The Smart Economy

Chipboard

The following is a letter which I wrote sent to Pat Rabbitte, Minister for The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources at the beginning of January, which he hasn't had the decency to respond to.

I have deliberately posted this in Irish Economy rather than in the Tech section as my post is intended more as a comment on the current economic situation and our chances of turning the country around, rather than being about a technical issue. The main point I want to make is that in circumstances where our leaders Enda and Eamon are looking to the smart economy to dig us out of the mess we are in, in my view we are doomed. This country is anything but smart and the people who run it are a disgrace.



<Address>
<Address>
<Address>

5 January 2012

Mr Pat Rabbitte
Minister for The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Head Office
29 - 31 Adelaide Road
Dublin 2


Dear Mr Rabbitte

I am writing to you regarding the lack of availability of broadband in XXXXXX, Co XXXXXXX and indeed many rural areas all over the country.

My wife and I recently purchased a house in XXXXXX and we moved in a few weeks ago. We had checked in advance and were aware that broadband was not available from Eircom but we purchased our house with the intention of finding an alternative solution. I need access to broadband so that I can log on to the network of the company I work for. The alternative is to commute 3 hours each day to work. My wife needs broadband access as she has a small internet business; there is no alternative for her.

We had satellite broadband installed initially however it doesn’t provide a connection of sufficient quality to allow home working on a company website. We availed of the cooling off period and cancelled the service.

Our neighbours have Three broadband and have told us that their service is very poor. Our only other option is O2 which we got this week. The service from O2 is also very poor. This is especially disappointing as the mast which serves us is only 2 kilometres away and can be seen clearly from our house.

Despite the state of the economy my wife’s business is doing quite well and she would soon be considering employing staff however it wouldn’t seem viable to consider expanding an internet business in an area which doesn’t have broadband. I’m sure businesses all over rural Ireland are facing this dilemma.

We are very disappointed that we find ourselves in this situation especially in light of all the positive spin which was put on the announcement of the National Broadband Scheme which was held up by some politicians as being the breakthrough answer to the broadband availability problem for home and business users in affected areas. This claim in itself was nonsensical as mobile broadband is not a viable solution for small businesses as it is too slow, totally undependable, too expensive for multiple users and too cumbersome to use.

I have read up on the National Broadband Scheme and it seems to me to be wholly inadequate. XXXXXX East is not included in the scheme (I don’t know why, perhaps you can advise) but even if it was it would not change our situation. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources website quotes the scheme as providing max download speeds in the region of 5 to 7 mbps but the reality is that these speeds are never achieved by mobile broadband providers. What is more relevant is the minimum guaranteed speeds which are in the region of 1.2 to 1.6 mbps; this is not broadband at all and it would not be allowed to be called broadband in more advanced countries such as the US where broadband speeds far in excess of this are the norm. As such it would seem that the NBS is nothing more than a sticky plaster solution which seeks to mask the fact that the broadband infrastructure in Ireland is totally inadequate.

I could reference various reports by respected bodies in the field which show that Ireland is close to the bottom of the rankings of developed countries based on availability and quality of broadband but I am sure that you are well aware of these.

We have been told that the telephone line which serves our house is of sufficient quality but the exchange is not broadband enabled. We have also heard that there are no plans to upgrade the exchange and that the reason is that our need is being met by the National Broadband Scheme – nothing could be further from the truth.

To illustrate how ridiculous this situation is I think you should consider the following. I know a man who has his own business as a programmer. Recently he completed a contract for a company based in New York which involved writing a large amount of code. As his broadband speed was very slow he had no choice but to load the code on to a storage device and post it to New York. He told me that the staff in the New York office were rolling around the office when they received his package. In circumstances where your government is preaching that the smart economy will get us out of the mess we are in, this is nothing short of pathetic. There is nothing smart about this economy; we are the laughing stock of the developed world.

The rural electrification scheme which commenced in 1946, and wasn’t completed until 1973 (27 years) due to lack of funding by the government of the time, resulted in a dramatic expansion in industrial and agricultural output in rural areas of Ireland and as such it was self-financing. It has been stated that without rural electrification Ireland may not have been able to contemplate entry into the EEC. It is our view that the upgrading of the current telecommunications network to facilitate the provision of real broadband to every house in Ireland is a critical issue which will determine the future prosperity of this country. The country is in dire straits and the only answer forthcoming is that Ireland will trade its way out of this mess; you cannot expect Irish businesses to compete on a world stage if they are not equipped to do so.

We understand that there is a shortage of funds for everything presently but it is our view that broadband availability is as important an issue now as the availability of electricity in the first half of the last century was and is not an issue which we can afford to solve over a period of 27 years.

