As Finland plans universal 100Mbps by 2015, is Ireland’s broadband plan just another

bealtine

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/30007-as-finland-plans-universal


Finland is three years into an ambitious programme to provide a 100Mbps universal broadband service by 2015. Finland also famously declared broadband access a basic human right. It makes you wonder if we here in Ireland take the infrastructure question seriously enough.

Come to Ireland and the evidence of the potential benefits of the internet economy on a small country is apparent for all to see. Companies ranging from Google to Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and many more are all here and the local operations are punching above their weight.

Let’s not forget, this country provided half the world’s supply of Pentium processors in the midst of the PC revolution. Now we are at the heart of the cloud revolution because we are no longer on the periphery of Europe but the last stepping stone between Wall Street and the European Market – this puts us at the heart of the action.

In my little village 48 or more kilometres outside Dublin nearly every third person you meet or their spouse is employed in a household-name tech firm.

In west Dublin, Google, Amazon and Digital Realty Trust are constructing their newest data centres – the engine rooms of e-commerce as I call them – and Microsoft’s US$1bn data centre in Clondalkin is fully operational. There are 30 of these massive data centres dotted along the western fringes of Dublin.

In a country stricken by 14.8pc unemployment, there are 5,000 job vacancies in tech companies.

Keep parish-pump politics out of strategic decision-making
So we did well out of technology and will continue to do so. But ask any mealy-mouthed TD or local town councillor with an eye on the parish pump rather than the national pulse about the digital imperative and broadband infrastructure and you’ll get vague platitudes about how important it is, of course.

In recent months, an out-of-touch councillor in the west famously warned that all people will do if they had broadband is watch YouTube. Yeah, right.

But where’s the broadband? A sketchy plan that may or may not deliver 70Mbps-100Mbps to half the population and at least 40Mbps to a further 20pc pales insignificantly beside Finland’s goal to bring 100Mbps access to within 2km of all homes (including those up there in the Arctic Circle) by 2015.

According to an article on Ars Technica this morning, Finland is exceeding the minimum requirements of the EU’s Digital Agenda to bring a minimum of 30Mbps to all citizens by 2020. Most of Denmark already has 32Mbps wireless coverage.

The core of the Finnish plan is to ensure that 100Mbps access is within 2km of all Finns no matter where they live, even if they live in the permafrost.

The Finnish government will invest €66m in the plan while €25m will come from the EU and €40m will come from individual municipalities and towns.

However, the plan will not be without its challenges. Major Finnish telecoms operators can’t be drawn into the plan, despite a 67pc subsidy by the government.

But while the plan will face challenges, it’s a more ambitious plan than the list of targets the Irish Government has put forward.

Where’s the ambition? Where’s the vision?
What Ireland lacks is vision. This is the country that foolishly built a spanking new motorway with a toll booth along the western spine of its capital city with only two lanes, only to have to add new lanes once it became apparent the motorway was no longer fit-for-purpose.

This is the country that has ducts for fibre under its motorways but a stubborn National Roads Authority is dragging its heels to open these ducts up to telecoms operators.

This is the country that thinks wireless 3G infrastructure is OK to keep us comfortably within the EU league tables without any notion of foresight as to what proper digital infrastructure might mean for the generations that will follow this one.

This is the country that allows local politicians to make ill-informed political decisions that have long-term implications for the lives of individuals and their families across the nation. The criminal bank bailout decision is a case in point.

Here’s another case in point. This morning, Ireland woke up to the news that its national telecoms operator Eircom is to lay off 2,000 people out of its 5,700-strong workforce.

Before the State made €7bn out of Eircom’s IPO in 1999, the telecoms operator which should be a jewel in the nation’s infrastructural crown (but isn't) employed 14,000 people. It went into examinership this summer with debts of €3.7bn after seven different owners and a decade-long spate of asset stripping. In 18 months, this company, which in the late Nineties led Europe in terms of its modernisation programmes, will employ less than 4,000 people. The mind boggles.

The gift
At a time when the nation needs it most, the technology industry is a gift for a country no longer on the periphery of Europe. This gift intermingles with other vital industries, such as financial services and biopharma, and will be crucial for other sectors, from SMEs building export businesses to the agricultural sector, where traceability of supply from the farm to the fork will need the cloud.

This nation's people and its politicians need to be clued in to the opportunities of the digital age.

We need people in positions of authority to wonder aloud is the digital plan we have the best that we could come up with and is there a danger it could turn out to be a debacle like the M50? And if that happens, what will happen to our digital industries?

We need vision and we need forward planning on a grand scale, not just in communications infrastructure but in healthcare, education and other areas that keep the nation working.

