Labour's Broadband plan

Amtmann

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

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)

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!

dubhthach

munchkin_utd wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Hogzy

How long woulds such a plan take to implement?

ei.sdraob

munchkin_utd wrote: »

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

Chris_5339762

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

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.

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"

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.

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)

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)?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 . 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.

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.



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

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:

dubhthach

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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

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.

Hogzy

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Sponge Bob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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

up them Schteps

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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!

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 ....

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?

Hogzy

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

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.