Someone else said it would cost half that (€2.4bn) to rollout an entirely new network to *every* house in the country.

Its hardly a scientific analysis.

It's as scientific as your analysis, yours is a guesstimation as is the other figure.
The other figure is based on analysis done by IoffL.

clohamon

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The document makes quite clear that the NBS constitutes State Aid and that the designation of EDs is a sufficiently mitigating factor to allow to to proceed.

The Blue areas were areas of proposed services which, if live by 30th June 2008, would become red areas; otherwise they were removed from the map. They are therefore not relevant to the final scope of the scheme. It is the green (unserved) areas that are relevant.

EDs are not mentioned in the Decision.

cgarvey

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

This report detailed the limitations of Mobile Broadband, which we are all aware off, but did not propose an alternative solution.

IrelandOffline, to my knowledge, have the rough workings and calculations done, but not published. There are engineers & industry experts involved in this, so it carries some weight. However, waiting for IrelandOffline to publish a solution is indicative of a complete and total government failure in this regard (as if NBS wasn't, already).

It's not nice to turn such a necessary utility as broadband in to a political football, but the fact is the government have failed to deliver on this in a number of ways.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Fixed line connectivity [..] but its completely impractical
[..]
if we wanted to use the eircom infrastructure, we'd have re-nationalise eircom

Agreed, although those points were not made (or made weakly) on your initial blog post. I don't recall IrelandOffline suggesting that a national broadband scheme be eircom-based or fixed-line-based.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

However, IrelandOffline, to my knowledge, have never acknowledged that the entire NBS is subject to approval of the EU Commission vis a vis State Aid Rules, and the State is not allowed to fund new masts in areas where existing LOS services are available or have the immediate potential to become available.

Not sure why IO should have to acknowledge anything! Are you suggesting that because the EU approves the scheme, it must be OK? So the state can't fund EDs that have LOS operators, but can fund EDs that have 2 other 3G operators (1 of which the contractor piggy backs for service already)? To stop beating around the bush, why should Three be funded to provide 3G service in an area where they have no coverage (and rely on other networks for coverage), when, quite clearly, they gain by providing their own voice service. They get to extend their voice network (which is where the money is; data is just an inconvenience / loss-maker for operators) with a government subsidy, while other operators lose out on the voice revenue that they would have carried on Three's behalf.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Finally, the potential of 4G LOS technologies like HSPA+ is not being acknowledged by IrelandOffline.

HSPA+ being considered 4G is probably a stretch (given that it's still a 3GPP initiative and still CDMA-based, designed to fit in with current 3G technology. For the same reason, it will still be completely unsuitable for mass broadband rollout. Yes, 3G/3.5G/4G will have a place in any national broadband scheme (i.e. a scheme that is actually national, and is actually broadband, not the current NBS farce), but relying on it as the only solution is wrong in too many ways. HSPA will still have cell contention / cell size issues. In ideal circumstances, users will get higher speeds (and even latency is still a debatable topic), but it does little for the users at mid cell or cell edge. Next Gen 3G is touched on, but equally disregarded by IO in that briefing doc. The document served to prove why relying on 3G alone is a bad idea, and it has yet to be proven to be inaccurate (despite invitation).

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

HSPA+ will greatly reduce both latency and contention on mobile networks

Reduce? Yes, most likely. Greatly reduce? No

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

and provide theoretical speeds of up to 22mbps.

Yeah right. We have 7.2Mbps now, don't we?!

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The choices both the current Government, or any Government, are faced with in terms of rural broadband are basically to wait for the market to deliver fixed line connectivity (which will probably never happen) or to fund (to the maximum extent possible under EU Law) the rollout of 3G/4G technology.

Indicative of the failed thinking. There are many technologies that can deliver broadband (real broadband, not what every regulatory authority, bar Ireland, call midband) reliably. IO have no problem in acknowledging (as seen as you want that so much!) that fixed-line is not suited to the all of the last 10% coverage. However FWA and a better delivery of fixed line (such as FTC, for example) would negate the need for midband in many EDs and urban areas completely ignored by NBS.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The development of greater mast capacity will also allow for the fluid rollout of 4G technologies like HSPA+, and whatever else comes down the line

Terminology disputes aside, to plan for what might come down the line, when there are already suitable technologies (like FWA) available, seem a bit off, to me.

