The Best Broadband Report Ever Written In Ireland ( The McElligott Report 2007)

Sponge Bob

The Then CEO of eBay Ireland and for around the last two years Director of Strategy of eBay worldwide , one John McElligott , took it upon himself to write this report in December 2007/January 2008

He saw that a new Minister, one Eamon Ryan , might break from the grossly dysfunctional tradition of the Dept of Communications or that the cabinet could see fit to set up a high powered cabinet sub committee to ensure that the department would get the correct guidance. The report was written just after Ryan started to gloat about our "success" in forcing the connectionless onto mobile broadband.

Every single point made in this report is absolutely correct. the analysis itself and the solutions for the problems ( all well known to us) thrown up by the analysis is of the very highest quality.

Ryan and Cowen have done absolutely nothing to implement any of them. All Cowen did was set up a task force which told him the very same thing in March 2010 and about which nothing has been done either.

This will be your political epitaph as a Communications Minister Eamon because you will be 3 years in the job in a week or two after 5 years shadowing communications and in ALL that time you will have done absolutely nothing bar strewing a few 3g repeaters around rural Ireland.

And if any of the other lot are looking then you should read this report , every single line of it.

---

Ireland's Broadband Performance and Policy Requirements, December 2007

Contents

1.0 Ireland’s broadband performance has been woeful: ............................,.................. 2
2.0 So why is Broadband Connectivity important? ........................................................ 4
3.0 So why has Ireland’s broadband performance been so poor? ................................ 5
4.0 Where do we stand on NGN Planning? ..................................................................... 6
4,1 The Voice ofthe ("ustomer: ......,..,.......,.,..................,.........................,.........4............ 6
4.2 The latest Departmental Review: .,...,...................,.....................................,.............. 6
4.3 Eircom 's latest change in structure: . .,.....,.................,...,........,..,......,........,.......,...... 7
4,4 Do we need to guard against complacency? ...........,,.........,,......,............,......,....,..... 7
5.0 How does Ireland achieve leadership in NGN? . ....................................................... 9
5.1 Investment and competition in Core: .......,......,......,.................,..................,.....,....... 9
5.2 Recommendations to achieve investment and competition in Core: .............,....,.... 10
5,3 Investment and competition in Access:. ..,........................,.....,....,,.........,................. I I
5.4 Recommendations to achieve investment and competition in Access: .................... 12
5.5 Stimulating Demand: ........,..............,......................,..................,..........,.......,.......... I 4
5.6 Recommendations to heh? stimulate demand: ...................,.......,........,.................... /4
6.0 Political leadership ................................................ . ................................................... 16