I would appreciate if you would consider this and advise if there is any prospect of an improvement in our situation. If not I am considering writing to the various companies who provide (what passes for) broadband in our area, and asking them to cease the service as the service is useless and they are preventing us from obtaining proper broadband which I am confident Eircom would have to provide (at little incremental cost) were there no alternative.

Yours sincerely


XXXXXX XXXXXX

ardmacha

One wonders why you bought a house knowing there was no broadband and now complain about the lack of broadband. The general uselessness of midband satellite services and 3G is well known and Pat Rabbitte already knows this.

which I am confident Eircom would have to provide (at little incremental cost) were there no alternative.

Eircom have no obligation whatsoever to provide broadband and would have no interest in your situation unless they thought they could make money from it.

Stheno

ardmacha wrote: »

One wonders why you bought a house knowing there was no broadband and now complain about the lack of broadband. The general uselessness of midband satellite services and 3G is well known and Pat Rabbitte already knows this.



Eircom have no obligation whatsoever to provide broadband and would have no interest in your situation unless they thought they could make money from it.

Having decent and reliable internet connectivity would be a pre requisite for me for any future accomodation whether I was renting or buying.

Given that over the past five years I moved three times with that pre requisite and satisfied it ( I work in IT and regularly spend weeks out of the office) perhaps you should have had that in your home buying criteria

For me it's as basic as choosing to live in Ballydehob and expecting a Dublin bus type service.

Peoply living in and expecting a knowledge economy need to focus on where the services available meet that requirement, e.g. I'd never live ten miles from where I do now due to the lack of broadband.

Chipboard

ardmacha wrote: »

One wonders why you bought a house knowing there was no broadband and now complain about the lack of broadband. The general uselessness of midband satellite services and 3G is well known and Pat Rabbitte already knows this.



Eircom have no obligation whatsoever to provide broadband and would have no interest in your situation unless they thought they could make money from it.

The government issued celebratory press releases a couple of years ago when the National Broadband Scheme was launched and it consists largely of mobile broadband so how do you make out that everyone knows that 3G is useless. They thought it was fine evidently.

The O2 signal which we had when we purchased the house has dissappeared and O2 say it due to a fault with our mast. They won't commit to fixing it and say it could take several months. I would like real broadband but I would settle for what I contracted with O2 for but when they aren't able to fulfil a contract they get to tear it up. If I couldn't fulfil my end i.e. pay for the service, I would be taken to court.

What makes you think Eircom are so shrewd - they are currently on the brink of examinership. As it happens there is already a high quality Eircom line going past our house and a multitude of people who would love to have broadband so it may well be profitable. The reason they won't enable it is because they didn't win the NBS contract.

donalg1

ardmacha wrote: »

One wonders why you bought a house knowing there was no broadband and now complain about the lack of broadband. The general uselessness of midband satellite services and 3G is well known and Pat Rabbitte already knows this.

which I am confident Eircom would have to provide (at little incremental cost) were there no alternative.

Eircom have no obligation whatsoever to provide broadband and would have no interest in your situation unless they thought they could make money from it.

Took the words out of my mouth. Was going to ask why if broadband was so essential did they buy a house in an area where they couldn't get it.

It is annoying about the lack of broadband in some areas though, but then again why buy where it isn't only to complain that it's not there.

keith16

Stheno wrote: »

Having decent and reliable internet connectivity would be a pre requisite for me for any future accomodation whether I was renting or buying.

Given that over the past five years I moved three times with that pre requisite and satisfied it ( I work in IT and regularly spend weeks out of the office) perhaps you should have had that in your home buying criteria

I disagree with this. Availability of broadband should not come into it at all. There are any number of factors that will play a role in where someone chooses to live but broadband availability should not be one.

The country is not that big FFS and I agree with the OPs general sentiment: that being the smart economy is nothing more than some sort of marketing / PR thing and is in no way based in reality.

Broadband should not have to be looked upon as a luxury in Ireland in 2012.

If the OP had moved to Mullingar and complained about the lack of beaches, then comments like 'why did you move somewhere that has no beaches then' would be fair enough but not here.

Why the hell should the likes of 3 and O2 be allowed to get away with calling their pittance of a service 'broadband'?

mikemac1

Dunmore East?

The rural electrification scheme which commenced in 1946, and wasn’t completed until 1973 (27 years)

That was going on during the thirties, we're up the road from Ardnacrusha and had many school tours there


Your story about the programmer doesn't realy add anything to the letter. It's a man down the pub told me this story, even though it's true.

Sponge Bob

keith16 wrote: »

I disagree with this. Availability of broadband should not come into it at all. There are any number of factors that will play a role in where someone chooses to live but broadband availability should not be one.