4G (not 3.5G) does look promising to fill the last X%, but there is no non-line-of-sight technology suited to mass broadband roll out over a large geographic area right now (and none in the immediate pipeline). There probably will be, in time, but NBS is about now.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

mobile broadband in future, which is likely to compare very well to what becomes available over fixed lines.

Source? I've not read any opinion from any research or industry expert to suggest that. You need only look at how fixed line is advancing to quickly realise mobile isn't maintaining pace, nevermind catching up.

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

As such, I do think the NBS is the best solution for Leitrim, in that the alternative appears to be for the State to do nothing and allow people figure things out for themselves.

So the alternative couldn't involve a scheme that looked at delivering cost-effective broadband using multiple technologies? None of the latter NBS tenders were interested in offering anything other than their core offering, but that can be pretty much put down to tender design, surely?

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

I currently operate off a 512kbps wireless link provided by a local supplier. A good 3G connection would vastly improve my connectivity.

Eeeek!! Let's hear you say that *after* you've tried to operate off both. Unless, of course, your current FWA provider is absolute rubbish. If they are, perhaps 10k of NBS money could sort out a lot of that and help it become profitable/self-sufficient (rather than going to 1 operator to further their profit in their core business adding a token data service with little to no guarantees for a handsome sum).

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

BTW, if someone could refer me to Ireland Offline's proposals re. rural broadband, I'd be very appreciative.

No such thing exists, in published form. There might be something published, but IO doesn't have the resources of the Dept of fish, so it may take time. Bear in mind, IO is a voluntary organisation still in the reformation stages dealing with a lot of queries. The 3G briefing doc took some effort, and time, and was not corporately or state funded. You'd expect if IO could come up with independent (yet-to-be-disproved) research that the department could have organised some consultants to do similar for small money.

thebman

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Any business that requires >2mbps and is located in a non-serviced rural area has strategic planning issues.

I'll challenge you to give me an example of any country in the EU where rural areas are served by fixed line or fixed wireless services offering speeds greater than 2mbps.

Short sighted IMO. There are many reasons a business can't locate in a town centre. It would be beneficial to many rural businesses to be able to take orders online and advertise their service online. Their business may not be centered around being online but it would be massively beneficial to them.

As they get more business, they pay more taxes and more vat comes in from purchases and the investment is paid off.

The NBS was never about supplying 20mbps to rural areas. It was about supplying a scalable service.

And for what its worth, I run a business in a rural area on a 512kbps connection. If I need to VC I can do so at my local County Enterprise Board. I don't use Skype because all my Ireland and UK calls are free under my BT Business Package.

Good for you. 3 won't deliver that level of service IMO. People will be lucky to send/receive emails at 3 am on the service judging from this thread:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055115306

And I have used the service when it was first launched and a year later as I have 3 family members that got the service as it was the only service available in the area.

3 have no problem flooding an area with modems when they know the service will degrade. Why was a provider with such a poor track record of service even considered for the NBS?

I know the NBS has contention commitments/minimum service commitments and they are appalling IMO but I doubt they'll even be enforced when 3 are found not to be fulfilling their obligations.

Demand for 20mbps in rural Ireland is minimal in the extreme. It would be complete folly to spend multiple billions on wired broadband to every rural home when 3G can satisfy 95% of market demand for €170m.

People seem to have very short memories.

The Community Broadband Scheme was by no means perfect, but it was offering fixed wired broadband to rural homes for around €40 per month 4 years ago, but demand was no where near what was originally anticipated.

Nobody is suggesting everyone in rural areas needs 20Mbps. A usable level of service and a reliable service is required though. 3 are utterly incapable of providing this using their track record on this site, other sites about Ireland and other sites about 3's service in other countries.

