Program for Government

clohamon

http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/programme_for_national_government.pdf

p15

A Next General Telecoms Network: NewERA will co-invest with the private sector and commercial semi State sector to provide next generation broadband to every home and business in the state. This will be achieved by delivering fibre to the home or kerb for 90% of homes and businesses in Ireland with the remaining 10% provided with high speed mobile or satellite broadband.

P41

The primary priority for investment in ICT in the immediate term will be the integration of ICT in teaching and learning across the curriculum and investing in broadband development to ensure schools have access to fibre-powered broadband. Investment in ICT will be maximised through pooling of ICT procurement.

p59

Gaeltacht regions will benefit from the jobs action plan outlined in this document. Under our proposals, we will deliver new job creation prospects to Gaeltacht regions. We will invest in energy, broadband and water infrastructure, creating the modern infrastructure needed to attract and support new businesses and jobs. We will also strongly support the potential for jobs in tourism and marine activities. We will continue to support the Irish language broadcasting and arts sector.

p62

• We will mandate the regulator to require all broadband providers to publish average speeds for each package.
• We will restrict misleading advertisements relating to monthly caps.
• We will introduce a new government rating system so that home owners and tenants can assess broadband facilities easily.

watty

The 10% can be done with 20Mbps minimum Fixed Wireless.

Mobile and satellite isn't a solution, just an excuse.

bealtine

clohamon wrote: »

This will be achieved by delivering fibre to the home or kerb for 90% of homes and businesses in Ireland with the remaining 10% provided with high speed mobile or satellite broadband.

This clearly demonstrates that WISPs need a better PR campaign, if they aren't even noticed in a program for government, as being a viable alternative for the local loop. The WISPs need to shout louder and in one voice otherwise they'll continue to be ignored.

watty

Fixed wireless can deliver Broadband. That's proven

Satellite and Mobile can't, not even LTE nor Ka-Sat. Also proven

rob808

watty wrote: »

Fixed wireless can deliver Broadband. That's proven

Satellite and Mobile can't, not even LTE nor Ka-Sat. Also proven

The only problems is the last 10% might not be able to get Fixed wireless so mobile broadband and satellite are best to reach those people

watty

Not true,

In fact the last 10% can even have fibre if you are prepared to pay. Fixed Wireless is cheaper than Mobile or Satellite in reality for 20Mbps.

Mobile or Satellite can't deliver Broadband. Fibre or Fixed wireless (minimum 20Mbps) can be delivered anywhere in Ireland, the deciding factor is cost.

Anywhere Mobile can deliver to, Fixed Wireless can do 8x to 20x better in the same bandwidth. Many different Fixed Wireless systems exist from 20Mbps single user to 1Gbps single user links, 20Mbps minimum 10:1 contention for 45 subscribers on a mast to 20Mbps 10:1 Contention for 300 subscribers on a mast. Any band from 400MHz to 22GHz depending on Terrain. A choice of WiFi Bridge (1 user, 5km 20Mbps), Professional PTP Microwave (up to 1Gbps or more), Fixed WiMax and Wireless DOCSIS. Mix and match per locality.

21Mbps 3G/HSPA sectors can do less than 2Mbps for only 50 subscribers (less than 6 connecting at once for Web TV). 100Mbps LTE about 4Mbps for 150 subscribers. But no assurance of speed, too high latency and no control of contention or guarantee of even of connecting. 100Mbps LTE needs 4x spectrum and 5 times power for same range to get the increased speed.

Everyone can get Fibre, It might be decided to use Fixed Wireless for 10% to save money. But say the 10% should have Mobile or Satellite is a kick in the teeth to Rural Ireland as it basically is doing nothing. Unless there is the true universal obligation and commitment to a minimum Broadband of 20Mbps, then 10% doing nothing can be 15% or even 20%.

The operators of the Fibre, Mobile and Satellite all make more money and 10% to 20% never ever get Broadband.

It has to be for 100%, but can include Fixed Wireless. You can as easily get fibre as ESB to any location. Fixed Wireless is easier and cheaper if it's 1.5km to 50km away from anyone else.

rob808

watty wrote: »

Not true,

In fact the last 10% can even have fibre if you are prepared to pay. Fixed Wireless is cheaper than Mobile or Satellite in reality for 20Mbps.

Mobile or Satellite can't deliver Broadband. Fibre or Fixed wireless (minimum 20Mbps) can be delivered anywhere in Ireland, the deciding factor is cost.

