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

Comreg's Plan for Digital Dividend

Options
  • 14-01-2012 7:29pm
    #1
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭


    It's not about Rural Broadband. It's about raising revenue.

    Not only is it likely some will only see the same as existing 3G, as despite the shiny 4G/LTE label it's a "midband" solution.

    It's 72MHz. You need to subtract off a guard band at each end to avoid upsetting TV viewers and SRD users and you need a Duplex guard band in the middle.

    But to give a significant improvement, LTE needs 6 x 20MHz channels, not the 1, 2 or 3 x 5MHz Channels Comreg envisages per operator.

    6 x 20MHz channels = 120MHz. Double because you need Duplex and add Guard bands. You need over 260MHz. Not 72MHz.

    Also at the lower frequency the operator saves money by having 1/3rd to 1/9th as many base stations as 3G on 2.1Ghz or LTE on 2.3GHz or 2.5GHz, but that lowers the capacity of network to 1/3rd to 1/9th...

    Will Comreg mandate sensible speeds and contention (based on Population density) or have the licence conditions like 3G (no proactive policing of coverage, no proper verification of speed, useless indoor speed limits and secret penalties for non-compliance)?


    See
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056515024


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    I was expecting a post with a picture of lots of €500 notes.


  • Options
    #3
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    It would make as much sense as the European & American "Digital Dividend". Except in USA the Broadcasters have to agree to give up the channels and then they get paid.


  • Options
    #4
    bealtine
    Registered Users Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭bealtine


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    I was expecting a post with a picture of lots of €500 notes.

    Could you possibly be saying that Comreg is only trying to maximize their revenues to the determent of the consumer?

    Imagine the silly idea of giving the consumers what they need


  • Options
    #5
    clohamon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,769 ✭✭✭clohamon


    watty wrote: »
    It's not about Rural Broadband. It's about raising revenue.

    I suspect that any potential new mobile bidder/entrant would be deterred by taking a look at the Three experience, i.e. €450M on network build (not including grant) and not a cent of profit.

    IMO, it is the cost of network acquisition, not the licence, which is the main deterrent for new entrants - and which reinforces the IoffL position on a RAN.

    The Comreg position on coverage is contradictory. On the one hand the new licence only requires 70% population coverage, but ComReg say that they will intervene if it doesn't turn out higher than that. What new entrant would bid for a licence under those conditions?


Advertisement