Of course it should be one if you RELY on it for your work. If I need a car by the same logic I don't move onto a mountain with no road.

The country is not that big FFS and I agree with the OPs general sentiment: that being the smart economy is nothing more than some sort of marketing / PR thing and is in no way based in reality.

It exists, however it is too small and most of the population is not smart enough. It is highly concentrated in Cities as well where less than half the population lives.

Broadband should not have to be looked upon as a luxury in Ireland in 2012.

Because we are crap and our recent ministers of comms, Dempsey and Ryan in particular, were crap.

Why the hell should the likes of 3 and O2 be allowed to get away with calling their pittance of a service 'broadband'?

Because we have a really crap regulator and an utterly crap dept of communications.

Chipboard

mikemac1 wrote: »

Your story about the programmer doesn't realy add anything to the letter. It's a man down the pub told me this story, even though it's true.

Well Mike, thats a matter of opinion. I think it illustrates perfectly how stupid a situation we are in. Our politicians are hanging their hats on the smart economy but where is it.

I didn't here it in a pub btw.

keith16

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It exists, however it is too small and most of the population is not smart enough. It is highly concentrated in Cities as well where less than half the population lives.



Because we are crap and our recent ministers of comms, Dempsey and Ryan in particular, were crap.



Because we have a really crap regulator and an utterly crap dept of communications.

If it does exist, it certainly is too small and there is no way it can grow without proper investment in the basic infrastructure required for it to thrive, much less the seemingly endless successions of crap ministries we have to contend with.

Chipboard

I believe that we will get full (or near full) bb coverage eventually and it will be a massive boost to the economy, but it shouldn't take 27 years.

I don't subscribe to this view that everything has to be in Dublin.

andrew

Having adequate broadband provision in cities (where most economic activity is) is the most important thing, I think, to having a 'smart' economy. Once that's ensured, then ensure it's available in rural areas, if at all. By the time you're ensuring vast areas with few inhabitants are being provided with high speed broadband, your marginal return begins to get quite small, and it's not really worth it.

keith16

andrew wrote: »

Having adequate broadband provision in cities (where most economic activity is) is the most important thing, I think, to having a 'smart' economy. Once that's ensured, then ensure it's available in rural areas, if at all. By the time you're ensuring vast areas with few inhabitants are being provided with high speed broadband, your marginal return begins to get quite small, and it's not really worth it.

I think this is overstating it somewhat, it's not Australia we are talking about here.

I'm am also amazed that you would suggest that we consider having no broadband in rural areas. If at all? Disgraceful comment TBH.

These areas are marginalised enough without us having to ensure they don't have broadband access. They have as much as a right to electricity, running water etc. as they do to broadband.

Is it any wonder rural areas are being decimated with attitudes like this?

andrew

keith16 wrote: »

I think this is overstating it somewhat, it's not Australia we are talking about here.

I'm am also amazed that you would suggest that we consider having no broadband in rural areas. If at all? Disgraceful comment TBH.

These areas are marginalised enough without us having to ensure they don't have broadband access. They have as much as a right to electricity, running water etc. as they do to broadband.

Is it any wonder rural areas are being decimated with attitudes like this?

If people want to live in rural areas fine. But if you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then you shouldn't expect the same level of utilities as others. I don't think you can compare running water and electricity to broadband to be honest. It's hard to live a normal life without either of those, but broadband, really? I'm not saying, though, that rural areas shouldn't be provided with these services. Just that it should be low down on the priority list.

ardmacha

Rural electrification, when economic circumstances were much worse, showed vision. Broadband could have been likewise but the politicos in later years hadn't the vision. There is no reason why the Republic should not have broadband on a par with NI, except short sightedness.

oppenheimer1

Chipboard wrote: »

I believe that we will get full (or near full) bb coverage eventually and it will be a massive boost to the economy, but it shouldn't take 27 years.

I don't subscribe to this view that everything has to be in Dublin.

But why do you think that resources should be wasted bringing this technology to you. If you want Broad Band, then you should pay for the full cost to bring the service to you.

keith16

andrew wrote: »

If people want to live in rural areas fine. But if you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then you shouldn't expect the same level of utilities as others. I don't think you can compare running water and electricity to broadband to be honest. It's hard to live a normal life without either of those, but broadband, really? I'm not saying, though, that rural areas shouldn't be provided with these services. Just that it should be low down on the priority list.

I'm sorry but I just completely disagree with this. Either the smart economy is going to work for all of us, or none of us. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the smart economy is just as much a load of bull as the Celtic tiger was.