For that we need experts, not local-oriented politicians focused on their local needs and civil servants who like to remain in the shadows. Above all, we need vision.


John Kennedy |

lucernarian

John Kennedy highlighting the inadequacy of 3G mobile networks for providing broadband?? There might be a hat I've to eat somewhere:)

Still though, it's a decent article and makes most of the right points. I'm glad to see that small steps are being pointed out in making Ireland's broadband infrastructure that bit better. E.g. the NRA dragging heels.

On that note, what exactly are the NRA failing to do currently? Not all motorways have had ducting provided for instance. That will inevitably cause problems.

oscarBravo

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

On that note, what exactly are the NRA failing to do currently?

As of a couple of years ago, they didn't want fibre in the ducts because they would have had to ask permission of the fibre operators to carry out road works. Not inform them; ask their permission. Quite understandably, the NRA weren't terribly interested.

I think the situation may have changed somewhat since then.

clohamon

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

On that note, what exactly are the NRA failing to do currently? Not all motorways have had ducting provided for instance. That will inevitably cause problems.

The motorways were not a missed opportunity. Most of them were built with ducting, which is piping along the side, and this removes 90% of the cost of building a fibre network. The other 10% is with regard to deploying the fibre. However, we have concerns about what has been done as it has not been particularly well mapped so it is not exactly clear what is in place. We also believe the current charging structure is a little high. However, these can be changed so opportunities exist and we will certainly pursue them.- Conal Henry enet

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2012092600007?opendocument

The NRA consider the ducting is for their own use for lighting and signalling. They are only prepared to share where there is substantial spare capacity. They will not assist with way-leaves across CIE bridges etc. Access to ducting across PPP roads is not their business either according to them.

The pricing structure is here in Section D. Maybe someone who knows could advise on whether it's reasonable or not. Conal Henry doesn't think so.

oscarBravo

clohamon wrote: »

The pricing structure is here in Section D. Maybe someone who knows could advise on whether it's reasonable or not. Conal Henry doesn't think so.

At €300,000 a year from Galway to Dublin, I'd be inclined to agree with Conal.

Tango One

Am I right in assuming it 8600 for the first 1km plus a one off admin charge of 4000?

irishdude11

I don't really see what the big deal is in needing faster broadband. It'll be handy when it happens but it's not going to make feck all difference to 99% of the public apart from the fact that they will be able to download pirated music and movies faster. That is the only use the vast majority of people have for faster broadband.

cgarvey

irishdude11 wrote: »

That is the only use the vast majority of people have for faster broadband.

You're right, "there's no demand" [*]

[*]This statement may not be true.

bealtine

irishdude11 wrote: »

I don't really see what the big deal is in needing faster broadband. It'll be handy when it happens but it's not going to make feck all difference to 99% of the public apart from the fact that they will be able to download pirated music and movies faster. That is the only use the vast majority of people have for faster broadband.

Of course there's no need for faster broadband, jobs don't depend on it at all, businesses don't need it at all, it's just a con-job by the invisible government

oscarBravo

irishdude11 wrote: »

I don't really see what the big deal is in needing faster broadband. It'll be handy when it happens but it's not going to make feck all difference to 99% of the public apart from the fact that they will be able to download pirated music and movies faster. That is the only use the vast majority of people have for faster broadband.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"I don't really see what the big deal is in needing faster broadband." -- irishdude11, 2012.

bealtine

cgarvey wrote: »

You're right, "there's no demand" [*]

[*]This statement may not be true.

Ah the "no demand" thing...that was the excuse eircom used to use when they didn't see why they should give up the dialup revenues...or when they didn't want to invest in new technologies. No investment meant no demand, what it meant is they didn't see what all the fuss was about and that was 10 years ago

irishdude11

bealtine wrote: »

Of course there's no need for faster broadband, jobs don't depend on it at all, businesses don't need it at all, it's just a con-job by the invisible government

I said its not going to make feck all difference to the general public. But its going to make feck all difference to 99% of businesses too. Please tell me what this urgent need is for faster broadband for the vast majority of business in this country? 'Businesses need broadband'..what exactly do they need it for? Please tell me what 100MBP broadband speeds will mean for the general public apart from faster movies/music downloading?

The only ones who might make some use of the super high speeds are IT companies and they will already have 50mb+ broadband connections...if super high speed broadband comes along they might be able to ftp a few files a bit quicker, that's about the height of it...they can already move them around very quickly anyway. Practically the only companies that would need it are the ones moving massive quantities of data constantly...companies dealing in GIS for example. I don't think there is much going on in the GIS sector at the moment here. Broadband speeds of 50MB+ will make feck all difference to every other company..web development companies for example, there just isn't a critical need for it when it is already very fast for the amount of data they move around.