1.0 Ireland’s broadband performance has been woeful:

Ireland’s performance in current generation broadband connectivity has been little
short of disastrous. There is considerable evidence to support this view:
• The EU has called out Irish Telecomms as a market failure. "Lack of effective competition in Ireland has hampered growth in broadband penetration",
according to European competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes in May 2007.
• The OECD has stated that progress is very slow. Dimitri Ypsilanti of the
OECD's technology directorate stated on Dec 5th that their latest data showed
Ireland at 22nd of 30 countries when it comes to broadband provision,
compared with 23rd place the previous year.
• The previous Communications Committee Chairman declared in his final
report that it gave him ”no pleasure whatsoever" to write the final report
given how little had been achieved.
• Given our economic achievements in other spheres, Ireland’s coverage,
quality and costs are all unacceptable.
• Whatever numbers are quoted, the truth is that we are way behind where we should be. In any case, in this instance, using statistics to claim ”dramatic" progress is disingenuous without setting targets in advance, and measuring against those targets.
• The Government continually reports progress against the coverage measure. This measure compares the penetration of ’minimal-level' broadband (i.e. 1MB or higher). Against this measure, Ireland is simply below average. We find it curious that they rarely refer to the other measures, such as speed, cost and quality, where Ireland is way, way below average. For example using the measure "average download speed per country, as of October 2007, Ireland was 33rd out of of 35 OECD countries, Separately, Forfas reported in their policy document of December 2007 that "prices are significantly less competitive when compared with the services available in other countries.
For example, Eorfas noted that at the time of writing, an Irish customer was paying €2,000/ month for a 6MB service, whereas a German customer was typically paying ~€534 for 16MB of connectivity.
• None of our neighbours (e.g. UK, Scandinavia, Benelux, France) concern
themselves with EU averages. They continue to roll out ever more
sophisticated offerings, and plot their Next Generation Networks of up to
100MB connectivity to the home. For example, BT in the UK has launched a
scheme to trial open—access 100MB to 10,000 homes in Kent. We claim the highest per capita GDP on Earth. And we want to be average?
• Our demography is not a barrier to achieving broadband leadership. Some
years ago, demography was sometimes cited as a factor in explaining
differences between broadband capabilities across countries. According to
this theory, Ireland would be a natural laggard due to its dispersed
population. However, recent years have seen this theory completely
discredited. By 2007, several large sparsely-inhabited countries had achieved broadband leadership in terms of coverage, speed cost and quality. Such countries include Canada, Sweden and Norway, all of which have far more dispersed populations than Ireland.
• We believe recent cheery news (e.g. around Mobile Broadband) is happening despite our underlying fixed-line issues, not because we have addressed them. Mobile broadband plays a role in connectivity in several nations. However, it is typically aimed at people on the move, and as a supplement for fixed-line broadband. This is because, by international standards, the speed and quality currently available via mobile significantly lags that of fixed-line.
Ireland has seen a major take-up of Mobile Broadband amongst people using this as their primary source of connectivity. While we welcome this, it provides further evidence that Ireland has been experiencing a serious
supply—side deficit in the fixed-line arena.
• Ireland’s issues have been supply-driven. In early 2007, many parties
claimed that our poor record in connectivity was a "demand-side issue". This is nonsense. As a high—GDP country with amongst the highest GSM
penetration on earth, there can be no reasonable reason why Ireland would
suffer a "demand deficit" for broadband in contrast to all other EU countries.
The recent success of the Mobile Broadband offerings has proven the
hollowness of the "demand-side" argument, and this argument has curiously
disappeared from the debate.

2.0 So why is Broadband Connectivity important?

Broadband connectivity is important for Ireland. Connectivity is a key building block in achieving our goals of being a Knowledge Economy and moving up the economic "value-chain". Without high quality connectivity, it is unlikely we can achieve either.
The development of the Irish online sector is being hampered by our poor
infrastructure. The retail market has to date had very poor connectivity. This makes it difficult for online businesses to reach them. This situation dampens local innovation, and acts as a brake on investment that targets the retail market. eBay’s customers continually ask us in large numbers to help them in gaining access to better connectivity.
Currently, Ireland is nowhere in terms of online application usage and innovation. This is a major missed opportunity, which we may end up regretting. With our prosperity, US links and English language, we should rightly be an online hotbed.
Instead, our connectivity is holding the country back. We actually believe there is a crisis here, and if we do not fix it, Irish competitiveness will suffer gravely.
Several observers even regard leadership in broadband connectivity as essential for future prosperity and growth. The Economist has published an article promoting the virtues of broadband connectivity as a driver of economic success, entitled
"Open up those highways” (jan 19 2008), This article included the following
passage:
"In eras past, economic success depended on creating networks that could shift people, merchandise and electric power as efficiently and widely as possible. Today’s equivalent is broadband: the high—speed internet service that has become a vital tool for producers and distributors of goods as it is for people plugging into all the social and cultural opportunities offered by the web. Easy access to cheap, fast internet services has become a facilitator of economic growth and a measure of
economic performance."
The Economist goes on to say that "The best explanation [of how to achieve leadership in connectivity] is that broadband thrives on a mix of competition and active regulation to ensure an open contest"

3.0 So why has Ireland’s broadband performance been so poor?

All sorts of reasons have been put forward for Ireland’s poor performance in
broadband connectivity in Ireland. In essence though, we experienced a classic "market failure". As Minister Ryan stated in the Oireachtas on Dec 12*** : ”One of the reasons Ireland lags behind other countries is the absence of competition in the market. Following the sale of the State telephone company, the privatised company, for a variety of reasons, did not invest in its network and the development of broadband. At the same time, the cable network was experiencing difficult times and little investment was made in the network. Our poor performance was due to
this lack of competition" Or put simply, the right balance of investment incentives and competition has not been achieved. The Minister is correct that lack of private sector investment and competition is the chief reason for our poor connectivity performance. However, telecommunications policy and provision of infrastructure are the responsibility of the Department of
Communications. In this regard, three additional factors as contributing to the current mess, namely:
• Lack of political leadership: The UK has a Minister for Competitiveness
who "sees the highest performance telecoms sector as one of his top
priorities". We don’t.
• Lack of Government investment: Ireland has an NDP with €30Bn due to be spent on roads and <€0.5Bn for Connectivity. Is this the right investment balance? The amount earmarked for Connectivity is less than eircom’s €655M annual profits in 2007.
• Poor Execution: In many ways the MANs have been a major improvement.
At latest count, 26 operators are using the MANs, and eircom have a declared interest in acquiring them. So any argument that the MANs were
’duplication’ or not required, is clearly false. However, the programme has
had several issues, notably in "joining-up" the MANs, as well as the
education and marketing of ENETs services.