And to class rural areas as being in the middle of nowhere is disingenuous. There are plenty of small to medium towns / communities that would benefit hugely from a good broadband infrastructure.

Imagine what the OP could save on fuel costs of a three hour commute if he could work solidly from home. A lot more disposable income for him to put into the local economy.

Instead we are still living with the paralyzing legacy of the Celtic tiger commuting for hours from satellite towns.

keith16

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But why do you think that resources should be wasted bringing this technology to you. If you want Broad Band, then you should pay for the full cost to bring the service to you.

He's not living in middle of the Sahara for gods sake.

Sleepy

OP, the shortened version of your post reads:

"I want to live somewhere I can buy a house for less than half the price I'd pay for it where other people live but want all the same public services as those people."

We have to realise as a people that you can't expect the same level of, or quality of, services in a lowly populated region as you can in a densely populated one. Nor, unfortunately, can you expect multi-national companies to choose to locate there unless you're prepared to work for half the salary of the person living in the city.

Chipboard

Chipboard wrote: »

I believe that we will get full (or near full) bb coverage eventually and it will be a massive boost to the economy, but it shouldn't take 27 years.

I don't subscribe to this view that everything has to be in Dublin.

There are thousands of towns and villages that have good broadband.

Why didn't you go live in one of those?

andrew

keith16 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I just completely disagree with this. Either the smart economy is going to work for all of us, or none of us. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the smart economy is just as much a load of bull as the Celtic tiger was.

And to class rural areas as being in the middle of nowhere is disingenuous. There are plenty of small to medium towns / communities that would benefit hugely from a good broadband infrastructure.

Imagine what the OP could save on fuel costs of a three hour commute if he could work solidly from home. A lot more disposable income for him to put into the local economy.

Instead we are still living with the paralyzing legacy of the Celtic tiger commuting for hours from satellite towns.

And imagine what he could've saved by picking a house where the commute wasn't 3 hours. He doesn't have to live where he lives.

The smart economy needs to work for most people. Not everyone, most people. It can't work for everyone, because the cost of having all ireland broadband is prohibitively expensive. If you want to be part of the 'smart economy' move to the city. If you want to farm, or work in food processing, stay in the countryside. People have a choice of where to live; you can't have your cake and eat it.

uberalles

Is it 30% of police stations have no broadband?
South Korea is way ahead of us FFS.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

There are thousands of towns and villages that have good broadband.

Why didn't you go live in one of those?

The only places in Ireland with 'good broadband' are those covered by UPC.

Sleepy

Chipboard wrote: »

I don't subscribe to this view that everything has to be in Dublin.

It doesn't: there are jobs in IT in virtually every major town. And virtually every major town has decent broadband.

What you're not "subscribing to" is reality.

Chipboard

andrew wrote: »

Having adequate broadband provision in cities (where most economic activity is) is the most important thing, I think, to having a 'smart' economy. Once that's ensured, then ensure it's available in rural areas, if at all. By the time you're ensuring vast areas with few inhabitants are being provided with high speed broadband, your marginal return begins to get quite small, and it's not really worth it.

You're ill informed.

Ireland would now be bankrupt if it weren't for the Food and Agri sector, all of which originates in rural areas. While the F&A is good for the country, it isn't that good to the farmer, with the average farm income being c€10 - 15k p.a. (about the amount a city dweller spends on motoring expenses). For this reason almost all farmers supplement their farm income with off farm income. I know hundreds of farmers and I don't know one you doesn't have a second job. As such we have the economic activity to justify needing broadband, and we have a need for it to supplement farming.

andrew wrote: »

vast areas with few inhabitants

Where is this? We live in a village of around 1500 people which is a 6 minute drive from a town of 15,000.

Chipboard

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But why do you think that resources should be wasted bringing this technology to you. If you want Broad Band, then you should pay for the full cost to bring the service to you.

Great. The household charge is for all the services we get according to the government, so obviously I don't have to pay it.

We have no gardai.
We have no public transport.
We have no paths.
We get our water from a group water scheme (established by the local community)
We built our own septic tank.
We have no broadband.

I could go on.

Why should we pay the household charge? Is it to bail out banks like Anglo who never had a rural branch?

RichardAnd

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It exists, however it is too small and most of the population is not smart enough. It is highly concentrated in Cities as well where less than half the population lives.

I'd just like to address this because I have two problems with this statement. Firstly, just because someone is not a computer programmer or an aeronautical engineer, that does not mean that they are not "smart" as you say. I know people with wondrous musical talents that can't turn a computer on. Are they less intelligent that me? Certainly not. I take umbrage at the term "smart economy" because it implies that intelligence can be measured by the job a person holds, this is untrue.

