Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Minister Ryan and NBS

  • 11-12-2010 1:19am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭


    Heard the various news reports this week about the availability of broadband in Ireland ....

    RTE interviewed Adrian Wreckler who pronouced the broadband was available at great speed (did he say 3.6Mbs ?). The usual tripe and no discussion of what is really happening....

    Newstalk had an independent consultant (name escapes me) who was more realistic and used the "midband" term....

    I continue to get poor speeds (max .6Mbs download) on NBS and am sick to the teeth of bangalore .....

    The greens are in election mode and trying to maximise their contribution - the NBS is not one of them ..... down with that sort of thing


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    All they did was sign the contract of scheme set up by predecessors. Instead of scrapping it because NO broadband was on offer from the last two standing in the Tender process

    http://irelandoffline.org/2010/12/broadband-now-available-in-every-district-in-ireland-minister/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    kyote00 wrote: »
    Heard the various news reports this week about the availability of broadband in Ireland ....

    RTE interviewed Adrian Wreckler who pronouced the broadband was available at great speed (did he say 3.6Mbs ?). The usual tripe and no discussion of what is really happening....

    Newstalk had an independent consultant (name escapes me) who was more realistic and used the "midband" term....


    Do you remember what programs (and days) these guys were on?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,040 ✭✭✭yuloni


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Well, Hylas1 satellite is safely launched and will be Cheap from Jan/Feb.

    Ka-Sat still getting assembled. Might delay till 25th .. 30th (Russian Christmas is later than ours 10th Jan?)

    Probabily better than 3G except for horrible latency.

    Cap will not be great either.

    So Not Broadband as we know it Captain.

    Of course if the Government falls and we get one that actually listens to experts the Rural scheme will never happen and we will get fibre for an NBS.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They should have built my lines around the country. Mobile broadband shouldn't be a full broadband replacement unless you live in Dublin because there's a zillion cell towers there but for heavens sake it probably would be easier building trunk lines in rural areas and most likely cheaper


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    NBS-the greatest con job regarding provision of broadband to the country.The tender was awarded to 3 with the idea of providing dongles to people.Where did the cost come from? Anyone could walk into a shop and buy one,then find out just how useless the system is and the fact it's not actually broadband they're getting,just basic internet access at best.
    The hundreds of millions invested in this waste could have been put towards a decent infrastructure to provide broadband.Instead they aim to flood the market with dongles on an already oversubscribed service.Typical of this government-let down after let down.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I see a future for Mobile Broadband on HSPA+/4G LTE Networks with always 21MB + Connectivity but for a rural area they needed to build Hard line networking and while everyone is using this reliable connectivity roll out more cell towers that can handle mobile bandwith.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    I see a future for Mobile Broadband on HSPA+/4G LTE Networks with always 21MB + Connectivity but for a rural area they needed to build Hard line networking and while everyone is using this reliable connectivity roll out more cell towers that can handle mobile bandwith.

    Yes, for Mobile Use.

    1) It's like dialup. Not always on. So problem with incoming connections. Not Broadband.

    2) "Always" 21bps + Connectivity is only possible on Fixed Wireless. Never on LTE Mobile. 5MHz LTE is similar speed profile for one user vs distance. At cell edge it's 120kbps. For 20Mhz channel LTE it's about 400kbps at cell edge.

    3) The quoted speeds (21Mbps, 100Mbps near mast and 100kbps to 400kbps at cell edge are assuming ZERO interference and only ONE connected user. With just 10 simultaneous connections you have 2Mbps, 10Mbps, 12kbps, 40kbps etc depending on distance from mast and if 5Mhz or 20Mhz channels.

    On the Plus Side, there is not the additional slow down due to CDMA codesharing (wastes near 1/2 the capacity) or CDMA cell breathing on downlink of 3G/HSPA.

    LTE will never deliver Broadband.


    If someone is too far/expensive for Fibre you need a Fixed Wireless connection with controlled contention. That can deliver a real 20Mbps (but only if there are only 4 users, or else it's 10GHz LOS with 200MHz of spectrum to have 100 simultaneous connections )


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    watty wrote: »
    Yes, for Mobile Use.

    1) It's like dialup. Not always on. So problem with incoming connections. Not Broadband.

    2) "Always" 21bps + Connectivity is only possible on Fixed Wireless. Never on LTE Mobile. 5MHz LTE is similar speed profile for one user vs distance. At cell edge it's 120kbps. For 20Mhz channel LTE it's about 400kbps at cell edge.

