ESB to create new fibre powered ISP

Mr. G

funnyname wrote: »

If I am reading this right

If GPON is used then it will give a max of ~80Mb/s down and ~40Mb/s up, per house if shared between 32 houses not much room for upgrade?

Not everyone will use the whole entire connection all at once. I'd imagine it would be contended, which would allow for higher speed packages above 80Mbps. If the contention ratio is 32:1, meaning you are sharing lets say a 100Mbps connection with 31 other homes, the maximum you would get would be 100Mbps when nobody is online.

smee again

Mr. G wrote: »

That is not true. Most DSL providers do, but not all is contended. For example, eircom offer NGB that is uncontended.

Its not uncontended its just a marketing term for the new contention management system they use, the marketing term they use is "uncongested". You are still contended by the actual backhaul to the exchange. A 1:1 connection from any provider is very expensive

bk

funnyname wrote: »

If I am reading this right

If GPON is used then it will give a max of ~80Mb/s down and ~40Mb/s up, per house if shared between 32 houses not much room for upgrade?

Uncontended yes, but in reality residential broadband is always contended.

Think about it, your 31 neighbours aren't all going to be using the BB at the same time. Some will be at work/school, out to dinner, doing other things in their home, etc.

So sold speeds of 200mb/s + should be available with this.

Gadgetman496

Think about it, your 31 neighbours aren't all going to be using the BB at the same time. Some will be at work/school, out to dinner, doing other things in their home, etc.

They could all be tor-renting while doing the above

funnyname

bk wrote: »

Uncontended yes, but in reality residential broadband is always contended.

Think about it, your 31 neighbours aren't all going to be using the BB at the same time. Some will be at work/school, out to dinner, doing other things in their home, etc.

So sold speeds of 200mb/s + should be available with this.

If they are going to do it right make sure they future proof it so that with the flick of a switch an upgrade can happen rather than having to change the physical infrastructure.

Take leaf out of the book of these guys in rural England

http://b4rn.org.uk/about-b4rn

B4RN is a community fibre network offering fibre to every home providing 1000 megabit (1 gigabit) futureproof connection for £30 a month. You do not have to buy shares to get a connection, but the more people who invest in this network the faster it will be built with the available funds. - See more at: http://b4rn.org.uk/about-b4rn#sthash.tF40hVUl.dpuf

smee again

funnyname wrote: »

If they are going to do it right make sure they future proof it so that with the flick of a switch an upgrade can happen rather than having to change the physical infrastructure.

Take leaf out of the book of these guys in rural England

http://b4rn.org.uk/about-b4rn

They are not a small community group, they are out to do things on a bigger scale and the end goal is to make money

funnyname

smee again wrote: »

They are not a small community group, they are out to do things on a bigger scale and the end goal is to make money

Ah yes so all the more reason for them to go with an infrastructure that will be cost effective in the long run.

The rate of data flow is exponential so if they get it right at the start then the more profitable they will be in the future.

If I was in the ESB I'd be saying lets set up a system that can deliver a symmetrical 1GB/s capacity to all our clients.

Then that would make them loads of money

smee again

funnyname wrote: »

Ah yes so all the more reason for them to go with an infrastructure that will be cost effective in the long run.

The rate of data flow is exponential so if they get it right at the start then the more profitable they will be in the future.

If I was in the ESB I'd be saying lets set up a system that can deliver a symmetrical 1GB/s capacity to all our clients.

Then that would make them loads of money

Because it's not cost effective, in the USA you see only Google doing Gigabit to the home as it take a serious investment without the return.

bk

funnyname the ideal in terms of upgradability would be Point to Point fibre.

However such a system is much more expensive to deploy then GPON, in particular in rural areas. GPON is more likely to get very good BB to people in rural areas much faster then PtP.

GPON however is upgradable, to 10GPON (4 times faster then GPON), but not at a flick of a switch, it would require physical replacement of ONT's. However fortunately if they design the network correctly, they can run both GPON and 10GPON side by side at the same time and thus only replace the ONT when a subscriber decides to upgrade to faster speeds.

Most companies are using GPON, Eircom, BT, Verizon, etc.

domeld

Mr. G wrote: »

That is not true. Most DSL providers do, but not all is contended. For example, eircom offer NGB that is uncontended.

Mr. G nothing is uncongested. It is always limited by operator backbone. Check problems with Digiweb treate on south east (Waterford etc). South east backbone ring will be upgraded to 10Gbs shortly.

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

ClonNGB

Anyone aware of the ESB FTTB trial's progress in Cavan ?

Strawberry HillBilly

Have written to ESB twice looking for an update on their plans....no reply. Looks like their fibre network is bullocks'd.