The second point I'd raise is this; what makes you think there is a shortage of intelligence here at all? There seems to be a penchant upon this forum for putting the IRish down by saying we're incompetent or that we lack intelligence. There are plenty of fools here, no doubt, but I don't think they exist in a greater proportion here than anywhere else. As a people, we can say that we have produced some of the greatest writers in literary history (Joyce, Yeats etc) and even today, Irish writers continue to excel.

Perhaps we're not incredibly in tune with the profit and efficiency driven world that has arisen over the last few decades and perhaps, we are a little stuck in the past but that in no way means that we're less than anyone else. We'll never put any problems right if we constantly believe that we're inferior.

jester77

I find it a bit ironic that the OP talks about smart economy, yet made the decision to move 3 hours away from his work knowing that he would need remote access to the network while knowing that no broadband infrastructure was in place, plus his wife's business being online. That's not exactly a smart move.

Sponge Bob

Smart ain't no good on dialup.

Sleepy

Chipboard wrote: »

Great. The household charge is for all the services we get according to the government, so obviously I don't have to pay it.

We have no gardai.
We have no public transport.
We have no paths.
We get our water from a group water scheme (established by the local community)
We built our own septic tank.
We have no broadband.

I could go on.

Why should we pay the household charge? Is it to bail out banks like Anglo who never had a rural branch?

Partially. It's also to pay for a bloated public sector and social welfare.

It pays for your roads, the planning department that approved the building of the house you live in, the councils that grit your roads in winter, the schools where your children are educated etc. etc. etc.

I'd love a large house in the country. Hell, I'd love a reasonable sized 3 bedroom dormer on a tiny patch of land in the country and could probably get mortgage approval for one. However, I'm a realist: I need broadband for work, the other half doesn't drive so we need to be near public transport, my employment prospects are best in Dublin and I feel it's a good thing for our children to have neighbours to play with in a safe suburban housing estate: hence I rent a 3 bed terraced house in just such a housing estate in Dublin.

If you want the big home and rural setting with all available services you need to earn enough money to afford that house on the outskirts of a major city or to accept that such a locality isn't going to support much in the way of services.

There isn't a large enough market to reward any private sector investment in high-quality broadband in the countryside and the public coffers aren't going to stretch to accommodating your lifestyle choices when our health and education systems are losing funding.

jackiebaron

andrew wrote: »

If people want to live in rural areas fine. But if you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then you shouldn't expect the same level of utilities as others. I don't think you can compare running water and electricity to broadband to be honest. It's hard to live a normal life without either of those, but broadband, really? I'm not saying, though, that rural areas shouldn't be provided with these services. Just that it should be low down on the priority list.

Oh for God's sake listen to yourself. "If people want to live in rural areas...blah blah". What kind of glib statement is that? If someone in the city complained about crime levels would you barf out the completely useless "well if people want to live in urban areas" nonsense?

There should be broadband everywhere in Ireland. It's a no brainer. Just like people in rural areas should have access to the telephone, radio and television reception. The Swedes have done it in the furthest reaches of their land, as have many other countries. Don't go blaming the little man in the bog for the incompetence of the government.

bobbytables

Lots of good points made either side of this argument so far. Great thread

Although I live in a city, I firmly believe that broadband shouldn't be considered a privilege to people in less populated areas. However, I think the OP should have given stronger consideration to the state of affairs in Ireland with respect to broadband when purchasing their new home. The main reason why I want to live where I do is purely down to broadband. I would happily move beyond city limits, and be further away from typical city amenities as long as the digital tap running in to my house serviced my needs, which there are many, as I work in IT.

Something that always catches my attention however is how people and providers refer to the measure of quality of a broadband service. "Good", "Fast", "Really Slow", "Excellent", "Crap", "Fibre Powered", etc are all subjective terms (except the latter, which still means nothing in terms of QOS). I think both providers and government need to be held accountable and stop hiding behind waffle that carries little practical merit. In fact the term broadband itself means very little other than implying increased capacity when typically compared to dial-up. 1MB is called broadband, 100MB is called broadband. There is a huge difference between the two in terms of user experience and applications. The fact people get about 10 - 50% of what they pay for is a separate issue yet again, which leads me to my next point.

QOS is unclear without factual benchmarks, which of course will vary for customer to customer, but at least location to location will give a more accurate reference guide than having some guy down the pub say "Shur my broadband is mighty" or some guy on the TV offering nothing but a tune on a guitar. Some people don't care about the numbers / benchmarks currently, and that's cool, but as the number of applications we use, which depend on broadband increases, this is going to become more and more of an issue for everyone. For me personally it has been an issue since the 90s.

Broadband is not about doing the same things faster, it's about being able to seize opportunity, the number of which are growing exponentially. Also discrete opportunities demand a minimum QOS to engage.