    3) The quoted speeds (21Mbps, 100Mbps near mast and 100kbps to 400kbps at cell edge are assuming ZERO interference and only ONE connected user. With just 10 simultaneous connections you have 2Mbps, 10Mbps, 12kbps, 40kbps etc depending on distance from mast and if 5Mhz or 20Mhz channels.

    On the Plus Side, there is not the additional slow down due to CDMA codesharing (wastes near 1/2 the capacity) or CDMA cell breathing on downlink of 3G/HSPA.

    LTE will never deliver Broadband.


    If someone is too far/expensive for Fibre you need a Fixed Wireless connection with controlled contention. That can deliver a real 20Mbps (but only if there are only 4 users, or else it's 10GHz LOS with 200MHz of spectrum to have 100 simultaneous connections )

    A big part of the future is mobile broadband connectivity. Fibre is the future too but DSL had it's day. In These "Unsupported areas" should be upgraded with either Fibre or Mobile Broadband that can take more bandwith and in areas with DSL need to get upgraded to fibre, cell towers are good enough in my area, 3-4MBps on Vodafone and 6MB on Meteor BBTG.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,710 ✭✭✭flutered


    the wireles broadband seems to be popular, some providers are giving better speeds than the dsl, yeah i know that is not hard.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    A big part of the future is mobile broadband connectivity.

    A lot of people believe this "factoid" but the reality is something entirely different I'm afraid. LTE cannot deliver as a replacement for fibre too many technical limitations contrary to the marketing departments of the telco companies wishful thinking.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    bealtine wrote: »
    A lot of people believe this "factoid" but the reality is something entirely different I'm afraid. LTE cannot deliver as a replacement for fibre too many technical limitations contrary to the marketing departments of the telco companies wishful thinking.

    Well unless the government can design a system where every 150 feet anywhere in the country there's a wifi hotspot and as you move it switches automatically to a new hotspot and can give every one who wants wifi a connection Mobile Connectivity hasn't had it's day yet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    Well unless the government can design a system where every 150 feet anywhere in the country there's a wifi hotspot and as you move it switches automatically to a new hotspot and can give every one who wants wifi a connection Mobile Connectivity hasn't had it's day yet.

    Pretty much exactly the same for LTE, a mast on every hilltop, is required to provide decent broadband and that isnt going to happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    LTE and Mobile WiMax are pretty much just outdoor "WiFi" on alternate bands that allow handover between bases without losing connection and have a bit more power.

    If you had about x4 to x5 as many LTE bases (there won't be, there will be about the same) as 3G and ONE Wholesale operator with about 120MHz of spectrum, then you could mostly ensure about 4Mbps. (more likely to be 60MHz split among 4 operators!)

    The cost would be about €6billion.

    For less than €2B you can give even rural people FTTH/FFTP/FFTC/FFTK variations from a minimum of 20Mbps for most rural (hybrid Fixed Wireles or copper and Fibre) to 100Mbps (FTTK/FTTC suburban/rural) to 200Mbps+ (Urban).

    Maybe only €1.5B.

    The ONLY point (and it's a good one) for LTE is MOBILE connectivity. In the Car, Coach, Train, on the go. Not for fixed use at all. That would be an expensive waste.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    bealtine wrote: »
    Pretty much exactly the same for LTE, a mast on every hilltop, is required to provide decent broadband and that isnt going to happen.

    Not talking about fast broadband, i'm just saying that mobile broadband hasn't had it's day yet until what i explained can happen


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    I think perhaps you misunderstand the nature of LTE or 3G and WiFi. What you want already exists. It's a Femto cell. It needs real fixed Broadband.

    If you take WiFi and add the ability to automatically handover between bases (hot spots), then you have Mobile WiMax or LTE. WiFi can't handover between hotspots without losing the session and issuing a new IP. Mobile WiMax and LTE can handover between masts and maintain the IP and the session.

    You also need Universal fibre to have a useful density of 3G, LTE, Mobile WiMax or WiFi. The USA now has more Femto cells (3G hotspots with WiFI range) running of private Broadband than 3G on phone masts.

