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

Labour's Broadband plan

  • 31-01-2011 1:15pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭


    Haven't even read it yet, but it's attached. What think ye?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    The proposal about NetCo is one that should have been done when Eircom was privatised. It looks though that it wouldn't be 100% state owned (like Eirgrid) but would be owned by those who invest in it to build out the FTTH/FTTP network. Given that state (in form of local councils/ESB/Bord Gáis) owns a fair bit of Fibre I'm assuming this would be included in NetCo in exchange for a significant equity stake.
    NetCo would own the passive elements of the infrastructure (the fibre and the network stations) but would be barred from acting in the active elements of the system, i.e. providing broadband services. It would charge a fee to telecoms operators for access to its networks, however it must charge retailers at the same rate.

    This is currently what E-Net does with the MAN's, they lease fibre/ducting to ISP's for example they have a deal with Vodafone that provides the local fibre network connecting all of the vodafone basestations in a locality to their backhaul provider (ESB/BT etc. -- the fibre that would link say Galway back to Dublin). If the MAN's didn't open they would either be forced to:
    • Build their own Fibre network in local towns (expensive)
    • Lease lines from Eircom to base station site -- expensive and slower

    Eircom released plans for doing a Fibre deployment in Wexford town last year as a proof of concept. Given the cost entailed they made plenty of noises about sharing the buildout with other companies. In such a scenario there would then be open access to all partners. Obviously NetCo would allow open-access to any ISP as long as they are willing to pay the fees.

    The €2,000 connection fee per property is an interesting one. They seem to have gotten that figure from Eircom
    The initial cost, which is estimated by Eircom to be €2000 for each FTTH connection

    I wouldn't be surprised if this is an overestimate, FTTH rollouts costs are generally lower in the US (under $1,000). There is alot of work been done of FTTH in the Netherlands so I think we would probably get best cost breakout if we consult with the Dutch.

    I would think the building specs for new homes would need to be changed to automatically include ducting. If a housing estate is already pre-ducted it reduces the cost of Fibre rollout significantly. (Not that there will be alot of construction over next 10 years)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,921 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    it could well be a little superflous to be thinking about spending 2000Euro per household when a private company already launched a satelite last week to provide broadband to the backwaters of ireland.

    A dual strategy is needed, satelite/ wireless broadband to a decent standard for the dispersed rural dwellers + super ultra high speed fixed line for the urban dwellers.
    I would just be worried that the Labour crowd in their sense of fairness would want to wire the most remote of cottages. Imagine, a cottage down a 10km cul de sac with fibre link fit for a data centre, costing the TAXPAYER 100s of thousands!!

    Still, that they have brought a document shows that they recognise that something has to be done.

    And comparing to Holland isnt a good comparison.
    They have a population about 4 times that of the 26 counties
    -BUT concentrated into the space of Leinster
    - AND they dont have crazy places like Leitrim or Cavan with no towns but plenty of one off houses up long lanes.
    Its almost a pure urbanised country. Which is the polar opposite of Ireland!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    it could well be a little superflous to be thinking about spending 2000Euro per household when a private company already launched a satelite last week to provide broadband to the backwaters of ireland.

    A dual strategy is needed, satelite/ wireless broadband to a decent standard for the dispersed rural dwellers + super ultra high speed fixed line for the urban dwellers.
    I would just be worried that the Labour crowd in their sense of fairness would want to wire the most remote of cottages. Imagine, a cottage down a 10km cul de sac with fibre link fit for a data centre, costing the TAXPAYER 100s of thousands!!

    Still, that they have brought a document shows that they recognise that something has to be done.

    And comparing to Holland isnt a good comparison.
    They have a population about 4 times that of the 26 counties
    -BUT concentrated into the space of Leinster
    - AND they dont have crazy places like Leitrim or Cavan with no towns but plenty of one off houses up long lanes.
    Its almost a pure urbanised country. Which is the polar opposite of Ireland!

    Munchkin, my point about the Netherlands is more geared towards the cost in Urban areas. For example Leeuwarden in Friesland has a population equivalent to either Limerick/Galway. They got a FTTH roll out there last year.

    Currently there are over 95 towns in Ireland that have a Fibre MAN which would provide the backbone for any rollout. Likewise the majority of these MAN's have fibre backhaul in place already using either ESB or BT (Bord Gáis are in process of expanding their fibre backhaul network).

    Given that the figure comes from Eircom I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with it by ignoring the state owned Fibre that is already in place.

    The document specifically says this about what you call the "backwaters of Ireland"
    The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Is the transfer to Digital TV not motivated to free up the analogue signal for broadband use? Do we really need to run fibre optics around the country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    mgmt wrote: »
    Is the transfer to Digital TV not motivated to free up the analogue signal for broadband use? Do we really need to run fibre optics around the country.

    Well the spectrum that is freed up can be used for wireless "broadband" though more likely is that it will be used for Mobile phones more then anything. The copper network that is currently in situ (Eircom phone lines) is starting to show it's age and will need to be gradually replaced. The idea been that FTTH would be the future roadmap for this.