4.0 Where do we stand on NGN Planning?

2008 will be a crucial year in addressing Ireland’s connectivity issues. Countries around the world are now planning and rolling out Next Generation Networks (NGNs). Ireland should start planning our approach to NGN. Sadly, the current situation is not favourable. The existing industry programme for NGN (called the NISG) is currently stalled, and progress is not being made.

4.1 The Voice of the Customer:

Our record in delivering "current generation broadband" does not inspire
confidence. The entire debate was dominated by squabbling infrastructure
companies. This is akin to having property developers as the only voices in the housing debate. The result was the "LLU wars" of the last few years. These appear to have ended recently, which means that only in early 2008 do we have a reasonable chance of catching up with our peers in "current generation broadband". To date, the voice of the customer has been missing. Representatives of Irish online businesses view ourselves as customers of our connectivity infrastructure. As customers, we are comprehensively disappointed by what has been achieved to date, and highly concerned about the future. It is of crucial importance to us, to our
businesses, and to our sector that Ireland does not fail as spectacularly in NGN as it has done in current generation broadband.
4.2 The latest Departmental Review:
The Department of Communications (DCENR) is an important player in lrish
connectivity, given its policy objectives which include "ensuring that Ireland is best placed to avail of the emerging opportunities provided by the information and knowledge society, by promoting investment in state of the art infrastructures, by providing a supportive legislative and regulatory environment and by developing a leading edge research and development reputation in the information , communications and digital technologies".
The Department is currently considering policy options in relation to the planning and rollout of Next Generation Broadband in Ireland. They are drafting a policy paper, which will soon be published for consultation. The DCENR are a crucial player in NGN planning given their responsibility for policy and infrastructure provision in this area. We absolutely need the Department to exhibit leadership in this process, to take the difficult decisions and be willing to take on any vested interests. We also need to ensure that the customer’s voice is heard as part of this process, and ensure our views and recommendations are taken on board as NGN planning gets underway.
To date, the Department has sought to portray Ireland’s current situation as satisfactory. lt has even referred to recent developments as ”exceptional progress".
We find this curious, and believe that if the Department wants to assess our performance in good faith, it should first establish targets in terms of coverage, speed, cost and quality, and measure performance against those targets to determine the success or otherwise of progress in connectivity.
4.3 Eircom’s latest change in structure:
The situation regarding the incumbent is a source of concern to many parties associated with provision of connectivity infrastructure. The company has changed structure and ownership a large number of times, and for a variety of reasons, has not historically invested in its network. The company also has a high level of indebtedness (~C4Bn). Many commentators wonder how a company in such a position will be able to lead the rollout of NGN in Ireland. This situation contrasts sharply with the situation in Northern Ireland where, it is widely acknowledged, the functional separation of BT, played a major role in rolling out broadband there, and across the UK.
Eircom’s latest owners are currently proposing a new type of separation, one that has not yet been carried out in any advanced economy. In fact, BCM has described the proposed approach as "unchartered waters". While the future corporate structure is primarily a matter for that company, the proposal has raised questions in many quarters regarding the incentives of the new arrangements to provide an efficient network at competitive prices. Other industry participants warn that such a structure could undermine efforts to stimulate competition. These concerns have to
be addressed. At the same time, it will be imperative to ensure that the right investment incentives exist to ensure that eircom, as the former monopolist and current dominant player, plays a leading role in helping Ireland achieve NGN.
4.4 Do we need to guard against complacency?
We are concerned that complacency is setting in. Vodafone & O2 have saved many Irish blushes by launching mobile broadband. As a result, all sorts are claiming ’dramatic progress' etc. in Ireland’s broadband story.
As stated earlier, we believe this "dramatic progress" is nonsense. The recent good news around Mobile Broadband is happening despite our underlying fixed-line issues, not because we have addressed them. Mobile broadband is typically aimed at people on the move, and as a supplement for fixed-line broadband. Ireland has seen a major take-up of Mobile Broadband amongst people using this as their primary source of connectivity. While we welcome this, it simply illustrates that Ireland has been experiencing a serious supply—side deficit in the fixed—line arena,
Senior politicians concede that broadband is currently not a "vote-getter". We understand this. We also recognize that for the majority of retail customers, the fact that 15* generation broadband is currently being rolled out is a pleasure. As a result, there is likely to be less consumer pain in 2008 than in 2007. Separately, the Sunday Times has warned of what it sees as "concerted attempts to dismiss" our broadband concerns.
There is a real risk that these developments will push our fixed line issues off the agenda, and Ireland will fail as spectacularly in NGN as we did in current generation connectivity. We believe this would have significant consequences for Ireland’s future competitiveness, and the coveted "high value—chain" investment that we wish to attract in the future.