There was even an Irish website dedicated to the problems with the service until the owner was taking them to court and his solicitor recommended he shut it down as it might damage his case.

It is a disgrace that this company was awarded the NBS IMO.

watty

The Minister basically told us that the penalities for 3 Not meeting the NBS specs are secret.

HDPA isn't scaleable, so even if there is 1.2Mbps indoor on 95% of the ED on launch (unlikely, but then they get the grant for that ED). What if 36:1 contention is exceeded 6months later or speed is only 120k 6 months or a year later? We don't know.

The increases to speed of HSPA from 7.2, 14.4, 21MBs etc affect progressively tinyier parts of a cell. That's basic physics. There will never be substantially more capacity or speed unless you triple the number of masts.

LTE is 4G, not any form of HSPA. Even LTE only manages close to very basic entry level DSL. The much hyped 100Mbps is 4 times the spectrum of 3G sectors and shared among all users and only close to mast. Lightly loaded it's 4 to 5 times faster and heavily loaded 8 times faster than HSPA. That is for most users still less than 1Mbps if there are 20 simultaneous downloads in a sector.

Mobile mast densities are based on economical coverage for voice calls. A Mobile network designed for universal Nomadic / portable indoor Data coverage needs nearly 6 times as many masts. Fixed wireless because it uses outdoor directional aerials can have x16 the capacity/Speed product for less masts in the same size spectrum.

Indoor coverage in a room with window facing mast is about -6dB, that's equivalent to twice the distance. In a room with windows not facing mast the signal can be down -20dB! that is over 8 times distance.

Compare vodafone 3G coverage and 3's coverage maps for same masts. Compare 3's indoor and outdoor coverage with internationally accepted models.

512k FWA can be up to 10x better than HSPA and unlike 3G has reasonable latency which doesn't vary much (HSDPA is 90ms to 2000ms, with 120ms to 170ms as typical off peak/light load).

oscarBravo

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

The Community Broadband Scheme was by no means perfect, but it was offering fixed wired broadband to rural homes for around €40 per month 4 years ago, but demand was no where near what was originally anticipated.

If you're talking about the Group Broadband Scheme, there was no shortage of demand: the alleged lack of demand has been repeatedly cited by various ministers who claimed that there were no applications for the scheme - which might be explained by the fact that no applications were permitted after mid-2005.

It's a bit rich to claim that there's no demand for something that people are not allowed to ask for.

watty

The GBS was badly designed and people told to wait and then it was cancelled.

They used that as an excuse to structure the NBS such that the only people that it was worth while to finally tender where people doing a 3G Phone roll out.

Where was the excellent regional WISPs, Digiweb, UPC, Smart, Magnet, IBB/Imagine in the tendering?

BT pulled out. IFA/Motorola pulled out. 3 Hutchinson and eircom/meteor the two shorlisted. The process should have been killed then and gone back to drawing board with different advisor when it was obvious no viable solution was forthcoming. Instead they believe what NO ONE ELSE in the WORLD believes, that a 3G/W-CDMA based service can deliver controlled contention and a minimum 1.2Mbps and an always on service suitable for VOIP. The people that sell the base stations don't believe it. I have their research and papers.

eircom was priced out of it even though they were going to mostly piggy back on Meteor because it was subsidized by voice calls and had a real rather than potential Satellite supplier. It wouldn't surprise me if 3 /Avanti was 1/2 the price for Satellite. Which at the end of the day is the ONLY thing the NBS is supplying that would not be happening anyway. All going well I predict 5x better Non-NBS satellite will be available as cheap as NBS next year, possibly before Avanti's bird is launched. 3's Sat solution/ supplier was supposed to be available nearly a month ago (June 2009) and is still in a lab with no completion date no launch date last time I looked.

The GBS was badly designed and they blocked it.

The NBS was so badly designed only one answer was possible.

Kenya and South Africa etc can do this stuff better.

trekkypj

Re the whole demand question...

I don't think it's particularly helpful to claim there's no demand for NGN in rural areas. That's the same argument that was used to delay again and again rollout of DSL in the first place.