Speedtest.net has become a popular benchmarking tool that many people use day to day to assess their current BB performance. The problem here is that the system is too closed. A web app, updated in real time, that we access at any time of day and view regional scores with respect to key performance metrics (submitted anonymously & frequently by users, not providers) & visible on provider by provider basis is what is necessary. Until such transparency exists, most people will continue to be disappointed.

[Jackass]

In fairness to the OP, it does boggle the mind how there is not 100% coverage of broadband around the country.

I remember at the advent of broadband how we were so far behind the rest of Europe at bringing it in, and we still are behing most of Europe in terms of complete coverage and iirc, a large amount of work was done by Eircom at the cost of hundreds of millions that became obsolete soon after. (can't handle the fastest level of broadband available)

It's a shambles really.

andrew

Chipboard wrote: »

You're ill informed.

Ireland would now be bankrupt if it weren't for the Food and Agri sector, all of which originates in rural areas.

No it wouldn't. The agricultural sector is a tiny proportion of the Irish economy.

While the F&A is good for the country, it isn't that good to the farmer, with the average farm income being c€10 - 15k p.a. (about the amount a city dweller spends on motoring expenses). For this reason almost all farmers supplement their farm income with off farm income. I know hundreds of farmers and I don't know one you doesn't have a second job. As such we have the economic activity to justify needing broadband, and we have a need for it to supplement farming.

If it's not that good to be a farmer, then that impacts your argument above, that Ireland would be bankrupt without them. If farming were profitable enough to keep the Irish economy on track, surely farmers wouldn't need other jobs.

And if farming isn't profitable, such that farmers can't earn a living from it, then why do they farm? If any other family business wasn't profitable, it'd be shut down. But this is beside the point

Where is this? We live in a village of around 1500 people which is a 6 minute drive from a town of 15,000.

All I've said is that areas like that shouldn't be high priority. In fairness, 5,000 people isn't a lot. All I'm saying is that the town of 15,000 should have broadband before the village of 5,000. And bigger towns than the 15,000 should have it before them, and so on. It's unrealistic to demand that the entire country be covered in broadband infrastructure in a short period of time, and pointless to demand that a village be prioritized the same as a large town.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh for God's sake listen to yourself. "If people want to live in rural areas...blah blah". What kind of glib statement is that? If someone in the city complained about crime levels would you barf out the completely useless "well if people want to live in urban areas" nonsense?

Well yeah, I'd say that higher crime rates are a price you pay for living in the city, and so people should just deal with it.

There should be broadband everywhere in Ireland. It's a no brainer. Just like people in rural areas should have access to the telephone, radio and television reception. The Swedes have done it in the furthest reaches of their land, as have many other countries. Don't go blaming the little man in the bog for the incompetence of the government.

Yeah there should be, I mean, it'd be nice. But in practical terms, people living in small towns and villages can't expect to be prioritized the same as people living in more concentrated and economically productive urban areas.

Chipboard

jester77 wrote: »

I find it a bit ironic that the OP talks about smart economy, yet made the decision to move 3 hours away from his work knowing that he would need remote access to the network while knowing that no broadband infrastructure was in place, plus his wife's business being online. That's not exactly a smart move.

The location I currently work in isn't close to any other good sized town. I made the decison to move 1.5 hours (3 hour commute to and from) away from my work because (among other reasons) my company is restructuring in the near future and present work is likely to dissappear in the coming months (or next couple of years tops) and the location I have moved to will allow me to commute to a number of good sized towns where there is employment in my field.

How do you know my or anyone else's circumstances that you can pass judgment on them so easily. How do you know that I don't have a sick relative, spouse, child etc or other circumstances which mean I have to live here? This thread is about broadband availability but you have nothing better to do with your time other than sit at a computer making ill informed judgments about the personal choices of people who you don't even know.

Chipboard

andrew wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The agricultural sector is a tiny proportion of the Irish economy.

I said food and agri, and the percentage of GDP is c8% which is significant and enough to sink us if it didn't exist.

andrew wrote: »

And if farming isn't profitable, such that farmers can't earn a living from it, then why do they farm? If any other family business wasn't profitable, it'd be shut down.

I can't believe that you think this. Do you think farmers earn €60k a year. The average farm income in 2010 was €18,000

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2011/201105-09.asp

This however is skewed by more profitable farming in the East and South. €10 - 15k would be average to good in many non dairying areas.

I could not explain to you in a post on boards why farmers farm - you would have to have an understanding of rural life or it would not make sense. If there is an agri forum you could ask there and they might have a stab at it but I guarantee you that (apart from dairying possibly) the reason will not be money.

golfwallah

A Government with a large majority should be capable of coming up with a national broadband plan – particularly when it has so much impact on the economy.