    If every Broadband Modem has 3G and LTE femto cell as well as WiFi, then you have your wish. Ironically it won't happen without universal fibre.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭rebel.ranter


    Ironically I think mobile broadband will actually bring the connectivity of real broadband to places which are currently devoid of DSL/fibre connectivity. Not through mobile connectivity though, what I mean is mobile operators will require fibre backhaul to their sites to attempt to meet their backhaul needs. The fixed providers may then be in a position to capitalise on the mobile operators need, perhaps they could use the opportunity to extend their own reach? I saw some pricing on delivering fibre connectivity to some smaller towns recently, man the costs are huge, it is no wonder fixed providers have limited reach. This country is too expensive to do anything still.
    On the issue of required bandwidth for LTE & available spectrum to operators, who says that 4 independent networks will survive? Ireland is too small for that to continue long term, I think we'll see it reduce to two physical networks meaning there would be more spectrum blocks per physical operator. Or alternatively operators could come up with a combined proposal (obviously to be signed off by Com Reg) to deliver LTE using one set of LTE equipped base stations & let the sales guys fight it out rather than the network guys too.
    I think we will see real sea changes in the Irish mobile telecomms market between now & 2015. The monile phone network cash cow that Watty hates is drying up & will nit be sustained in the long run.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Have you read Comreg's draft proposals?

    What's sensible infrastructure wise and what makes most money for Government via Regulator are not the same sadly.

    There should only be ONE wholesale network, with about 120MHz +120MHz FDD. You may season my hat and watch me eat it if it happens at a "useful" frequency for Mobile use.

    There is no Mobile Cash cow, Not for Data. They make their money from Voice and SMS. My argument is that to get decent data networks for Mobile use the cost outght to be €80 and €160 p.m. not €10 and €20. The current Mobile Data charges aren't sustainable.

    LTE needs at least x4 backhaul and about €1.5B investment to have a network barely the coverage of present 3G. What will the user data costs be to make that profitable?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭rebel.ranter


    Eh, the cash cow is voice & text....

    Maybe there should be only one network but I am saying there will be two.

    Mobile data rates will have to rise to fill the void left by falling voice/text revenue, but price rises will only come with uplifts in services 21/42 Mbps &/or higher data caps. Even with whatever price increases they can make palatable to a customer I agree that a 3G network on its own would not make sense to build if you were to start from scratch, I would not defend that, the business case for a UMTS network is out the window over the long term. The payback gets harder & harder as more & more sites are needed, not for subscriber growth but their demand for extra data/speeds. The market is limited too, much more than voice was, subscriber numbers wise. I would agree with you that continuing to build a network only getting €10-20 a month is bonkers. I have worked out the cost to build a 3G network with a certain rate of average data use per subscriber increase over a 10 year period & it is crackers money even if you heavily discount equipment & vendor license fees. Something will have to take the place of 3G. Operators are stuck with having to offer €20 a month offerings now because that is what people expect.

    I have not read the draft proposal, I have too much else to be thinking about & there are others far more in tune/concerned with what is planned than I need to be. And whatever is included in the proposal it is only "draft" remember. But I do agree that we will not get the "ideal" outcome to deliver an ideal LTE network. So I'll never see you eat your hat! Don't rule out companies going back to the regulator with their own draft proposals & petitions. As I said it will be interesting times in the next few years, I'm sure all the companies involved are really having to consider their options regarding what spectrum to chase, what method they choose to deliver connectivity over the longer term, etc.
    But you are right, backhaul is going to be the greatest hurdle to overcome, I am becoming acutely aware of that every day.
    If you ever want to get an insight into where my logic stems from PM me & it might become clearer. I have worked with at least three people you have worked with in the past BTW.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    21/42Mbps is fantasy for an average speed on Mobile. That would need a network costing maybe €20 Billion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,691 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Lot of talk about waiting for the Government waiting to do this and that but it's not looking likely, were going to be third world within the next 5 years if something serious doesn't happen soon.

    I think it's a given that all nearly all people want quicker broadband access with much higher caps of data. I think the average smart home now uses about 500gb per month, the average house is going to require this in 5 years. None of our networks will be able to deliver this, certainly not dsl/mobile.

    It's time to put a coalition of the willing together and do it ourselves and not wait for the Government.

    I think it's time a private company was formed owned via shares by the ordinary people and business to create the network we require for the future.

    We need to do this ourselves or it's not going to happen.

    Watty if you had some rough figures of what a universal fiber or alternative solution would cost we could get the ball rolling and start seeking investors.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    what I mean is mobile operators will require fibre backhaul to their sites to attempt to meet their backhaul needs. The fixed providers may then be in a position to capitalise on the mobile operators need, perhaps they could use the opportunity to extend their own reach? I saw some pricing on delivering fibre connectivity to some smaller towns recently, man the costs are huge, it is no wonder fixed providers have limited reach. This country is too expensive to do anything still.

    This is true but only if Comreg/DCENR abandons the pretence that mobile INFRASTRUCTURE competition exists or works in the more rural half of the state. Comreg and DCENR refuse to do this.