There can only be demand if people are aware of the potential for its use. If people don't know what a 20Mbps connection can do for their needs, they're hardly going to wave flags and scream "Give me fibre!". You can't measure demand unless there's a prospect of availability for a reasonable cost. It's a supply-driven service. If you build it, you'll get customers. The numbers subscribing to 3G internet services in areas in rural Ireland where there's nothing else is evidence of this. These people didn't know what 3G was about except that it was available and it could supposedly do things their dial up connection couldn't do. That's the reality in rural areas.

Many of the most successful businesses in Ireland both in terms of longevity and likelihood to survive are located outside the cities. They may not have flashy headquarters or big name directors but they are successful and they would benefit hugely from NGN broadband in terms of promoting their business, and being able to videoconference with BTB clients, potential investors and the wider world requires proper infrastructure.

Saying things such as 'if they can get DSL then they don't need NGN' and 'if they need NGN they should move their business to the towns where they can get it' is the wrong attitude to take.

Businesses should not have to move from their base of operations, firstly. Most businesses in rural areas are tied to the location due to supply chains, logistics and planning requirements, so moving for net connectivity is simply unrealistic and is an absurd attitude to take. Secondly, urban Ireland is OVER developed and unbalanced in favor of places like Dublin and Cork. We need further development outside existing urban areas to facilitate a more even growth and development.

If we are to get out of this recession we have to create lots of jobs for people. To do this we must create opportunities for businesses to locate outside major urban areas while still having top class infrastructure - this is vital. That's why we need fibre to the cabinet everywhere possible, and equivalent alternatives (NOT just slow DSL) available everywhere else. And lest we forget, the emerging generation are a generation of network users. They do everything through the net and through their iPhones, through Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and other means. NGN will be essential in their world. It's not just for us but for generations to come.

The cost to build now is high, but it must be done sooner or later. The later we leave it, the higher the cost of not doing it sooner and the greater the likelihood of our careless attitude relegating us for good to the status of a second string economy.

garrethmcdaid

cgarvey wrote: »

IrelandOffline, to my knowledge, have the rough workings and calculations done, but not published. There are engineers & industry experts involved in this, so it carries some weight. However, waiting for IrelandOffline to publish a solution is indicative of a complete and total government failure in this regard (as if NBS wasn't, already).

Nobody is 'waiting for IrelandOffline to publish a solution'.

The primary reason why the NBS will use 3G is that no practical or economically viable alternative exists. The absence of an alternative proposal from IO supports that view, which is why I alluded to it.

cgarvey wrote: »

It's not nice to turn such a necessary utility as broadband in to a political football, but the fact is the government have failed to deliver on this in a number of ways.

I certainly haven't turned it into a political football. I was responding to claims made by local FG and SF reps in my area that the NBS was deficient because the Government should be digging cables into every home in rural Ireland.

cgarvey wrote: »

Agreed, although those points were not made (or made weakly) on your initial blog post. I don't recall IrelandOffline suggesting that a national broadband scheme be eircom-based or fixed-line-based.

I don't recall IO suggesting anything re. the NBS, other than drawing attention to the obvious shortcomings of 3G, but clearly anything other than 3G will involve huge cost and a massive logistical effort.

cgarvey wrote: »

HSPA+ being considered 4G is probably a stretch (given that it's still a 3GPP initiative and still CDMA-based, designed to fit in with current 3G technology.

This whole terminology thing is excessively pendantic. Fast Ethernet is CDMA-based, and I don't imagine too many people would have a problem with having a 100mbps connection in their homes.

cgarvey wrote: »

For the same reason, it will still be completely unsuitable for mass broadband rollout.

The NBS is not about 'mass broadband rollout'. Its about providing a solution to areas that will never be served by the private sector. My reference to HSPA+ is indicative of the fact that mobile data communications are advancing at an exponential rate vis-a-vis wired data communications, which adds to the legitimacy of using mobile in the NBS.

cgarvey wrote: »

IO have no problem in acknowledging (as seen as you want that so much!) that fixed-line is not suited to the all of the last 10% coverage. However FWA and a better delivery of fixed line (such as FTC, for example) would negate the need for midband in many EDs and urban areas completely ignored by NBS.