    There is plenty of Fibre ran around the country (most Eircom phone exchanges are connected using Fibre -- Sponge Bob would know more about that). Likewise all the new motorways built over last couple years having Ducting in place for Fiber optic cables. Wireless can never compete with Fibre in terms of latency and speed. For example there is at least one FTTH deployment in US (Tennessee) where they offer 1Gbit/s symmetrical for $350 a month (slowest speed is 30Mbit/s symmetrical for $60). As part of the buildout there they are also implementing "Smart meters" for the Electrical grid.

    I think the idea been put across by Labour is that the private sector will help with buildout and thus get equity in the NetCo operating company. If the Fibre is fully open then any operator could offer a triple-play (Broadband/TV/Phone) offering over it. One side affect that was noticed in the Netherlands was that the Cable companies (UPC for example) ended up spending more money to upgrade their network to compete. UPC has spent about €500million over the last 2 years updating their network in Ireland, open access Fibre would obviously compete with them in the areas they currently serve. However it would also allow them to offer services in area that they don't currently have a presence.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    How long woulds such a plan take to implement?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    when a private company already launched a satelite last week to provide broadband to the backwaters of ireland.

    do you have a link for that missed it

    as for labour please please we dont need another quango :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,064 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    It looks to me like Labour have actually investigated this and have an understanding of what is REALLY going on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    do you have a link for that missed it

    as for labour please please we dont need another quango :(



    KA-SAT :: 9° EAST

    Ordered by Eutelsat from EADS Astrium, KA-SAT is entirely innovative in design. The satellite will be configured with over 80 spotbeams, with a network of ten ground stations connecting to the Internet backbone.

    The KA-SAT programme is to deliver efficient resources for the mass-market delivery of the Tooway™ consumer broadband service, targeted at users across Europe and the Mediterranean Basin located beyond range of ADSL networks. With a throughput of over 70 Gigabits per second, KA-SAT will be capable of serving over one million users who expect bandwidth and prices comparable to ADSL2 performance.

    Eutelsat will also drive the development of satellite-based consumer broadband services with triple-play capability, by combining broadband services in the Ka-band, through KA-SAT, with the reception of TV channels in the Ku-band. In order to facilitate the availability of high-performance triple-play equipment at competitive prices, Eutelsat will deploy the KA-SAT satellite to 9° East. This deployment will simplify production of dual-feed antennas transmitting and receiving broadband services in the Ka-band from 9° East, and receiving television in the Ku-band from Eutelsat’s flagship HOT BIRD™ neighbourhood at 13° East
    http://www.eutelsat.com/satellites/9e_ka-sat.html

    ^^^
    I'm guessing the posters talking about this, the SaorSat satellite that has a very focused beam on Ireland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    do you have a link for that missed it

    as for labour please please we dont need another quango :(

    Well going by the document there could potentially be no state holding in the "NetCo" company. Of course given that the state currently owns Fibre assets it makes sense for the state to be a shareholder (along with ISP's, Pension funds etc.). In sense it would probably be like the current situation with Aer Lingus where the state have a shareholding but it's not a "semi-state"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Well going by the document there could potentially be no state holding in the "NetCo" company. Of course given that the state currently owns Fibre assets it makes sense for the state to be a shareholder (along with ISP's, Pension funds etc.). In sense it would probably be like the current situation with Aer Lingus where the state have a shareholding but it's not a "semi-state"

    Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I dont know a whole lot about this but...

    Could we not have a situation where the state retains ownership of the ducts and other such infrastructure? The private companies can have a share in the fibre optic cables themselves and would help pay for future upgrades etc. That way, regardless of the stake the state has in "NetCo", we are still in a strong position and the taxpayer owns what they have paid for.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I dont know a whole lot about this but...

    Could we not have a situation where the state retains ownership of the ducts and other such infrastructure? The private companies can have a share in the fibre optic cables themselves and would help pay for future upgrades etc. That way, regardless of the stake the state has in "NetCo", we are still in a strong position and the taxpayer owns what they have paid for.

    Well this is the situation at the moment regarding the MAN's (Metropolitan Area Networks). Here's the map for Cavan Town

    The ducts and preinstalled Fiber rings are owned in this case by Cavan County Council however a private management company called E-Net runs the infrastructure. If for example a large multi-national wants to setup in Cavan town they could get a 100Mbit/s connection from one of the companies operating on the MAN (backhaul to Dublin provided by ESB).

    Or they could lease Dark fibre from both (MAN, ESB) to say a Datacenter they have in Dublin. In that case they would light with their own equipement (routers on either end) -- basically their own private line between the two locations.

    No matter the scenario in the above case the ownership of ducting/cable stays with the State (Cavan cc or ESB)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    dubhthach wrote: »
    No matter the scenario in the above case the ownership of ducting/cable stays with the State (Cavan cc or ESB)

    Yes but I am asking will that still be the case under Labours broadband plan?
    Will these private companies that buy into NetCo get a share in everything and if so would it not be better if we at least kept the ducting for ourselves (I assume the fibre will need upgrading in the future but it can still use the same ducts)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Yes but I am asking will that still be the case under Labours broadband plan?
    Will these private companies that buy into NetCo get a share in everything and if so would it not be better if we at least kept the ducting for ourselves (I assume the fibre will need upgrading in the future but it can still use the same ducts)?