But whatever they come up with, budgets being limited, those in power will have to prioritise on where they can get most bang for their buck. It’s unrealistic to expect that somehow the private sector will fund a network that will please everyone.... just who is going to invest, if there’s no prospect of a return?

Problem is – Government deciding on priorities means choices about winners and losers .... and, sure, politicians want to be popular with everyone... they have to remember the next election.

It took a World War for the UK electorate to accept Churchill’s promise of “blood, toil, tears and sweat”, but eventually they got fed up with him and threw him out of power in July 1945.

[Jackass]

golfwallah wrote: »

A Government with a large majority should be capable of coming up with a national broadband plan

Stopped reading here.

You're right, they should get their priorities right. Halt the clinics and servicing the public sector budgets whilst running at massive GDP deficet, my internet is down, free up the funds. :rolleyes:

This isn't a job for the current Government, the previous should have had this infrastructure secured for 50+ years. Right now we're on critical only services, and rural internet service is very rightly way down the list. Get real.

murphaph

Rural Germany has sh!te broadband availability as well. What exactly do people expect though, I mean, if you need the trappings normally associated with urban life, live in a town or city, don't live in isolation and complain.

murphaph

Chipboard wrote: »

I can't believe that you think this. Do you think farmers earn €60k a year. The average farm income in 2010 was €18,000

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2011/201105-09.asp

This however is skewed by more profitable farming in the East and South. €10 - 15k would be average to good in many non dairying areas.

Irish farming incomes are low because Irish farms are too small. Consolidation has been happening but needs to happen faster to ensure farming remains viable.

Ambient Occlusion

Chipboard wrote: »

I could not explain to you in a post on boards why farmers farm - you would have to have an understanding of rural life or it would not make sense. If there is an agri forum you could ask there and they might have a stab at it but I guarantee you that (apart from dairying possibly) the reason will not be money.

I agree completely with that. I live in a rural area on the remains of what was a farm a generation ago. It's not the same but we've had plenty of opportunities to move to the town nearby and haven't. Regardless of the convenience of urban life, we have a connection with the land and value it highly.

Also the fact that farmers farm for such a low return should only cement their right to have good internet access or any at all. They feed a good portion of this country with thankless hard work all day every day of the year.

bleg

Ambient Occlusion wrote: »

Also the fact that farmers farm for such a low return should only cement their right to have good internet access or any at all. They feed a good portion of this country with thankless hard work all day every day of the year.

Please, there are plenty of thankless jobs out there. Every job I've had in research, production and clinical support has been thankless.


Anyway we're still about 10 years behind the trend. If we wanted to invest in the smart economy we'd be investing in these technologies in a serious fashion: 3D printing, micro and nano assemblers, medical implants for augmentation rather than for treatment, brain mapping and mimicry, robotics and quantum computing.


http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

Geuze

Isn't it the case that DSL broadband only works within 3 miles of an exchange?

So if your house is more than 3 miles away, you depend on wireless BB or mobile BB?

So you can't blame the Govt, it's just that the faster versions of BB, i.e. DSL, only wotk up to 3 miles from an exchange.

jased10s

moved from the UK 12 years ago just as i was offered 512k BB before i moved.

It took me 8 years to get offered the same over here ( was on 56k dialup), and now finally 30 - 100 MB but the cost is triple to the UK.

And please dont say population is bigger (uk) so more profitable to implement, If their is less (irl) to connect the cost is the same.

Somehow i think this is not a smart economy although they profess that it is.

Also this was in the city Geuze , and you can push dsl / adsl / sdsl up to 5km ( good wire needed ) if the ****e wires that eircom laid in the past were proper copper or the cheaper option that they choose to lay to save money.

AlmightyCushion

jased10s wrote: »

moved from the UK 12 years ago just as i was offered 512k BB before i moved.

It took me 8 years to get offered the same over here ( was on 56k dialup), and now finally 30 - 100 MB but the cost is triple to the UK.

And please dont say population is bigger (uk) so more profitable to implement, If their is less (irl) to connect the cost is the same.

Somehow i think this is not a smart economy although they profess that it is.

Also this was in the city Geuze , and you can push dsl / adsl / sdsl up to 5km ( good wire needed ) if the ****e wires that eircom laid in the past were proper copper or the cheaper option that they choose to lay to save money.

How is it triple the cost?