PogMoThoin

irishdude11 wrote: »

I said its not going to make feck all difference to the general public. But its going to make feck all difference to 99% of businesses too. Please tell me what this urgent need is for faster broadband for the vast majority of business in this country? 'Businesses need broadband'..what exactly do they need it for? Please tell me what 100MBP broadband speeds will mean for the general public apart from faster movies/music downloading?

The only ones who might make some use of the super high speeds are IT companies and they will already have 50mb+ broadband connections...if super high speed broadband comes along they might be able to ftp a few files a bit quicker, that's about the height of it...they can already move them around very quickly anyway. Practically the only companies that would need it are the ones moving massive quantities of data constantly...companies dealing in GIS for example. I don't think there is much going on in the GIS sector at the moment here. Broadband speeds of 50MB+ will make feck all difference to every other company..web development companies for example, there just isn't a critical need for it when it is already very fast for the amount of data they move around.

I would have thought it was self explanatory

• saves time and makes a more efficient workplace.
• a more consistent service regardless of the number of users.
• allows the upload of larger files or high definition video at any time of the day.
• allows for high definition video conferencing with customers.
• enables better working VPN's for a seamless flexible workplace.
• allows moving of applications and data to the cloud.

Not all businesses have high speed broadband. I know of some offices in the west where 6-7 computers are running on a 1mbit connection.

bealtine

bealtine

clohamon

oscarBravo wrote: »

At €300,000 a year from Galway to Dublin, I'd be inclined to agree with Conal.

Yes you'd want to be quite the entrepreneur to get involved with the NRA.

First there is the survey costs which have to borne by the customer. Then there's the refurbishment of the ducts, again at the customers expense. Then the NRA up-front charges for maintenance liability and installation supervision. There's the cost of the cable itself and the cable installation, the annual fees as you say[Oscar Bravo], and the cost of capital. At the end of the fifteen year licence period the customer loses all rights to the cable and duct.

That looks like €5.9M (200km for 15 years) before actually paying for survey, refurb, cable and installation; and I'm sure I'm missing out a lot more besides.

Expensive stuff.

Analysys Mason had a comparative chart for incumbent duct rental across europe. The NRA is €0.13/m/mth for just Motorway rental, but it seems that's not half the story.

kippy

To be fair to some here, there is absolutely no reality in expecting that every residence in the country should have access to 100Meg+ broad for a few reasons.
1. We have residences all over the shop.
2. Using current technology the costs to get that speed of broadband to all residences is just not worth it.
3. There are a significant amount of people residences who actually DO NOT NEED or WANT anything higher than a decent (5-10 meg) stable connection upon which MOST work and leisure activities can be done.

Grand, there will be towns and built up areas that probably will, in time have access to these services.

Yeah, there's the separate side of it where you want to get decent broadband into the businesses that REQUIRE it but there are hundreds of small businesses around the place that don't need 100Meg, nor will they ever....

Then of course there are the big multinationals, who wouldn't be here if what they had at the moment didn't provide for their needs and indeed many of these have a lot of capacity with their providers.

Just because YOU would use and LIKE faster broadband and have a need for it, does not mean that EVERYONE does.

We would be far better served in improving areas that are only able use a mobile connection/upgrade a few towns, increase capacity into industrial estates etc than focusing time and money on a completely unrealistic and unneeded scenario.

I've come around to this way of thinking of late, years ago, I'd have said the same about everyone needing fast broadband.

cgarvey

kippy wrote: »

don't need 100Meg, nor will they ever....

With my moderator hat firmly off (and feel free to report the post if it is too much!), but can we put that nonsense to bed for once and for all. The same can be said for all levels of internet access speeds since its dawn, you just vary the year and the bits per second. I.e. in 2000 there was simply "no need for a home to have 10Mbps" yet here we are with half the internet traffic streaming from Netflix 12 years later. Nobody will need 1024KB of RAM, and so on. Nonsense, and clap trap. The sort of thinking that got us to this mess, with a massive, massive digitial divide and chaotic regulatory environment.

A sentence with "no need" and "bits" or "bytes" in it, is the sentence of someone who doesn't understand the context.

kippy

cgarvey wrote: »

With my moderator hat firmly off (and feel free to report the post if it is too much!), but can we put that nonsense to bed for once and for all. The same can be said for all levels of internet access speeds since its dawn, you just vary the year and the bits per second. I.e. in 2000 there was simply "no need for a home to have 10Mbps" yet here we are with half the internet traffic streaming from Netflix 12 years later. Nobody will need 1024KB of RAM, and so on. Nonsense, and clap trap. The sort of thinking that got us to this mess, with a massive, massive digitial divide and chaotic regulatory environment.