Anywhere Mobile can deliver to, Fixed Wireless can do 8x to 20x better in the same bandwidth. Many different Fixed Wireless systems exist from 20Mbps single user to 1Gbps single user links, 20Mbps minimum 10:1 contention for 45 subscribers on a mast to 20Mbps 10:1 Contention for 300 subscribers on a mast. Any band from 400MHz to 22GHz depending on Terrain. A choice of WiFi Bridge (1 user, 5km 20Mbps), Professional PTP Microwave (up to 1Gbps or more), Fixed WiMax and Wireless DOCSIS. Mix and match per locality.

21Mbps 3G/HSPA sectors can do less than 2Mbps for only 50 subscribers (less than 6 connecting at once for Web TV). 100Mbps LTE about 4Mbps for 150 subscribers. But no assurance of speed, too high latency and no control of contention or guarantee of even of connecting. 100Mbps LTE needs 4x spectrum and 5 times power for same range to get the increased speed.

Everyone can get Fibre, It might be decided to use Fixed Wireless for 10% to save money. But say the 10% should have Mobile or Satellite is a kick in the teeth to Rural Ireland as it basically is doing nothing. Unless there is the true universal obligation and commitment to a minimum Broadband of 20Mbps, then 10% doing nothing can be 15% or even 20%.

The operators of the Fibre, Mobile and Satellite all make more money and 10% to 20% never ever get Broadband.

It has to be for 100%, but can include Fixed Wireless. You can as easily get fibre as ESB to any location. Fixed Wireless is easier and cheaper if it's 1.5km to 50km away from anyone else.

Let me ask you question what good would FTTC do for a person who line could only accept 1mb what like speed would that person get on a FTTC line hard question i know.

watty

No-one would get less than 20Mbps on FTTC.

The line is 1Mbps because it goes to cabinet (shared by other nearby houses) on its own pair (or two pair cable) and then via long noisy shared cable with at least one pair per house and loads of crosstalk and loss all the way from cabinet to the exchange.

If the house is more than 1.5km (or less than 20Mbps) from the local cabinet (rare), then it would get pair bonding, coax cable, fibre, new closer cabinet or fixed wireless link at a minimum of 20Mbps to the nearest fibre node. Once at Fibre the distance is irrelevant.

If an existing cabinet is 4km from exchange and only 500m from your house, today you might have only 1Mbps and with FTTC at that cabinet location you would have 80Mbps to 100Mbps.

Most lines are less than <3Mbps because of shared cable from the local cabinet to exchange, and distance of that. Not because of the line from the local cabinet.

The point of a universal obligation is that you do what ever is needed to make the 10% of people too far from a cabinet to have real Broadband by some method, which might even be FTTH (Fibre to the home) as fibre can get any place ESB can.

lucernarian

From what I remember of Eircom documents which discussed FTTC rollouts and the likes (many press releases but little action outside of Priory Park and Dundrum areas), something of the order of 30% of phone lines are not served by any cabinet though the large majority of those lines would be less than 2km I'd expect. For smaller exchanges with larger areas to cover, the number of lines not covered by any cabinet increases significantly in my experience in the northeast of Ireland.

Another thing, eircom rarely seems to install cabinets beyond main radial routes on the edge of a village or town boundary (also from what I see in the northeast). Those who live further away from any exchange and cabinet would account for a small but not miniscule amount of lines, perhaps between 5 and 10% if I use the exchange areas of Drogheda, Ardee, Dunleer, Termonfeckin, Collon, Julianstown, Duleek and Castlebellingham as the examples I'm most familiar with.

Less than 10% is fairly uncommon yet common enough that it could add significantly to the cost. My fear would be that govt/industry would be tempted to lump all those cases into a "mobile broadband" service when a few new well-placed cabinets would solve the problem. Then, if these MSANs are placed in villages roughly in-between exchanges, it would take quite some effort to redirect lines in the (rural) area from both exchanges to the nearer MSAN or RSU or whatever they're called. Either there are possibilities to bring fibre to new cabinets that only serve a hundred lines or less, or work is done to re-route lines in the area.

rob808

What could our new Goverment do with 1.8 Billion euro if going to invest in comm .Would they have enough money for universal FTTH network or just half & half FTTC in 4 years time plus do you think they can get isp to invest because i say we could have a FTTH network and be away head of uk with FTTC ,

watty

You could do universal BB with 90% fttc, fttp, with 100% population BB, minimum 20Mbps (fixed wireless for some) for 1.5B to 2B no problem.

We have to make real Broadband at minimum 20Mbps a legal universal provision or else 10% will never ever get broadband. (Mobile isn't Broadband, LTE won't be either).

rob808

watty wrote: »

You could do universal BB with 90% fttc, fttp, with 100% population BB, minimum 20Mbps (fixed wireless for some) for 1.5B to 2B no problem.