5.0 How does Ireland achieve leadership in NGN?

The question of how to achieve leadership in Next Generation Networks (NGN) is not a simple one. There is no silver bullet. Answering the question involves taking on significant, established vested interests, and taking tough decisions.
Nonetheless, we believe the key to achieving leadership in NGN lies in achieving greater investment and competition in Core and Access. We need "more of both in both", so to speak. The key here will be ensuring all core investment is interconnected and open access. It is also important to make the best possible use of existing assets, and ensure a wide group of investors in lreland's future core capacity.
It is imperative that we avoid a monopoly situation in terms of core infrastructure provision.
ln addition, there is certainly more than can be done to stimulate demand. We outline here a set of recommendations that are not intended to be exhaustive, though if implemented successfully, could help achieve these goals.
There are considerable carriers in place to implementing several of the
recommendations we describe here. Several stakeholders and vested interests will claim "it can’t be done". We call for an end to this mantra, and a move to a more constructive phase or a "how best can it be done?" approach.
5.1 Investment and competition in Core:
Delivering NGN will mean rolling out a largely IP-based core infrastructure (fiber core) throughout the country. This will replace the existing largely switch-based infrastructure.
The key will be for lreland's future core to be a network of fiber owned by several parties with open access to this capacity. The vision is that all core infrastructure will be inter—connected and no party will have a monopoly position in the provision of core infrastructure. ln this way, many entities will contribute to lreland's "core capacity".
It is important to move on from the concept of an "incumbent core", and a
”duplicated core". instead, the debate needs to focus on provision of interconnected, open-access core capacity. Monopoly infrastructure provision has to be avoided as it would have significant potential to dampen innovation and restrict price improvements based on efficiency gains. It would also have the potential to remove the incentives (or ability) for a host of private players to invest, Clearly, all of these outcomes are undesirable.
There are already considerable amounts of fiber laid throughout the country. Much of this is in state hands. In addition, several private companies have already invested in fiber, or have announced a desire to do so. Three specific issues have to be addressed to enable rollout of a fiber core. These are:
• How can we best join-up or "interconnect" all of the fibre owned by differentorganizations? lreland’s "squabbling infrastructure companies" have a programme to determine the way forward on interconnection, called the
NISG. As of Ian 2008, this programme was stalled and progress is not being
made on this issue.
• How do we make it as easy as possible for companies that wish to lay fiber to actually do so? This includes ensuring that the investment required to lay fiber is as low as possible?
• What are the learnings from project "Dingle" — a previous effort to join up state-owned fibre assets, and the MANs programme.
In addition, the Core cannot be address in isolation. Industry players will not invest in core if they cannot be confident of getting the customer access. Therefore, in the following section, we will address how as wide a group of industry players as possible have sufficient Access to enable them to invest in Core.

5.2 Recommendations to achieve investment and competition in Core:

We recommend that the Department of Communications take on board four key steps to help delivering higher investment and more competition in Core:
1. Maximise benefits from existing state·owned assets through creation of
CoreNet: Several state bodies already own considerable fiber and ducting
resources. These include Bord Gais, ESB, Irish Rail, ENET, NRA etc.. The
Irish Government should use these existing government—owned assets to
create a sort—of open—access "mega-MAN", which would provide significant core capacity. Maybe it should be called "CoreNet". Ownership of these assets would remain where they are. CoreN et would lease the assets from the owners and then lease them on to the providers (similar to how ENET works today). The end result is a considerable amount of IP-based "core capacity".
In other words, the Government uses its existing assets as effectively as
possible, and in thc- process, seeds Ireland’s NGN capacity. Such a move
should at least ensure IP-core capacity of some description is in place in
Ireland, and would involve the use of existing assets. Also, a better
understanding of what is in place is likely to stimulate and provide greater
specificity for greater core investment by incumbent and other private sector providers. This investment by operators can be focused on the highest priority core infrastructure areas not sufficiently covered by, or in competition with, CoreNET.