A sentence with "no need" and "bits" or "bytes" in it, is the sentence of someone who doesn't understand the context.

I've nothing against youre post, but I do think you reread my post again you'll see that is NOT what I am saying.
EVERY home in this country does not NEED 100 Meg broadband and never will.
In an ideal world, yeah they should but not at massive expense.
It's much more important to come up with a realistic stable solution for those not so close to large population centres than try push unrealistic products to people who won't use them.

Do you think it is feasible in any way, shape or form to run fibre to every house in the country? Or would it be more feasible to work on a wireless solution of SOME sort that give relatively stable connections to these more remote places?

People need to see there is a divide between the needs of the various types of business, and the individual.

You mention RAM there and that is an interesting thing to say.

People promoting 100Meg broadband for every home in the country, is akin to people promoting that every home in the country needs a top of the range computing device.

Technology does change and there may come a time when it is feasible to provide this service.

oscarBravo

kippy wrote: »

EVERY home in this country does not NEED 100 Meg broadband and never will.

Ten years ago, my local Eircom manager told me "you will never, ever have broadband where you live, so stop asking." The widely-held belief back then was that EVERY home in this country didn't NEED 512k and never would.

That was a sincerely-held view by people who genuinely believed it.

They were wrong.

kippy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ten years ago, my local Eircom manager told me "you will never, ever have broadband where you live, so stop asking." The widely-held belief back then was that EVERY home in this country didn't NEED 512k and never would.

That was a sincerely-held view by people who genuinely believed it.

They were wrong.

Look lads,
I know the stories,
I've been around long enough. And as I said up until recently I would have thought the same way. But at some point you have to ask yourself how feasible is a project, weight up the pros and cons etc etc and then decide is it a realistic target.

As I said, with the current technology and prices, as well as varying demands, there is no way it is realistic. If technology changes then that may change.
Currently, it is all about ensuring the areas where businesses are based, big ones in particular, that need high speed, get high speed.

cgarvey

I read your post, and understood it. Because of that exact line of thinking (no-one would ever need X Kbps at some point in time), we have 5 year old estates in every large town/city that have aluminium phone cabling to an unconnected sub-exchange. Yes, commercialism (and corporate greed) played its part, but if eircom knew 7 years ago that UPC would wipe the floor with them, they wouldn't have put aluminium cable in to those estates.

kippy wrote: »

Do you think it is feasible in any way, shape or form to run fibre to every house in the country? Or would it be more feasible to work on a wireless solution of SOME sort that give relatively stable connections to these more remote places?

In any way shape or form, yes. Certainly. With political will, a change in regulatory environment, and commercial cooperation, a nationwide fibre roll out would be feasible. It would take some time, obviously, but it would be feasible. There was no way electricity roll out was feasible at the time. Many group water schemes are still not feasible.

If you're including cellular data (3G/LTE/nomadic WiMax) in your "wireless", then there is nothing stable about those connections. Again, that is the short-term thinking that has thwarted long-term investment in a key utility. We're only seen a fraction of the consequence of this now. We're in big trouble when teleworking starts to become mainstream.

A decent national 4G network would cost more than a fibre network. So, that's a definite yes, to answer your question, from me.

Now, don't take that to mean I think we should roll out a fibre network to every house right now, or that 4G investment needs to stop (in favour of fibre). But, we need to be planning for it now; we need to be getting regulatory frameworks in place (so far, we've learned nothing from the LLU disaster, for example.), we need to be getting ducting/planning permission/rights of way issues sorted now. If operators can share RANs now, then they can share fibre roll outs. Ideally, we'd formalise that a bit better than a loose commercial arrangement (maybe nationalise some of the core & all of the access networks). However, none of that crucial planning can be done with the line of thinking that homes only need a few megabits.

The most immediate need I can think of for high-speed networks is on-demand multi-channel HD (i.e. 2 TVs streaming HD TV content in the house). That's not pie-in-the-sky notional stuff, and it's not 10 years down the road either.

kippy

cgarvey wrote: »

I read your post, and understood it. Because of that exact line of thinking (no-one would ever need X Kbps at some point in time), we have 5 year old estates in every large town/city that have aluminium phone cabling to an unconnected sub-exchange. Yes, commercialism (and corporate greed) played its part, but if eircom knew 7 years ago that UPC would wipe the floor with them, they wouldn't have put aluminium cable in to those estates.