    Well that's a question we would have to put to Labour. From looking at their document my guess would be no that ownership would be spilt between all the equity owners. Regarding Fiber upgradeability, generally you don't have to replace the fiber itself (it's basically a glass tube) you just put new lasers on either end. For example there's Fibre cable from 80's that's been upgraded from 10mb/s to 10Gb/s. The main cost is usually an engineering one (putting in the ducting), once that's been done once the future cost of upgrading is considerably lower.


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


    This is rather similar to the FG "New Era" plan which is to install FTTH in the 1m more urban premises in the state. If they are rather similar they should be able to agree on a synthesis in a programme for government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    "Broadband 21" is Fine Gael's quango.

    BROADBAND

    Fine Gael will establish "Broadband 21" which will invest €1.8 billion over four years to build a high-speed fibre infrastructure throughout the country. The goal is to get Irish broadband speeds into the top five of OECD countries - with one million Irish homes connected to fibre - by the end of year four.

    The botched privatisation of Eircom, combined with a Government failure to develop a coherent broadband strategy, means that Ireland is now well behind its competitors in broadband. According to the National Competitiveness Council, broadband penetration among firms in Ireland is the second worst among the EU-15, and is particularly low among small businesses. Even where broadband is available, it is often 0f such low quality (bandwidth) that it not capable of supporting the "next generation" services being rolled out in other countries.

    Broadband 21 will amalgamate and build out the diverse telecom assets of existing State companies, including Bord Gais, CIE, ESB and the MANs (managed by Enet for the State), to create a new, pan-national, open-access, next generation broadband network. The associated investment will be paid back by leasing our capacity to telecoms carriers and directly to home and business customers.

    The vast bulk of Broadband 21's €1.8 billion investment in telecoms will be used to drive investment in the so-called "last mile" of the network - the link from the exchange in the town to the cabinet on the street, and from the cabinet on the street to the home. In most areas, this part of the network is still low-capacity copper wire, and is the major obstacle to high-speed broadband connectivity.

    Broadband 21 will enter into discussions with other telecom and cable companies (with a specific focus on Eircom) to upgrade this last mile infrastructure to fibre in the most highly populated areas of the country. We believe that up to one million Irish homes can be connected to fibre over the next four years.
    http://www.new-era.ie/broadband.html


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


    I posted the 'structure' of a Telecoms network here some time back.

    As Ireland is a small country we only need two levels, National and Access.

    The National network should remain in state ownership but the access network ...ie the last mile...is way more complex. A 'buy in' based on service level quality should be permissible.

    Frankly on the access level if the 'copper' owners are prepared to guarantee 100mbits then the state should not proceed with an investment in that area for now save for the national fibre ( ie national fibre to the general area) .

    Each discrete area, say a business park or housing estate or apartment complex, should be treated as one access network proposition. If there is a missing premises in there then the 'incumbent' access network provider must be obliged to complete the network in that area and to a minimum of 100mbit capability.

    Naturally a failure to 'buy in' at 100mbits will prove a market failure exists.

    I am fully aware that copper will not get us beyond 100mbits ( no matter how short and no matter how many pairs you bond) and that fibre will ultimately become necessary but the principle is quite straightforward :)

    Let the market prove it has failed, because generally it will :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    I posted the 'structure' of a Telecoms network here some time back.

    As Ireland is a small country we only need two levels, National and Access.

    The National network should remain in state ownership but the access network ...ie the last mile...is way more complex. A 'buy in' based on service level quality should be permissible.

    Indeed and even if the state owns the National network it doesn't need to be run by a Quango. It can be managed by a third party (such as E-Net with the MAN's or even Veolia and the Luas). The important thing is that proper government policy is put in regarding the provision of Ducting. For example as part of the "Tuam big dig" (New water works in Tuam) they are going to be laying Ducting for Fiber. This is the sort of forward thinking we need, everytime a local authority decides to open street to replace large section of water system they should use it as an opportunity to put in Fiber ducting.


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


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Indeed and even if the state owns the National network it doesn't need to be run by a Quango. It can be managed by a third party (such as E-Net with the MAN's or even Veolia and the Luas).

    Correct, as long as the rules are "non discriminatory" it would be fine. A super eNet would be well able to manage such a network. The quango to manage policy should be tiny once the network is created. I would give it to Forfás myself.

    During construction a strictly time limited quango should manage the job. DigCo or HorseInThereLadsCo.
    The important thing is that proper government policy is put in regarding the provision of Ducting. For example as part of the "Tuam big dig" (New water works in Tuam) they are going to be laying Ducting for Fiber.

    You might think :D . They are in fact filling in a missing MAN while replacing the water. Tuam never got a MAN because a decision was made to trial BPL there instead. Don't get me started on that particular snakeoil :cool:

    The other 'missing' MANs are Ennis Castlebar and Shannon.

    Leaving aside the missing MAN issue for the moment the biggest problem is stranded MANs. Many if not most MANs ( numerically) are not connected to any backhaul and are therefore stranded.