2. Invest NDP funds in Ducting: The Government should invest in Ducting as a means of stimulating investment in backhaul and fiber to the cabinet (FTTC). This ducting should be made available to all operators on an open—access basis, Rapid roll-out of ducting would both remove a substantial investment hurdle (accounting as it does for approximately 70% of the cost of installing fiber) and stimulate competition as more than one private operator will be able to put its fiber in this state-owned ducting. Sufficient amounts of ducting will help ensure it is commercially viable for private operators to invest in laying their own fiber and compete with each other on a wholesale basis. The precise levels of investment in Ducting that are needed should be determined by DCENR based on what is needed to stimulate competition.

3. Ensure ducting is included in future road works: Government should
establish the regulatory regime such that, from now on, any time roads are
being built or dug up, ducts are laid as part of the civil works.

4. Extend MAN programme: The MANs and the future CoreNet should be
extended and augmented with additional government investment to plug any significant gaps. This investment should come from the NDP. The precise level of investment needed should be determined by CoreNet once this is established. This can be thought of as an extension to the existing MAN programme to further locations and involving key backhaul routes.

5. "Fit for purpose" regulation to move from LLU to NGN: Ireland’s
regulation needs to be "fit for purpose" in terms of enabling the move from
LLU to NGN. Interconnectivity and open access of core infrastructure is
essential. Regulation should also promote migration of provision for existing
services (e. g. USO) from PSTN / LLU to NGN, and minimize the time required for Ireland to make our much-needed transition. Wholesale pricing
regulation is also important, The vision is retail minus wholesale pricing. Any
other goal is difficult to countenance. However, this may not be achievable
straight away. Regulation should ensure a realistic progression towards retail minus within an achievable timeframe.

5.3 Investment and competition in Access:
Competition between providers and competition between technologies is important to achieving high levels of broadband take-up. Ireland’s poor broadband performance has largely stemmed from a lack of competition in this sphere. Until recently, alternative fixed-line providers have struggled to be permitted to compete in fixed-line broadband. At the same time, the recent success of 3G broadband from O2, Vodafone and 3 highlights the benefits of broadband availability throughdifferent technologies.
Fibre to the Home (FTTH) is viewed as the leading technology for high-speed broadband. However, various wireless technologies (based on a fiber backbone) can also play a role, especially in access. These include WiFi, WiMax and SG — which collectively we will refer to as Wireless. For the foreseeable future, copper wires (LLU) will play a role in delivering faster broadband speeds, particularly as they are currently so prevalent in Ireland, though are likely to play a minor role in true high speed broadband. In summary, over the next few years, it is likely that competition between and among Fiber, LLU and Wireless that will drive investment in Access.