We have to make real Broadband at minimum 20Mbps a legal universal provision or else 10% will never ever get broadband. (Mobile isn't Broadband, LTE won't be either).

Think you need line of sight for fixed wireless how would it work for people living in mountain sides since trees and others stuff could block signals

oscarBravo

rob808 wrote: »

Think you need line of sight for fixed wireless how would it work for people living in mountain sides since trees and others stuff could block signals

Depends on the frequency used. If we could do fixed wireless in the 600-900MHz part of the spectrum, we wouldn't need no steenkin' line of sight.

watty

LTE and Mobile should be banned from Digital Dividend.

770MHz to 980MHz for Fixed Wireless with the 862 to 872 the Duplex gap (868MHz SRDs live there)

Also any mobile device on 790MHz to 862MHz as proposed will play havoc with Cable boxes and Modems. Look at what much lower power DECT does to Satellite IF.

GSM900 should not go to 3G or LTE. It would simply be to let the mobile companies have less masts and no extra capacity. A waste of spectrum. Let them migrate their 1800GSM to 3G of they want.

LTE needs the 2600MHz band.

watty

rob808 wrote: »

Think you need line of sight for fixed wireless how would it work for people living in mountain sides since trees and others stuff could block signals

You would have to run a fibre or coax to them on the existing ESB poles. Unless Fixed Wireless gets the Digital Dividend (790 to 862MHz) and GSM 900 bands (880MHz to 960MHz).

rob808

THE COST to the State of delivering high-speed broadband across Ireland could be significantly less than the ?2.5 billion figure quoted in a recent telecoms industry report, BT has said. A document prepared last year for the Telecommunications and Internet Federation, a telecoms industry lobby group, put the cost of building a national next-generation access broadband network at close to ?2.5 billion. It also claimed the industry would need 20 years of revenue to repay this cost. BT is investing in fibre-optic cabling to upgrade Northern Ireland?s broadband network to speeds of 40Mbit/s by the end of 2012, as part of its overall £2.5 billion fibre roll-out in the UK. BT Ireland?s strategy director Peter Evans said the contribution from public funds was a fraction of the total, and applying a similar process

rob808

Mr Evans urged the new Government to consider the ?gap funding? model that was used to finance Northern Ireland?s broadband project. This involved public finances being used to meet the difference between a telecoms provider?s long-term network investment and the extra cost involved in bringing those plans forward so they happen sooner.?If you look at the comparable figures in the North, the contribution from the public purse was less than ?100 million,you?re probably talking about less than half a billion euro of public money that would be needed,? Mr Evans said.The total cost to upgrade the Republic?s broadband network could also be less than the ?2.5 billion suggested by the Telecommunications and Internet Federation, he added. This could be achieved given the fall in construction costs, and by using technologies like high-speed wireless networks in areas where it is not practical to lay fibre-optic cables.Any company that wins the tender to build the network would be obliged to let other ISP use it

watty

With a 800,000 user Universal Broadband Network, isn't €10 p.m. line rental nearly €1Billion alone €100M revenue per year?

clohamon

watty wrote: »

With a 800,000 user Universal Broadband Network, isn't €10 p.m. line rental nearly €1Billion alone revenue per year?

Isn't that €100M?


There was some discussion before the Australian NBN project that FTTC was going to cause problems if the ultimate goal was FTTH. The main objection being that FTTC kit would either have to be written off early (loss of money) or FTTH would have to be delayed until the FTTC kit had been fully depreciated. (loss of time). The problem would potentially be worse if multiple providers had installed their own kit in the cabinets.

watty

my bad

watty

clohamon wrote: »

Isn't that €100M?


There was some discussion before the Australian NBN project that FTTC was going to cause problems if the ultimate goal was FTTH. The main objection being that FTTC kit would either have to be written off early (loss of money) or FTTH would have to be delayed until the FTTC kit had been fully depreciated. (loss of time). The problem would potentially be worse if multiple providers had installed their own kit in the cabinets.

I think you do some as FTTH/FTTP, and much FTTC, but at typical 50Mbps to 200MBps, only about 15% or less as low as 20Mbps.

Then the let people on FTTC purchase FTTH/FTTP as a premium 1Gbps to 10Gbps. It will likely be many years before even 20% upgrade.

If your minimum install speed (i.e. not using 30MHz VDSL2, which gives 200Mbps, OR lines too long from cabinet, most under 500m, max 1500m) is too low then indeed there is a problem with FTTC getting obsolete.

With a high target speed, and adding extra cabinets if needed, and the structure in Ireland, then FTTC isn't a problem.

You only have single PPP owner of cabinet gear and the ISPs serve users via VLAN/MPLS etc type virtual Network Operator mechanisms.