    Both the FG and Labour plans intend to remedy this gross oversight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    I see that IBEC has a "Telecommunications and Internet forum". They've produced a report which puts total NGA (Next-Gen Access) cost (FTTH for 90%, LTE for rest) at €2.5 billion. Interesting it would seem that we spent the equivalent of €10billion (in adjusted currency) during the 80's switching to a fully digital telecoms system -- which Fianna Fáil then privatised :rolleyes:

    TIF document here:

    From the report we see the following breakdown of costs for provision of both FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet -- uses copper telephone lines for "last mile") and FTTH.

    ftth-cost.JPG

    As can be seen Ducting is the major issue. However once that's in place you don't have to spend money in 10years time when we all want to have 10Gbit/s to our home connection or 100Gbit/s in 20 years time -- you just switch out the networking equipment on either side of Fibre cable


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    The implication seems to be (from what I have read above) that ducting would be needed and it would be hugely costly, especially in rural areas.
    Which makes me wonder if distribution of the FTTC in rural areas over (along with) the existing ESB power lines has really been investigated and costed.
    I could envision a case of FTTC on power line poles, to a transmitter for fixed wireless to serve rural areas as being quite cost effective in comparison.

    Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes: :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    The implication seems to be (from what I have read above) that ducting would be needed and it would be hugely costly, especially in rural areas.
    Which makes me wonder if distribution of the FTTC in rural areas over (along with) the existing ESB power lines has really been investigated and costed.
    I could envision a case of FTTC on power line poles, to a transmitter for fixed wireless to serve rural areas as being quite cost effective in comparison.

    Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes: :(

    John I would think it's the most remote rural dwellers that stuff like wireless would be aimed at. For majority of rural dwellers it wouldn't be an issue especially if FTTC was used. In such a scenario they maintain their copper Telephone line but it's set at say a max length of 1.5-2km. It and all the phones lines of surrounding houses are connected to a Cabinet which has Fibre backhaul to the rest of network. This way the end customer can get an *DSL product which quite a high speed. The real problem at moment in rural Ireland is "line quality" often due to the long distance that houses are from the local exchange.

    The hybrid network that UPC is building out is basically FTTC the key difference is instead of using a phone line to connect to your house the use the pre-existing coax cable (HFC - Hybrid Fibre Coax). At the moment UPC is offering a max 100Mb/s down / 6Mb/s up on their network. Personally I have the 30Mbit/s product and it works like a charm.

    Regarding power-line poles (Utility poles) in the US alot of FTTH builds are done using them instead of ducting. In Ireland the ESB has wrapped fibre around their main power lines (eg. their backhaul link between Dublin - Galway). In general I would regard ducting as considerably more durable especially given the amount of wind we get in Ireland :D

    From a point of view of Wireless/LTE (where mobile is going) every base station needs to have a fibre link connecting it back to the core network.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes: :(

    They may have the needs but I think it is about time that people in extreme rural areas realise that due to the location they have chosen to live in they are unable to receive the same standard of service that people in Urban areas do. You do not see people in the back arse of 'typical remote county' complaining that they do not have access to the same level of hospital care within a short distance than say their urban counterparts. So why should people complain that they do not have the same internet speeds.

    If decide to live far away from urban centers then you must bare the brunt of your decision in the fact that providing the same level of service to these areas is not cost effective and it plain and simple isnt fair when the money can be spent on other projects.
    Equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally.


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


    Nobody is suggesting that fibre be rolled 2 miles up a boreen to serve one house. If we covered 50% of the area of the state with Universal FTTx ( x = copper or fibre depending) and at suitably short distances for the copper segments we would cover around 70% of households and businesses that way.

    The 'up to' 30% of the population living in the other 50% of the state by area would receive no such guarantee, it would cost too much. They would have to have wireless. The Labour document even suggests satellite but I would not tolerate satellite for latency reasons, certainly not in the medium term beyond 5 years.


    The only guarantee in that instance would be that in 50% of the state nobody would be more than c.2km from a fibre and in the other 50% of the state they would be no more than 20Km from a fibre....not least because high quality backhaul for wireless and 4g mobile is a further requirement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Hogzy wrote: »
    They may have the needs but I think it is about time that people in extreme rural areas realise that due to the location they have chosen to live in they are unable to receive the same standard of service that people in Urban areas do. You do not see people in the back arse of 'typical remote county' complaining that they do not have access to the same level of hospital care within a short distance than say their urban counterparts. So why should people complain that they do not have the same internet speeds.

    If decide to live far away from urban centers then you must bare the brunt of your decision in the fact that providing the same level of service to these areas is not cost effective and it plain and simple isnt fair when the money can be spent on other projects.
    Equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally.

    .... and that indeed is the attitude I posted about.
    Unfortunately most people I know are not like you and never had a choice where to be born, be raised, even work and live.

    Most rural dwellers I know complain bitterly about hospital services and what there was being cut; lack of public transport services etc etc.

    You seem to be equating a broadband service with a service like a cinema.

    Broadband service, like electricity, water, public transport, health and other such services should be a 'public service' and available to all citizens without favour.


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


    Broadband service, like electricity, water, public transport, health and other such services should be a 'public service' and available to all citizens without favour.

    Not the same service in Urban and Rural areas though :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 227 ✭✭up them Schteps


    Broadband service, like electricity, water, public transport, health and other such services should be a 'public service' and available to all citizens without favour.