5.4 Recommendations to achieve investment and competition in Access:
The recommendations provided here are focused on providing choice for consumers and establishing an environment where it becomes economically realistic for large numbers of private-sector players to invest in access technologies.
1. Implement a pilot of a wireless broadband county: The Government should run a pilot for the "Wireless Broadband" county. The successful county would get a state-funded roll out of a selected fixed wireless infrastructure. This represents an option to address the infrastructure bottleneck around the "line to the home". Ideally the selected county would be selected from across the current "digital divide". The precise level of investment should be determined by DCENR. Based on the success or otherwise of this pilot, we can decide if or how this programme should be extended further. Some additional factors include:
a. This initiative could build on the successful Comreg Fixed Wireless
Access Local Area (FWALA) scheme which has already facilitated 15
operators to provide wireless broadband services. There is some
precedent for this proposal. In April 2007, Carlow become the
country’s first wireless-enabled broadband town later today as a result
of a collaboration between metropolitan area network (MAN) provider
e-Net and Carlow County Council.
b. It may be appropriate to run this pilot as a "cross-border" initiative for
a border region instead of just a (southern) Irish county. Comreg and
Ofcom have already run a co-ordinated licence competition for award
of the same spectrum in Northern Ireland and the Republic. This could
form a successful template for any potential North-South wireless
broadband pilot scheme.
c. Note that Ireland is host to several of the world's leaders in this field.
As a result, this project could be an interesting way for Ireland to
innovate, and potentially take leadership in fixed wireless technologies.
2. Future-proof the National Broadband Scheme: The existing NBS tender is
for very low speed broadband. By the time it is rolled out, 1MB is likely to be considered "narrowband" by countries with high quality connectivity. The Department of Communications should add provisions to the NBS to "future- proof" any investment. The winning tender has to commit to increasing speed. Potential options include 5MB in 2010 years and 2OMB in 2012. Separately, the NBS should be extended in geographical scope, as the current definition is too narrow.
3. Extend current telephone subsidy to any connectivity service: The current OAP telephone subsidy of €24 should include line rental for any sort of telecoms service - mobile phone, home phone or broadband.
4. Implement USO for Broadband: We recommend that Ireland innovate in the EU and take leadership in the EU in rolling out a Universal Service Obligation for broadband. The speed and quality required by the USO would increase over time. One option is that this is set at 2MB for 2009. Selection of the USO provider should be carried out on a tendering basis, not unlike the NBS.
5. Enable easier ability to lay fiber: Carrying out of civil works in relation to
telecoms infrastructure should be made easier. Telecomm companies should
be permitted easier access to dig the road to install fiber to the home.
Currently, such access and permission is currently very difficult to achieve.
Provision of telecommunications infrastructure should be considered, from a
planning perspective, as an ’essential service' similar to the provision of
electricity supply. Also - at the present time, each road authority in Ireland is in a position to issue its own scheme for infrastructure creation and sharing. This creates considerable administrative inefficiencies for telecoms operators.
Instead, roads authorities should develop a standard template so that
telecomm operators can benefit from greater efficiency between road
authorities.
6. Future-proof new housing: New houses or apartment developments should be required to have fiber installed as standard, in the same way as they have electricity and water connectivity.
7. Plan early for Sub-Loop Unbundling (SLU). In the coming years, the incumbent and other providers are likely to deploy Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC). Such deployment will necessitate a regulatory regime to ensure non- discrimination against competitors for access to the incumbent network. The Government should plan the details of this regulatory regime early to ensurethat current generation market failure does not persist into SLU.
8. Complete LLU properly: There is a major open question regarding whether further energies should be expended on LLU. Many observers believe that LLU access has been provided too late, and the debate should now move on to NGN. Also, there is a risk of complacency regarding LLU since the regulatory regime was strengthened in September 2007. However, in the event that this remains an important issue, and in order that real consumers actually get the benefit of LLU, the process should simply be finished. Three main building blocks of this include:
a. eircom should be given a very strict timescale to complete LLU and
pay a hefty fine per day for targets missed.
b. Comreg should hold eircom accountable for faults / 100 lines and time
to repair. Key here is highly visible, regular reporting of KPIs (Key
Performance Indicators) by Comreg
c. Comreg should also have greater powers to encourage eircom to drop
its unbundling cost and retail line rental cost. At present, both of these
are amongst the highest in the EU. Unbundling costs €16.70 in Ireland
vs EU Average of €11.50 according to the EU

5.5 Stimulating Demand:
Late 2007 saw optimistic news in the Irish press regarding ”exceptional" broadband progress. We ’celebrate’ reaching the EU average, This is disingenuous. None of our neighbours and competitor economies (e.g. UK, Germany, Scandinavia, Benelux, France) concern themselves with EU averages. They continue to roll out ever more sophisticated offerings, and plot their Next Generation Networks of up to 100MB connectivity to the home. We claim the 4th highest per capita GDP on Earth. And
we want to be average?
Online players of various hues play a role, and will continue to play a role in
stimulating demand. These include eCommerce companies, educational institutions, government departments (e. g. Revenue Online). The Department of Communications also has a role to play. Areas where the Government can help include setting and monitoring realistic targets, helping to ensure the "LLU Wars" of the past few years do not recur with NGN and taking the lead around the crucial area of online safety and security. Successful rollout of eGovernment services will also play a role in stimulating demand.