    If they were to do this then there would be only ONE mast network with all the operators pooling and sharing that mast network and their spectrum in the more rural parts of the state ( RAN sharing as it is know)

    That would require fibre to each mast...and therefore each single 20km square AREA would have fibre running to it to service that single mast.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    That would require fibre to each mast...and therefore each single 20km square AREA would have fibre running to it to service that single mast.

    And if you have fibre running to every mast it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to see fibre going to every house in the state.
    Some DIY schemes could be put in place to run fibre to every village then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty



    I think it's time a private company was formed owned via shares by the ordinary people and business to create the network we require for the future.
    Wasn't that what privatising Eircom was supposed to do?

    The amount that Eircom's debt has been increased by (simply to put money in pockets of people doing "leveraged buyouts" is about enough to pay for TWO luxury universal National Fibre Rollouts. Financial Regulator and Government asleep.
    Watty if you had some rough figures of what a universal fiber or alternative solution would cost we could get the ball rolling and start seeking investors.
    About €1.5B to €2B.

    I hear there are Tumbleweeds in Terminal 2 and the Metro North is progressing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭rebel.ranter


    watty wrote: »
    21/42Mbps is fantasy for an average speed on Mobile. That would need a network costing maybe €20 Billion.

    I am talking about HSPA+ not real 21Mbps for everyone. I have seen 19Mb/s on a 21Mbps enabled site, while nice to see it is mildly annoying that even in a test environment you cannot get 21meg! Obviously the marketing people will have to be a bit more savvy not to sell this as 21Mbps, or in my opinion they should shy away from even saying "up to". Even to offer this level of service the penetration levels of fibre backhaul have to be pretty high

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    If they were to do this then there would be only ONE mast network with all the operators pooling and sharing that mast network and their spectrum in the more rural parts of the state ( RAN sharing as it is know) .

    As I said I don't think we will ever hit having just 1 network, 2 is more of a possibility. RAN sharing is not all it's cracked up to be either, it can create more problems than it solves. It is really only suitable for large sparsely populated areas & it's also more geared to low capacity solutions
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    That would require fibre to each mast...and therefore each single 20km square AREA would have fibre running to it to service that single mast.

    The location of masts is not really determined by square kilometre, it is more determined by population densities. However the point you make about fibre to every mast may start to become a necessity. So this is what I mean when I say the fixed providers of these fibre back haul solutions could extend their reach on their fixed broadband networks because they are building fibre connectivity into mobile operators sites. i.e. They get mobile operators to pay for the most expensive part of the whole process...laying the fibre in the ground.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    I am talking about HSPA+ not real 21Mbps for everyone. I have seen 19Mb/s on a 21Mbps enabled site, while nice to see it is mildly annoying that even in a test environment you cannot get 21meg! Obviously the marketing people will have to be a bit more savvy not to sell this as 21Mbps, or in my opinion they should shy away from even saying "up to". Even to offer this level of service the penetration levels of fibre backhaul have to be pretty high

    Emmm. Physics and maths. If on 7Mbps or 14Mbps mast you are the only user and you get 3.6Mbps, then on 21Mbps HSPA+ you STILL get 3.6Mbps.

    The ever higher speeds are just higher QAM at same symbol rate (as you only have same spectrum) and since you have same Power / Aerials on everything, the higher QAM only applies at a smaller and smaller area near mast. Inverse Square law and Shannon get you every time.

    "Real" 21Mbps HSPA+ or 100Mbps LTE is only possible near a Femto Cell indoors or outdoors if every street has 2 or 3 bases with WiFi range. Even then it's likely real world speed are 1/2 to 1/3 typically.

    And then that's before you share whatever speed that is among the users.

    You do know that 250Mbps, 125, 108Mbps or 54Mbps Wifi can easily be 22Mbps, 11Mbps, 5Mbps or 2Mbps half duplex even with only one user?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,570 ✭✭✭rebel.ranter


    Bear in mind that it is almost 6 years since I worked in a technical role CPICH, Pilot Power, Scrambling Codes, etc. are distant memories at this stage. I was merely commenting on the fact that calling it "HSPA+ 21Mbps" is rubbish simply because it cannot be obtained even in ideal conditions. More about the nomenclature than anything else, I know it is derived for the theoretical capabilities. I completely understand that real world conditions (i.e. distance & other users) will have an effect on what's possible.
    The real gains people will see (only) in the short term from a network's 21Mbps enablement is not actually the 21Mbps feature itself, it is the hike in back haul that usually accompanies 21Mbps enablement. Plus there will be few 21Mbps enabled devices out there to begin with.


Advertisement