    That is absolute rubbish! The government have no obligation to provide a service like broadband as it is not a right. Water, health etc. are necessities..... broadband is not!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    I had a read through the Labour document and I hope that they are held to their confirmation of the definition of NGB in that document ....... a symmetrical service for all users -- 100Mb/s up and 100Mb/s down, or greater.

    I look forward to such a service ..... we'll see ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Not the same service in Urban and Rural areas though :)

    Well it would seem that the intention of the Labour document is that there should be similar services in rural areas ...... why mention Aran, which I think we can both agree is more remote than most rural Ireland, if that is not the intention? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Unfortunately most people I know are not like you and never had a choice where to be born, be raised, even work and live.
    It doesnt matter about the people you know. The fact of the matter is the majority of the population lives in Urban areas which makes such a service investment friendly.
    You seem to be equating a broadband service with a service like a cinema.

    Broadband service, like electricity, water, public transport, health and other such services should be a 'public service' and available to all citizens without favour.
    I never said they should not have access to such services. I said rural dwellers do not have a right to the same level of standard as their urban counterparts. This reasoning is seen in Health care. Cork University Hospital is a Level 1 Trauma center. Do you think every little town in Ireland should, according to you, have the right to access such a high standard of health care within say 20km. NO because that is not cost effective. It is obvious that such a high level of service is only fiscially viable in built up urban areas where they can make the most of of their investment.

    It is your attitude and sense of entitlement that can make this country extremely backwards.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭smellslikeshoes


    That is absolute rubbish! The government have no obligation to provide a service like broadband as it is not a right. Water, health etc. are necessities..... broadband is not!

    I bet there was people saying things like this during the rural electrification scheme in the 60s and 70s. Sure what do them country folk need electricity for? It's not a necessity sure they have been doing fine with candles and oil lamps up to now.

    This is the 21st century, people need broadband for work/business/education no matter where they are. Broadband is already on the level of being a necessity but a lot of people in Ireland don't realise it because we are so far behind.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Folks can we keep the discussion focus around Broadband infrastructure and not about other posters perceived sense of "entitlement"

    During the 1980's the Goverenment invested about €10billion (in todays money) in Telecom Éireann, this investment in core infrastructure was then privatised by Fianna Fáil. What is been proposed at the moment is that the state uses the money left in the National Pension Fund (after bailout etc.) to invest in Infrastructure that will give a return. There's about €5billion left, if the state was to contribute €1billion and private investors the other €1billion we would end up with a baseline speed of 100Mb/s for 90%+ of the population (no matter if they are urban or rural).

    I would think such a project could be cordinated with the following:
    • Water pipe replacement/water metering
    • Smart Metering of Electricity

    The investment would provide considerable more return then what we are getting out of NAMA for one. Even on a basic setup, if the "NetCO" was to charge €10 euro line rental to every connected premise a month:
    • €10 x 1,000,000 premises x 12months = €120million per anum

    With such a "line rental" charge the state investment in infrastructure would be covered in 8years. Operating costs (Opex) are considerably lower for a Fibre infrastructure compared to copper. In general you need less staff for maintenance and it uses 25 times less power.


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


    Let me be quite clear.There is No Way the State can justify a Universal Fibre to the Premises project.

    The National Broadband scheme, inadequate crapheap that it is, covers the 10% of the population that are spread across the LEAST populated 33% of the state. The 'densest' 10% of the population occupy around 1% of the state.

    The cost difference is pretty much linear. Reaching the most dispersed 10% with fibre would cost 33x reaching the least dispersed 10%.

    It is imperative that we decouple the areas where this is a good investment from the areas where it is a crap idea. An urban/rural split is guaranteed. I do not rule out the possibility of rural people getting out there and installing the network themselves but the taxpayer will not do it. Maybe a smart metering 'incentive' could be introduced tied to a reduced standing charge .....country people pay for their electricity meters you see. Hoever smart metering is a standards free zone and is therefore pie in the sky right now :D

    Neither Labour nor FG propose to go beyond around 1m premises and there are just over 2m homes and businesses in the state.

    Instructively UPC cable covers around 850k premises OF WHICH 650k can get some class of Broadband and that 12 years after they started to upgrade their cable. UPC will be very slow to reach the other 200k premises they pass. They have not built any new network in years, much of Dublin City centre has no cable BB.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Folks can we keep the discussion focus around Broadband infrastructure and not about other posters perceived sense of "entitlement" .

    The required infrastructure is surely dependent on the level of service it is supposed to deliver, and where.

    Just as the RTE digital TV service found a solution of using a satellite service (yet to be proved of course) in conjunction with terrestrial transmission to solve the problem of supplying that service to areas which are incapable of receiving the terrestrially transmitted signal ...... and most importantly without any reduction in supplied service level with the alternative method .... so too it is not unreasonable to expect a similar level of service, over whatever infrastructure might be suitable, for the provision of broadband services to the whole country.

    If that service is fibre with power lines to local areas, and 'last mile' by fixed wireless, then fine ..... or any other suitable distribution method, maybe even satellite; presumably the most cost effective in the long term should be used.

    The level of service and where it is to be delivered will determine to a large extent what means/infrastructure will be required.

    regards.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    John well for the 10% of population that wouldn't be covered by FTTC/FTTH what would be provided is access via LTE (Upgrade path in Mobiles). At the moment the "National Broadband scheme" is based around using the Mobile phone infrastructure to provide "Midband" services to underserved areas.