Suggesting that FWA can service *all* of the last 10%, at a reasonable cost, doesn't stack up. FWA could never service the area I live in, which is home to large plots of commercial forestry and where the land is neither flat nor overlooked by high vantage points. You would literally have to erect a transmitter or repeater for every house.

More to the point, private sector operators are already supplying a service in most areas where the topology and character of the landscape can facilitate FWA.

The reason why we need 3G in the last 10% if because it isn't economically viable to provide FWA in these areas.

cgarvey wrote: »

No such thing exists, in published form. There might be something published, but IO doesn't have the resources of the Dept of fish, so it may take time. Bear in mind, IO is a voluntary organisation still in the reformation stages dealing with a lot of queries. The 3G briefing doc took some effort, and time, and was not corporately or state funded. You'd expect if IO could come up with independent (yet-to-be-disproved) research that the department could have organised some consultants to do similar for small money.

Nobody expects IO to produce a detailed proposal, but some sort of consensus re. outline cost, technology mix and mode of delivery would be helpful.

3G is the path of least resistance to bringing the last 10% into the loop, and its future-proofed. The alternatives, if they exist, involve massive expensive and massive logistical effort, and in my view, do not represent either equitable or efficient use of public funds.

The Greens have been beating the drum about proper planning for decades, and for years our opponents have been telling us that there's no problem with thousands of people being dispersed across the countryside in single dwellings that are at a remove from main service arteries.

As much as we'd like to, we can't provide a ultra-fast broadband connection into every home, any more than we put a hospital and train station on every street corner.

The choices are therefore to do something or sit around thinking about what we could do if we had lots of money and the moon was made of cheese.

bealtine

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

This whole terminology thing is excessively pendantic. Fast Ethernet is CDMA-based, and I don't imagine too many people would have a problem with having a 100mbps connection in their homes.

I lost interest in your polemic at this point, it's obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Ethernet cdma and 3G cdma are two utterly different things.

Just to be clear ethernet cdma is : "carrier detect multiple access" a networking technology. (To be precise it's now known as CSMA/CD and is a layer 2 protocol)

and
3G cdma is Code division multiple access
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_division_multiple_access

Go read.

garrethmcdaid

bealtine wrote: »

I lost interest in your polemic at this point, it's obvious you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Not when it comes to Layer 2 differences in Ethernet and 3g, no, but that's hardly germane to the discussion.

oscarBravo

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

Not when it comes to Layer 2 differences in Ethernet and 3g, no, but that's hardly germane to the discussion.

Layer 1, I'm afraid - and it goes to the very heart of the discussion.

garrethmcdaid

bealtine wrote: »

It's as scientific as your analysis, yours is a guesstimation as is the other figure.

My figure is based on the current market valuation of eircom and its payload of corporate debt, both of which are verifiable.

bealtine wrote: »

The other figure is based on analysis done by IoffL.

Where is this available?

garrethmcdaid

thebman wrote: »

Short sighted IMO. There are many reasons a business can't locate in a town centre. It would be beneficial to many rural businesses to be able to take orders online and advertise their service online.

Why would a business need 20mbps (or even 4mpbs) to take orders online or advertise their service online?

Are you suggesting that rural businesses are hosting their own web servers?

I can think of very few applications that are pervasive in small rural businesses where alternatives do not exist and that require NGN.

To me mind, the NBS was never about rural businesses. Its about access to knowledge and learning for the next generation of Irish workers.

garrethmcdaid

clohamon wrote: »

The Blue areas were areas of proposed services which, if live by 30th June 2008, would become red areas; otherwise they were removed from the map. They are therefore not relevant to the final scope of the scheme. It is the green (unserved) areas that are relevant.

EDs are not mentioned in the Decision.

All academic.