5.6 Recommendations to help stimulate demand:
1. Measure progress against proper Targets: Claims of progress are hollow
unless they are based on targets. The Minister for Communications should
announce national broadband targets to 2011 (the lifetime of the current Dail) in terms of availability, speed, cost and quality (this final one is critical).
These targets should be made public, They should be aggressive though
achievable. Performance against these targets should be tracked and reported regularly by Comreg.
2. Appoint a Minister with formal responsibility for leading the rollout of
NGN Broadband connectivity in Ireland: The UK has a Minister for
Competitiveness who "sees the highest performance telecoms sector as one of his top priorities". This political leadership has produced results. In current generation (i.e. LLU) broadband, the UK is now a global leader from a lagging position just a few years ago. As we know, Northern Ireland has universal broadband availability, We recommend that the Government identifies a Minister who takes responsibility for ensuring Ireland achieves broadband connectivity leadership, in line with the Department of Communications responsibilities in Policy, Investment and provision of Infrastructure,
3. Lead a "Get Safe Online" campaign. Consumers have understandable concerns related to online activity, safety of personal information and protection of children. Several eCommerce companies have been and will continue to be a leader in this area. Nonetheless, it is appropriate the Irish Government take a lead in co—ordinating a "Get Safe Online" campaign. The UK has seen considerable growth in online activity off the back of its successful campaign of this nature. Online and eCommerce players should participate in this, as they have done in the UK. The previous MakeItSecure campaign was well—intentioned, though has not been followed up on.
4. Consider reducing VAT on broadband services. Irish broadband costs are
among the highest in the world. As Forfas have noted in their policy
document of December 2007 that "prices are significantly less competitive
when compared with the services available in other countries?. For example, Forfas noted that at the time of writing, an Irish customer was paying €2,000/ month for a 6MB SDSL service, whereas a German customer was paying ~€534 for 16MB connectivity. VAT alone will not drive the price reductions that are needed — competition needs to be further stimulated for that. However, a VAT reduction from the current 21% is likely to stimulate demand.
5. Re-ignite Irish eGovernment strategy. Ireland currently has no formal
eGovernment strategy, and its record in implementing eGovernment
initiatives has been spotty. The Government should take steps to regain
momentum in this area, establish a new eGovernment strategy, and further
develop the availability and quality of eGovernment services.
6. Properly promote existing Government services It is also important that eGovernment services, when offered, are promoted effectively. For example, Comreg has developed Callcostsie, a useful service to help consumers compare the cost of personal mobile, home phone and broadband price plans. While this is a worthy effort, many believe that this project lacks effective promotion of its service. To illustrate this fact, a sample search was conducted in mid-]anuary 2008 on several leading internet search engines using a range of appropriate search terms, such as ”Irish broadband costs".
These tests failed to return the Callcosts.ie website on the first three pages of any leading search engine. Put another way, even though the CallCosts site exists, the vast majority of Irish internet users will not be able to find it, or even become aware of its existence. There is little point rolling out services that people do not know about or cannot use. For this reason, the Government should ensure that the eGovernment services it does provide are properly promoted and marketed. For services such as CallCosts, it is likely that online channels may be among the most effective means of promotion.


6.0 Political leadership

There has been no shortage of analysis, discussion, or opinions about the broadband deficit in Ireland. Over many years, the problems presented by both industry, business and consumers in securing better broadband connectivity have been brought to the attention of Ministers, Oireachtas Committees, agencies and the media. lf the problem is to be tackled, there needs to be clear political leadership shown to implement measures, such as those outlined in this note and with a drive and determination that overcomes obstacles mounted by any vested interest.
The provision of broadband raises policy and legislative issues that stretch beyond the reach of any single government department and requires a co-ordinated government response at the highest level. lf the problem is to be tackled, there needs to be clear political leadership shown to implement measures, such as those outlined in this note and with a drive and determination that overcomes obstacles mounted by any vested interest.

A Cabinet Sub Committee on broadband development would be an important driver for change. The membership of the Subcommittee might include;
• An Taoiseach
• Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
• Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment
• Minister for Finance
• Minister for Education and Science
• Minister for Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

The Sub Committee would be responsible for driving the policy and legislative changes that require to be made to implement an effective broadband development strategy in lreland. It would be a strong signal that this issue is being tackled at the highest level in Government with a sense of priority and urgency that would help to deliver effective change.