    LTE is a "pre-4G" tech. The specification provides downlink peak rates of at least 100 Mbps, an uplink of at least 50 Mbps and RAN round-trip times of less than 10 ms. The upgrade path which is fully 4G is "LTE Advanced" with peakspeeds of 1Gbs downlink/ 500Mbs uplink (Ratification of standard this year)

    To provide for this sort of bandwidth Mobile phone base stations are going to need high quality Fibre links to network backbone. Even if you get a 20 to 1 contention rate on an LTE "dongle" that's potentially 5Mbs/2.5Mbs service.

    Verizon has just launched their LTE network in the US so we can expect to start seeing our Mobile phone companies rolling out LTE in the next 18months.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Hogzy wrote: »
    I never said they should not have access to such services. I said rural dwellers do not have a right to the same level of standard as their urban counterparts.

    In this case .... Labour's Next Generation Broadband plan ..... has its stated minimum service as 100Mb/s symmetrical or greater.

    One then has to decide whether this service is to be available to all citizens or not.

    A lesser service is not Next Generation Broadband as laid out in the document.


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



    The level of service and where it is to be delivered will determine to a large extent what means/infrastructure will be required.

    Very true. I will list these levels of service for ease of reference. I believe that NOBODY in the STATE should be more than 20km from an open access fibre no matter how rural. The National Fibre Backbone must be built to within that distance of every citizen.

    However while that would cost in the low €100s of millions it will be a one off cost.

    In the last 20km we decide on service levels and densities depending on population etc. This means we must have a menu of access network topologies for all of these areas and we must select the appropriate ones that we are to build out in those areas...or indeed go wireless.

    Here is the menu, everyone lives in an area that is classifiable according to this scheme.


    1. FTTP, Fibre to the premises on Exclusive fibre ( called FTP or P2P , eg for an office or workplace), National Backbone to within 2-5km of every premises serves on this topology.

    2. FTTP, Fibre to the premises On Shared Fibre , ( called PON , EPON / GPON / GEPON ) . The advantage is that the shared loop can be up to 30km long with the National Backbone built to within 10km of the served premises at most. This option is the MINIMUM spec that will deliver 100mbits Symettrical. None of the following ones will.

    3. FTTN, fibre to the node , high density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 1000m/ 1km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting VSDL2 at up to 40mbit speeds ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre) . These areas are also the best candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future. If you went within 500m you could maybe do 100mbits symettrical.

    4. FTTN, fibre to the node , low density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 2000m/2km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting ASDL2 at up to 25mbit speeds, possibly VDSL very close to the node ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre). These areas are outlier candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future, many are on URBAN fringes, eg Carnmore and Bushypark near Galway city but have insufficent populations for the high density model.

    5. FTTN-SBXS*, fibre to the node somewhat rural density. This would being fibre to within 10km of every citizen in the area but would normally teminate on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter as well as to the local exchange. If a community wants to proceed from there they can dig a PON out from that mast. Population density and line quality probably does not make VDSL or ADSL worthwhile so if you start digging you might as well keep digging :D

    6. FTTN-SBRS%, fibre to the node very rural density. This would being fibre to within 20km of every citizen on the state but would normally teminate that fibre on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter EVEN to the local exchange. It is unlikely that a low density community can afford a PON given the cost of digging per person shared. Furthermore there is a lot more wireless spectrum here because there are so few people. They are welcome to start digging all the same :) Many of these areas have a lot of holiday homes owned by affluent urbanites who may well contribute cash ...if not labour.

    FTTN-SBXS* = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Xtraurban Specification
    FTTN-SBRS% = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Rural Specification

    Short Tutorial with Colour Pictures

    http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers%2FGPONvP2P.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭user1842


    There should be no cost in building this network or maybe im just looking at it wrong.

    1. I read it will cost €2000 per home for FTTH so just have line rental cover this. Line rental of €10 per month for 20 years = €2400. Just get a EU infrastructure loan over 20 years paid for by line rental. The extra €400 covers the interest (loan would be a 1% per year interest loan)

    2. The the cost to maintain the network is born by the telco's. Just charge them a access fee for the network.

    Sorry im obviously looking at this way to simply but what is line rental for then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Very true. I will list these levels of service for ease of reference. I believe that NOBODY in the STATE should be more than 20km from an open access fibre no matter how rural. The National Fibre Backbone must be built to within that distance of every citizen.

    However while that would cost in the low €100s of millions it will be a one off cost.

    In the last 20km we decide on service levels and densities depending on population etc. This means we must have a menu of access network topologies for all of these areas and we must select the appropriate ones that we are to build out in those areas...or indeed go wireless.

    Here is the menu, everyone lives in an area that is classifiable according to this scheme.


    1. FTTP, Fibre to the premises on Exclusive fibre ( called FTP or P2P , eg for an office or workplace), National Backbone to within 2-5km of every premises serves on this topology.

    2. FTTP, Fibre to the premises On Shared Fibre , ( called PON , EPON / GPON / GEPON ) . The advantage is that the shared loop can be up to 30km long with the National Backbone built to within 10km of the served premises at most. This option is the MINIMUM spec that will deliver 100mbits Symettrical. None of the following ones will.