The costs between Virgin and UPC are similar.
100Mb - Virgin is £45 a month, BT is £45 a month and UPC is €50.50 a month
50Mb - Virgin is £35 a month, BT is £35 a month (only 40Mb) and UPC is €45.50 a month
30Mb - Virgin is £28 a month, BT is £35 a month (only 20Mb, must be adsl only as the above package is the same price but better), UPC is €40 a month (only 25Mb).

maninasia

Ambient Occlusion wrote: »

I agree completely with that. I live in a rural area on the remains of what was a farm a generation ago. It's not the same but we've had plenty of opportunities to move to the town nearby and haven't. Regardless of the convenience of urban life, we have a connection with the land and value it highly.

Also the fact that farmers farm for such a low return should only cement their right to have good internet access or any at all. They feed a good portion of this country with thankless hard work all day every day of the year.

What is good internet? Where does a right start and a right end? Who is going to pay for the rights for everything.

By living in a rural area it's always going to be more costly to put in the same level of infrastructure than denser occupied urban areas. It's a trade-off, a city dweller might say they have a right to peace and quiet and clean air, but they know it's always going to be more difficult compared to the countryside.

maninasia

bleg wrote: »

Please, there are plenty of thankless jobs out there. Every job I've had in research, production and clinical support has been thankless.


Anyway we're still about 10 years behind the trend. If we wanted to invest in the smart economy we'd be investing in these technologies in a serious fashion: 3D printing, micro and nano assemblers, medical implants for augmentation rather than for treatment, brain mapping and mimicry, robotics and quantum computing.


http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will_transform_us.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

Well you still need a good basic infrastructure to support the above. You also don't just jump to all future cutting edge stuff without being able to produce today's cutting edge stuff.

There's also the fact that if you spread infrastructure spending too thinly you end up getting a crappy service across the whole country and fail to compete on a global level.

There is a reason that capital cities or large population centres have better infrastructure, they are engines of growth.

bleg

maninasia wrote: »

Well you still need a good basic infrastructure to support the above. You also don't just jump to all future cutting edge stuff without being able to produce today's cutting edge stuff.

There's also the fact that if you spread infrastructure spending too thinly you end up getting a crappy service across the whole country and fail to compete on a global level.

There is a reason that capital cities or large population centres have better infrastructure, they are engines of growth.

What I'm saying is we're hearing our Ministers talking about "gaming" and "cloud computing" when we've largely missed the boat on these issues, we should have been investing in these areas in the early 00s not the early 10s. I doubt they've even heard of the technologies that are going to shape the world in the next 15 years.

Also, these technologies will allow you to do much much more with less infrastructure, and allow everything - from energy creation to drug production in a decentralised way. Supply chains for most items will become irrelevant in 20-30 years.

Max Powers

I dont see a smart economy of Ireland.
As mentioned already....poor broadband service
no stem cell research
poor education system
Poor language capabilities
Public reps that are anything but smart

Gurgle

Max Powers wrote: »

I dont see a smart economy of Ireland.

I don't think you've really looked. There's more jobs available in the smart economy than people with the qualifications to do them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink: Every 3rd level institute offers engineering, software, IT at all levels from cert to masters while the points were dropping for years due to lack of interest.

As mentioned already....poor broadband service
There is a decent broadband service in most of the country. Obviously no company relying on broadband will set up in the left-behind areas.

no stem cell research
Or nuclear power plants. So?

poor education system
Just not true, except for some key areas that have been let go to hell (e.g. maths in secondary schools).

Poor language capabilities
Inaccurate again, we have excellent language capabilities if we choose to use them. Again its a case of people not doing subjects because they might be hard.

Public reps that are anything but smart
Now that's just a sound-byte, and anyway who voted them in?

andrew

Chipboard wrote: »

I said food and agri, and the percentage of GDP is c8% which is significant and enough to sink us if it didn't exist.



I can't believe that you think this. Do you think farmers earn €60k a year. The average farm income in 2010 was €18,000

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2011/201105-09.asp

This however is skewed by more profitable farming in the East and South. €10 - 15k would be average to good in many non dairying areas.

I wasn't implying that I think farmers earn a lot. I was saying that if farming really was as important to the irish economy as you say it is, they'd probably be earning more. But as you point out, they're not. Where do you get the 8% figure from? Even at 8%, it's not that big a sector compared to the services sector and the industrial sector (not including food processing)

I could not explain to you in a post on boards why farmers farm - you would have to have an understanding of rural life or it would not make sense. If there is an agri forum you could ask there and they might have a stab at it but I guarantee you that (apart from dairying possibly) the reason will not be money.

Exactly. My point is that if farmers/people who live in the country love farming/living in the country so much, then they should be willing to sacrifice access to certain amenities, such as high speed internet access. Because providing those amenities to rural areas on the same level that they're provided to cities is incredibly expensive.