Allied to the establishment of a Cabinet Sub Committee, a group should also be established under the joint aegis of the Departinent of An Taoiseach and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to create an implementable plan for improving broadband availability. This group should have a similar remit, focus and approach to that adopted by the Motor Insurance Advisory Board , the Consumer Strategy Group and the Alcohol Advisory Group, with tight terms of reference, a defined reporting period and a membership that is dynamic, experienced and predominantly comprising of key industry and consumer stakeholders.

Finally, lreland’s infrastructure companies are not successfully addressing the connectivity deficit themselves. Some sort of agreed or brokered solution involving the various infrastructure players is needed to clear the current blockages. Such a brokering is likely to come only via a Government-led initiative.

A combination of these initiatives would help to refine the measures likely to best achieve better broadband penetration and deliver on achieving the necessary results within a tight timescale. The alternative is to have more drift on the issue without the adoption of the strong measures and initiatives necessary to tackle this serious infrastructural deficit that Ireland is facing.

watty

Every year since then we have FALLEN on OECD ranking. If the NBS is so good and your policies so good, Mr. Ryan why are we now bottom?



Our own Oireachtas did a good report too, in 2004!
http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chairmans_Preface.htm

also from same 2004 Report

The Joint Committee has concluded, for the Irish market, that speeds of anything less than 512kbs is not broadband but is in fact in a class known as ‘mid-band'. This would include such services as ISDN connections and 124 and 256kbs DSL connections. In this respect the Joint Committee's definition of broadband differs from that in use by other groups and significantly differs from the definition currently to be found in Section 8 of the Finance Bill 2004. The Joint Committee believes that all connections at speeds of less than 124kbs, currently the majority in the Irish economy, have to be regarded as narrowband connections.

Having said this, the ‘broadband bar' is being raised constantly and in absolute terms the definition of broadband is constantly changing, but the indisputable fact is that this is upwards, not downwards. As an example, Japan has a 26Mps services available to consumers. Therefore, broadband can be taken to have a very different meaning in Japan to Ireland. As a consequence the Joint Committee believes it will be important to review and redefine the accepted definition on a regular basis.

As such the Joint Committee believes that the Government should adhere to a target for the widespread availability of 5Mps services to residential users by 2006 and that this should then increase to a level of approximately 10Mps by 2008. If the potential of broadband is to be realised however, larger bandwidths will have to be made available in the short term to bodies such as schools, libraries and health care facilities. As such the Joint Committee believes that Ireland should be targeting bandwidths of 4Mps upwards The Government should also set a national target for the level of use of broadband that is both realistic and competitive in comparison with other countries. Whilst starting from behind, the Joint Committee believes that with the current level of development in the market and the continuing involvement of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Ireland should be targeting a residential broadband penetration rate of approximately 8% by the end of 2004.

From http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chapter02.htm

Instead we got the NBS. Six years later.

The Spec of NBS doesn't meet the 2004 report.Only 1.2Mbps Download speed! About 1/4 of 2006 target and 1/8th of 2008 target.

120ms, 1.2Mbps down and 0.2Mbps up is minimum allowed

Why the actual NBS rollout can't meet its own spec: http://www.wattystuff.net/issues/mobile-and-nbs/issues/mobile-and-nbs/

The reality is that the NBS was so badly designed that no winning bid can or could actually even meet the weak requirements! Only a company rolling out a Mobile Phone network upgrade, needed to meet licence conditions could viably tender. Eircom (Meteor) and 3 Ireland both OBLIGED to increase coverage at that point in time.

Types of Internet connection:
http://www.techtir.ie/node/1000003

eircom is now marketing 8Mbps max, 3Mbits average, 1Mbps original ADSL (not ADSL2+ in many cases) as Next Generation Broadband.

PogMoThoin

Sad thing is, people are disconnecting decent fixed wireless for this new NBS service

jbkenn

And who was a member of that committee?
"In closing, as Chairman of the ICT sub-Committee which considered the issue in such great detail, I would like to extend my appreciations to the other members of the ICT sub-Committee Deputies Thomas Broughan, Martin Brady, Simon Coveney (who was Rapporteur to the Committee), Denis O'Donovan, Eamon Ryan and Senator Brendan Kenneally for their commitment and dedication during the course of the hearings and in the preparation of the Report", why if it is'nt our old friend, <.cg snip>, Minister Eamon Ryan

watty

He hasn't much excuses then.

cgarvey

jbkenn, personal insults are not allowed per the forum charter. Consider yourself warned.