    If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

    I very much doubt that either of the above is the intention.

    It would be of interest to know how the Labour party thinks the system could be rolled out so that all citizens will have access to NGB.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

    I very much doubt that either of the above is the intention.

    It would be of interest to know how the Labour party thinks the system could be rolled out so that all citizens will have access to NGB.

    +1
    I think that document has added 'sweetner' because there is an election around the corner and there is some serious competition for Labour seats.

    I really think labour are trying to appeal to the young voter with their iPhone/android apps and their sexy internet plans. Not that the only people who use the internet are young people. It is obviously a major resource for all things commercial and which tbh we need to update anyway if we hope to quash are unemployment figures in anyway.


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


    If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.

    If you brought the fibre to within 200m of every premises in my Access Topology Case 3 then you could supply 100mbits symmetrical over VDSL2 "Profile 30a". However this profile intended for the basement of a tower block with 100 apartments stacked above....and as an alternative to fibring the block. Unsurprisingly this ultra short and ultra fast for of DSL is clled Fibre to the basement or FTTB. For practical purposes we should consider a 1km loop and who would benefit.

    In most cases where VDSL2 could be deployed at Profile 8 or 12 speeds the customer is maybe 5000m plus from an ADSL or possibly ADSL2 exchange on the edge of an Enfield or Athenry or Mountrath or Loughrea or Tuam and with the single local exchange in the centre of town.

    At 5000m plus it does not matter what they do to your exchange because you are too far away to see any improvement. In the case of both Access Topology Case 3 and Access Topology Case 4 the exchange is deliberately brought closer to the end user.

    However eircom will never own these new exchanges, not after the last fiasco they caused :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Tremelo wrote: »
    Haven't even read it yet, but it's attached. What think ye?

    This plan does not propose fibre for all (some get satellite / wireless:
    The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH2, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas. It would replace the aging copper network that is currently in existence

    Who will pay?
    According to the document the cash will come from private business:
    The purpose of NetCo is to engender a private sector solution to the problem.
    But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

    The document mentions 'market failure' but it doesn't say which of the recognised market failures are taking place: is it externality, public goods, monopoly, monopsony, oligopoly or oligopsony? Or do they just mean that the market has 'failed' in the same way that the market has failed to provide a Porsche dealership in Ballydehob.

    The document does refer darkly to eircom as the source of the problem. It doesn't make clear what eircom have done wrong or how a government action will correct this. It says they have been obstructive in LLU but incumbents in every country try to obstruct LLU.

    The one thing I can't find in the document is what government action is proposed. If it's a purely private venture then government won't be needed.

    Where is the justification that a single private broadband provider would work better than multiple competing broadband providers? Right now I have a choice of BB from 24Mbit dsl to 100Mbit Cable or 10Mbit WiMax all at no cost to the state.


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


    dynamick wrote: »
    Who will pay? According to the document the cash will come from private business: But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

    Depending on what is done exactly a network can be rapidly cash generating, DSL Cabinets in particular.

    Another function for a national fibre network is mobile mast backhaul. A spectrum licencing round can take that into account.
    Where is the justification that a single private broadband provider would work better than multiple competing broadband providers? Right now I have a choice of BB from 24Mbit dsl to 100Mbit Cable or 10Mbit WiMax all at no cost to the state.

    Such a choice is only available to around 500,000 people in the state, mainly in selected suburbs of major towns. What about the other 4m people ? Cable BB is in critically short supply in Central Business Districts of major cities where most SME activity occurs and is simply not available in Business Parks.

    Sink the Bananas kindly posted a pair of useful diagrams in another thread, they illustrate some of the technicalities discussed earlier in this thread.

    1. Fibre to the (whatever ) or FTTx Options. Illustrated.

    450px-FTTX.png
    AND

    2. Cable Broadband Topology. Modern optical nodes ( post 2005) serve fewer premises in my opinion.

    800px-HFC_Network_Diagram.svg.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,048 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    dynamick wrote: »
    This plan does not propose fibre for all (some get satellite / wireless:

    No, but it does say that everyone, apparently without exception, will have 100Mb/s (symmetrical) connection available to them.
    The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH2, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas. It would replace the aging copper network that is currently in existence.

    ... and yes ...... who will pay? Those who sign up for the service I would guess, but maybe it is time Labour politicians were asked that question.
    But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?

    I expect the answer would be along the lines of 'it is too much risk to expect any one company to take on their own, but the Labour party in gov will facilitate the sharing of the risk amongst interested parties' ..... and the provision of the ducting etc etc for the fibre most likely.

    All guesswork of course, but the document is very sparse on details :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I had a quick flick down through Fine Gael's NewEra and Labour's Plan for Digital Ireland. It seems they have both forgotten which side of the political spectrum they are on.

    Fine Gael are proposing Broadband 21 which will invest €1.8bn and "will be paid back by leasing our capacity to telecoms carriers and directly to home and business customers", which seem kind of left wing to me.

    Labour want NetCo which will "bring together multiple partners to make this project work, with each owning the percentage of the network that they put in" where "If you fund 20% of the project, you own 20% of the lines". This seems like a right wing approach to me.