My original point was that the NBS was never going to be able to pepper the countryside with sufficient masts to reduce contention and boost latency, given the effect that this would have on private incumbent providers.

PogMoThoin

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

My original point was that the NBS was never going to be able to pepper the countryside with sufficient masts to reduce contention and boost latency, given the effect that this would have on private incumbent providers.

No, but many of the FWA providers already offer Real broadband in the areas put forward for NBS. I know for a fact that alot of the the areas in Mayo already have FWA coverage, others have Edge coverage with O2. The NBS is bringing nothing new, just wasting money on a mobile network (that 3 would have built anyway) thats todays tech and not planning for the future.

Imagine what a FWA provider could have done in their area with just €1 million to improve their coverage?

garrethmcdaid

trekkypj wrote: »

Re the whole demand question...

I don't think it's particularly helpful to claim there's no demand for NGN in rural areas. That's the same argument that was used to delay again and again rollout of DSL in the first place.

I can only speak from my own experience. I tried to get a GBS going in my area. I went door to door to at least 40 houses and could only get expression of interest from 7. It didn't happen, even though Last Mile were doing the school up the road and were prepared to offer a residential FWA solution.

I also stood as a candidate in the recent Local Elections, and canvassed at least 700 rural houses. Granted, people had plenty to be concerned about, but only 2 voters mentioned broadband access, and they were located in a village less than a mile form an exchange. Their issue was the delay in getting eircom to light the exchange, not rural broadband.

trekkypj wrote: »

There can only be demand if people are aware of the potential for its use. If people don't know what a 20Mbps connection can do for their needs, they're hardly going to wave flags and scream "Give me fibre!". You can't measure demand unless there's a prospect of availability for a reasonable cost. It's a supply-driven service. If you build it, you'll get customers. The numbers subscribing to 3G internet services in areas in rural Ireland where there's nothing else is evidence of this. These people didn't know what 3G was about except that it was available and it could supposedly do things their dial up connection couldn't do. That's the reality in rural areas.

I'd agree with that, but I'd also question the equity of the State spending vast amounts of money on delivering the sort of access that is being talked about here. If it were clear that such an investment would produce a dividend for the economy, then the decision would be straightforward, but that's questionable in the extreme.

trekkypj wrote: »

Many of the most successful businesses in Ireland both in terms of longevity and likelihood to survive are located outside the cities. They may not have flashy headquarters or big name directors but they are successful and they would benefit hugely from NGN broadband in terms of promoting their business, and being able to videoconference with BTB clients, potential investors and the wider world requires proper infrastructure.

I really doubt that. VC services are available at County Enterprise Boards. I doubt very much if there are businesses in rural blackspots who require VC services on a daily or even weekly basis.

trekkypj wrote: »

Saying things such as 'if they can get DSL then they don't need NGN' and 'if they need NGN they should move their business to the towns where they can get it' is the wrong attitude to take.

Why? How is that different from saying if they need access to the N4 they should move near the N4, or should we be building roads on a case by case basis?

trekkypj wrote: »

We need further development outside existing urban areas to facilitate a more even growth and development.

Yes, we need to promote commercial activity outside of Dublin and Cork, but the last thing we need is industrialisation of the countryside.

trekkypj wrote: »

They do everything through the net and through their iPhones, through Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and other means. NGN will be essential in their world. It's not just for us but for generations to come.

You don't need NGN to use any of those services. NGN for Twitter?

bealtine

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

My figure is based on the current market valuation of eircom and its payload of corporate debt, both of which are verifiable.

eircom is only worth what is likely to be paid for it

clohamon

garrethmcdaid wrote: »

All academic.

My original point was that the NBS was never going to be able to pepper the countryside with sufficient masts to reduce contention and boost latency, given the effect that this would have on private incumbent providers.

The design of the scheme, the geography of it - the map, the EDs. and ultimately the technologies employed were all matters for the department and the Minister.

They were given as much latitude as they wanted, and given an extra €30M. The reason this scheme is not reaching all unserved areas has nothing to do with the EU state aid rules.

Masts aren't mentioned in the decision.