Anyone in Cavan know anything ?

Nolars

Strawberry HillBilly wrote: »

Have written to ESB twice looking for an update on their plans....no reply. Looks like their fibre network is bullocks'd.

Anyone in Cavan know anything ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057108456

Strawberry HillBilly

Nolars wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057108456

Thanks for that...wonder if this will be of any benefit to non UPC/Eircom areas ?

Should ESB be compelled to deliver service to non serviced rural areas on a 1:1 basis when launching to a heavily populated area. I realise they are in this to make money but if left with free reign non serviced rural Ireland falls further and further behind.

Anyone with real life experience of trials ?

Capt'n Midnight

Strawberry HillBilly wrote: »

Should ESB be compelled to deliver service to non serviced rural areas on a 1:1 basis when launching to a heavily populated area.?

http://www.comreg.ie/consumer_initiatives/universal_service_obligation.590.html

On 29 June 2012, Eircom was re-designated as the Universal Service Provider (USP) for a period of two years (refer to ComReg 12/71, D07/12 for further detail). Eircom’s current term as USP lasts until 30 June 2014.

As USP, Eircom must comply with the following obligations.
Provision of access at a fixed location

The USP must satisfy any reasonable request to provide connections to the public telephone network and access to publicly available telephone services. Also any connection provided by the USP must be capable of:

Local, national and international telephone calls
Facsimile (fax) communications
Data communications at data rates that are sufficient to permit functional internet access (the USP is currently required to adopt 28.8kbps as a reasonable minimum data rate)

If 28.8kbps isn't good enough or Eircom are dragging their heals you could try
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/communications+development/national+broadband+scheme.htm

Following the conclusion of a competitive tendering process, the contract to implement and operate the National Broadband Scheme (NBS) was entered into with "3" (a Hutchison Whampoa company trading as 3) on 23 December 2008.

It's a Wham! poa! company :rolleyes:



So why should the ESB be forced to carry the can, unless they get at least as much guberment funding as the above.

Eircom will probably feel a lot of pain because the government have slashed the OAP line rental subsidy , it's unlikely the government will be handing out the savings to the ESB.

Strawberry HillBilly

As a government owned company the government should instruct the ESB to deliver on the broadband strategy.

Re: compulsion for delivery of 1:1 basis for new non serviced rural:new urban areas, this is the only way that rural Ireland can look forward to anything other than dongles out the window and 10 minute buffer time for a bloody YouTube video.

Private entities have consistently failed to deliver the goods to rural Ireland, why shouldn't an instrument of the state be charged with delivering the infrastructure where others have chosen not to.

shane7218

Strawberry HillBilly wrote: »

As a government owned company the government should instruct the ESB to deliver on the broadband strategy.

Re: compulsion for delivery of 1:1 basis for new non serviced rural:new urban areas, this is the only way that rural Ireland can look forward to anything other than dongles out the window and 10 minute buffer time for a bloody YouTube video.

Private entities have consistently failed to deliver the goods to rural Ireland, why shouldn't an instrument of the state be charged with delivering the infrastructure where others have chosen not to.

The government need to get us people living in rural Ireland out of this internet black hole. Satellite cant even be described as broadband from my experience

Frank Garrett

shane7218 wrote: »

The government need to get us people living in rural Ireland out of this internet black hole. Satellite cant even be described as broadband from my experience

That's because it's not broadband, not by definition, but everyone just refers to any internet access that is much faster than dial-up as "broadband" as a general term.

shane7218

Frank Garrett wrote: »

That's because it's not broadband, not by definition, but everyone just refers to any internet access that is much faster than dial-up as "broadband" as a general term.

The thing is .... it isnt much faster. I pay over 100 a month for an up to 20 mb/s satellite service and normally get around 0.5 to 1.5 and 1.5 would be a good speed its a disgrace the broadband infrastructure in this country

Capt'n Midnight

shane7218 wrote: »

The government need to get us people living in rural Ireland out of this internet black hole. Satellite cant even be described as broadband from my experience

satellite is kinda funny

it has the potential for massive bandwidth, but the latency sucks all the usability out of it for anything other than leeching and streaming


the solution is simple, work out how much the government has subsidised Eircom and NBS for, and hand that over to the ESB. Until then don't bother encumbering them.


Where this comes from, NTL were forced to roll out digital TV on cable by the regulator , the result was that cable internet was delayed for years. Anyone who really wanted digital TV could have gone to SKY. NTL didn't make much money since it all went to the rights owners / channels.

Anyone who wanted broadband was still crossing their fingers when the modem was dialling, or going with a wireless provider.