    Anyway, it seems to me that Labour's plan does not allow for much competition. A small number of companies could each buy big shares and they would control the market. At least with FGs plan you could potentially have an infinite number of providers which would mean lots of competition (ie. good for consumers).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I had a quick flick down through Fine Gael's NewEra and Labour's Plan for Digital Ireland. It seems they have both forgotten which side of the political spectrum they are on.

    Fine Gael are proposing Broadband 21 which will invest €1.8bn and "will be paid back by leasing our capacity to telecoms carriers and directly to home and business customers", which seem kind of left wing to me.

    Labour want NetCo which will "bring together multiple partners to make this project work, with each owning the percentage of the network that they put in" where "If you fund 20% of the project, you own 20% of the lines". This seems like a right wing approach to me.

    Anyway, it seems to me that Labour's plan does not allow for much competition. A small number of companies could each buy big shares and they would control the market. At least with FGs plan you could potentially have an infinite number of providers which would mean lots of competition (ie. good for consumers).

    Indeed, the Fine Gael approach is basically an extension of the MAN's (Metropolitan Area networks) which are owned by the state (via the county councils). Any ISP is allowed offer service over the MAN infrastructure as long as they are willing to pay the relevant charges.

    The running of these was awarded via contract for a fix number of years to E-Net. http://www.e-net.ie/

    In my opinion there is no reason why these can't form the backbone of any proposed project. They could also use the fibre ducting that the NRA installed along the new motorways.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Indeed, the Fine Gael approach is basically an extension of the MAN's (Metropolitan Area networks) which are owned by the state (via the county councils). Any ISP is allowed offer service over the MAN infrastructure as long as they are willing to pay the relevant charges.

    The running of these was awarded via contract for a fix number of years to E-Net. http://www.e-net.ie/

    In my opinion there is no reason why these can't form the backbone of any proposed project. They could also use the fibre ducting that the NRA installed along the new motorways.

    As you say, we have the backbone of the network. Is there any real need to allow private companies to buy into this. I know we will still have to spend a lot of money to get quality broadband but with the money we have already spent, will we be giving up more by allowing private companies to take a share in it. I mean, if they get a share in the entire network, are the private companies also getting ownership of something that the taxpayer has already paid for, ie. they get more than they pay for?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Well I think that's a question we'll need to put to Labour when they come knocking on the door :D . Personally I believe the actual infrastructure should be state owned (like the electricity distribution system -- Eirgrid).

    Given the cost it could be a case of doing a portion of the buildout as a PPP, personally though I think we should use some of money leftover in the Pensions fund. The scheme would easy pay itself back as well as make a profit for the NPF (national pension fund), especially as it would mean nearly all internet connections would be using it (eg. all the isp's would be paying rental for each line etc -- maintenance is considerably lower then existing copper network)


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


    Nice Diagram Below of the different FTT(whatever) Topologies that are possible. It is from Xyxel who are trying to sell product but it is still rathe rnice. Yes that is a Broadband Enabled Exchange hanging on a pole in the middle of it :)

    If anybody is confused here is the simple explanation.

    The fastest and ONLY futureproof way to BB enable the country is fibre everywhere. This would cost a fortune so fibre is used up to 'a point' and then we REUSE existing phone or tv cable to do the last bit to your house. The last bit would be a mile or two at most not the 5 miles that a telephone line could reach nowadays. The new fibre is called FTTx ...because the x could be inside yoru home or up to a mile or two away.

    Sourced From http://www.zyxel.fr/publications/f/GUIDE%20FTTX%202010.pdf

    fttxarchitectures.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    I had forgotten that the Australian goverenment is to spend $43billion AUSD over the next several years making sure 90%+ of population have FTTH (fibre to the home). See here:
    Some highlights:
    • The NBN will deliver world class broadband infrastructure to all Australians;
    • The $43 billion total capital cost of the NBN is a conservative estimate and there are opportunities to significantly reduce the build cost;
    • The peak investment required by Government is estimated at $26 billion by the end of year 7, of which $18.3 billion will be required over the next four years;
    • Government should retain full ownership of the NBN until the roll out is complete to ensure that its policy objectives are met – including its competition objectives;
    • The fibre component of the NBN should be extended from 90 to 93 per cent and cover the 1.3 million new premises expected to be built by 2017-18;
    • Entry level wholesale prices on the fibre should be set at around $30-35 per month for basic broadband 20Mbps plus voice service, to drive affordable retail prices and better value for money for consumers compared to what is available today;
    • Fibre to the premise is widely accepted as the optimal future proof technology with wireless broadband a complementary rather than a substitute technology;
    • Next generation wireless and satellite services will deliver peak speeds of at least 12 Mbps (and much higher for many wireless users). Satellite services will deliver average data rates which are more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today and much higher than average DSL usage today;
    • NBN Co can build a strong and financially viable business case with the Study estimating it will be earnings positive by year six and able to pay significant distributions on its equity following completion of the rollout; and
    • The Government can expect a return on its equity investment sufficient to fully cover its cost of funds.

    Implementation study here:

    If there was a wholesale price of €20 per line in Ireland you'd end up with a return of: (20 x 12 x 1million) = €240million a year


  • Advertisement
Advertisement