And all because the regulator forced it.

Strawberry HillBilly

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

satellite is kinda funny

it has the potential for massive bandwidth, but the latency sucks all the usability out of it for anything other than leeching and streaming


the solution is simple, work out how much the government has subsidised Eircom and NBS for, and hand that over to the ESB. Until then don't bother encumbering them.


Where this comes from, NTL were forced to roll out digital TV on cable by the regulator , the result was that cable internet was delayed for years. Anyone who really wanted digital TV could have gone to SKY. NTL didn't make much money since it all went to the rights owners / channels.

Anyone who wanted broadband was still crossing their fingers when the modem was dialling, or going with a wireless provider.

And all because the regulator forced it.

Not sure of relevance of the NTL reference.

Totally agree with the NBS/Eircom subsidies going straight to ESB to get things moving for rural BB.

Frank Garrett

shane7218 wrote: »

The thing is .... it isnt much faster. I pay over 100 a month for an up to 20 mb/s satellite service and normally get around 0.5 to 1.5 and 1.5 would be a good speed its a disgrace the broadband infrastructure in this country

Rural areas having shíte broadband isn't a problem that is exclusive to Ireland, it's a very common problem in every country that has a low population density.

The problem is: many countryside dwellers don't seem to understand the physics of broadband and a few are clueless about economics; the longer your copper telephone line, the slower your broadband. The likes of Eircom are not going to roll out fiber broadband to your house, or surrounding area because there is no return on investment.

Look at it this way, would you start up a restruant in the backarse of nowhere in the Donegal Mountains? No, you wouldn't because it would cost more money to build the restaurant and run the place than it would make, due to the lack of customers.

shane7218

Frank Garrett wrote: »

Rural areas having shíte broadband isn't a problem that is exclusive to Ireland, it's a very common problem in every country that has a low population density.

The problem is: many countryside dwellers don't seem to understand the physics of broadband and a few are clueless about economics; the longer your copper telephone line, the slower your broadband. The likes of Eircom are not going to roll out fiber broadband to your house, or surrounding area because there is no return on investment.

Look at it this way, would you start up a restruant in the backarse of nowhere in the Donegal Mountains? No, you wouldn't because it would cost more money to build the restaurant and run the place than it would make, due to the lack of customers.

But we are not talking about unnecessary things like restaurants. We are talking about something that in this day and age should be available everywhere as its just as important as electricity. The government should sort this problem out isn't that what we pay taxes for infrastructure I pay the same tax as someone living in a city and I also understand how broadband works but there are number of ways that they can provide a decent service.

murphaph

shane7218 wrote: »

I pay the same tax as someone living in a city

But your infrastructure costs many times more to provide to you than someone living in a city.

shane7218

murphaph wrote: »

But your infrastructure costs many times more to provide to you than someone living in a city.

So does that mean that I should not have a reliable connection to the internet ?

monument

shane7218 wrote: »

So does that mean that I should not have a reliable connection to the internet ?

His point mainly seems to be that your contention that "I pay the same tax as someone living in a city" misses the point that providing services to people in cities and other urban areas is cheaper than providing for those who live in rural areas.

It's also worth saying that overall, when it comes to tax take vs spending, people in city counties in Ireland are subsidising those in more rural counties.

Strawberry HillBilly

monument wrote: »

His point mainly seems to be that your contention that "I pay the same tax as someone living in a city" misses the point that providing services to people in cities and other urban areas is cheaper than providing for those who live in rural areas.

It's also worth saying that overall, when it comes to tax take vs spending, people in city counties in Ireland are subsidising those in more rural counties.

Might be just better if we forcibly repatriated all the people outside the big 5 or 6 cities and be done with it.:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Strawberry HillBilly wrote: »

Not sure of relevance of the NTL reference.

High speed internet access was delayed for years because a company were forced to go down a less profitable path.

FTTH is about the only way of getting real broadband for almost everyone more than 2Km from a cabinet but it's not economic to roll out in just rural areas. Forcing the ESB to roll it out in those areas will tie up a lot of capital until the usages pays for the install.

Would probably be quicker to build up in towns and villages and when they are breaking even there to do the less profitable runs.

jimmycrackcorm

Strawberry HillBilly wrote: »

Might be just better if we forcibly repatriated all the people outside the big 5 or 6 cities and be done with it.:rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point that has already been stated. It's simply not as economically feasible to provide the same level of broadband service as for example upc does, to rural users.

Neither are you going to get the M50 being built between every two villages and road infrastructure is equally necessary.

Is it reasonable to expect the only guy half way up a mountain with no-one else for miles around to be provided with fibre broadband, when for most uses, 3g is sufficient...