This is it though, housing estates are all well and good, and at least the costs of getting fibre to houses in these setups is lower than getting fibre to a house out on it's own. This is where the issues arise.

In any way shape or form, yes. Certainly. With political will, a change in regulatory environment, and commercial cooperation, a nationwide fibre roll out would be feasible. It would take some time, obviously, but it would be feasible. There was no way electricity roll out was feasible at the time. Many group water schemes are still not feasible.

Does anyone know how much a nationwide fibre roll out would cost and how it would be paid for?

If you're including cellular data (3G/LTE/nomadic WiMax) in your "wireless", then there is nothing stable about those connections. Again, that is the short-term thinking that has thwarted long-term investment in a key utility. We're only seen a fraction of the consequence of this now. We're in big trouble when teleworking starts to become mainstream.

No, I am not including them. And I would also point to potential improvements in network over powerlines to solve the problem of the more outreaching residences - that may be down the line, I don't know enough about where that is at at present.

A decent national 4G network would cost more than a fibre network. So, that's a definite yes, to answer your question, from me.

I am not advocating a national anything.

Now, don't take that to mean I think we should roll out a fibre network to every house right now, or that 4G investment needs to stop (in favour of fibre). But, we need to be planning for it now; we need to be getting regulatory frameworks in place (so far, we've learned nothing from the LLU disaster, for example.), we need to be getting ducting/planning permission/rights of way issues sorted now. If operators can share RANs now, then they can share fibre roll outs. Ideally, we'd formalise that a bit better than a loose commercial arrangement (maybe nationalise some of the core & all of the access networks). However, none of that crucial planning can be done with the line of thinking that homes only need a few megabits.

Agreed, joined up thinking is required.

The most immediate need I can think of for high-speed networks is on-demand multi-channel HD (i.e. 2 TVs streaming HD TV content in the house). That's not pie-in-the-sky notional stuff, and it's not 10 years down the road either.

How exactly is this going to attract further jobs to this country or indeed is it seen as a necessary service - bearing in mind the alternatives currently available.

As for homeworkers, I know of very few homeworkers who absolutely require a 100Meg connection or anywhere close to it for that matter, again it depends on what they are involved in.


Look, again, ideal world scenario, the powerline stuff comes alone and ESB networks provides services to all. The infrastructure is already in place.

ItHurtsWhenIP

You took the words out of my mouth ...

cgarvey wrote: »

It would take some time, obviously, but it would be feasible. There was no way electricity roll out was feasible at the time.

This country was in a right hole when the rural electrification project was kicked off. Now there are wee sheds in the middle of forests, with mud tracks leading up to them that have got electrical power from the ESB. Now these sheds don't need a 100Mbps piece of fibre (I don't think Moo TV is in HD yet ), but the farmer might find a good use for it at his home.

Most farmers I know have multiple jobs these days as farming doesn't pay what it used to. Who's to say that one of these people couldn't become the next Steve Jobs, if he/she used the tools that a high speed internet connection would facilitate.

I'm no expert but I don't think that a "Rural Fibre-ation" - (TM) MMFITWGDW 2012 :rolleyes: - project would be quite as involved as the electrification project. There are huge bundles of dark fibre criss-crossing this country. In my own village, there is an e-Net fibre running through it, connecting the MANs of Limerick and Thurles - it passes less than 10m from the local Eircon (sic) Exchange. Do you think they'd connect it up for the benefit of the 200 or so houses in the area ...

cgarvey wrote: »

We're in big trouble when teleworking starts to become mainstream.

We're already in trouble. I think I saw something mentioned here recently about one of the big internet companies (Google/Amazon?) stating that they insisted/wanted that their staff to have a minimum of 3Mbps/1Mbps home connections to enable them to use their Laptops at home for e-mail, collaboration, voice and video.

I have those speeds (thanks to an FWA connection) and let me tell you a video chat can be patchy. The rest of the stuff (based on current semi-cloud technology) is OK-ish. If more shifts into the cloud, then it'll be less than OK.

Most big corporations are now factoring into their real-estates that they only want to have desks for 70-80% of their workforces to reduce rent and rates.

cgarvey wrote: »

The most immediate need I can think of for high-speed networks is on-demand multi-channel HD (i.e. 2 TVs streaming HD TV content in the house). That's not pie-in-the-sky notional stuff, and it's not 10 years down the road either.

I don't even think that is 2 years down the road. If a house has two TVs now, then they could both be pulling down different HD streams. Plus the kids with their iThings and dad trying to put in an evening's work. Oh and for those fancy people - the fridge trying to order a pinta milk for the morning :eek:.

cgarvey

kippy wrote: »

Does anyone know how much a nationwide fibre roll out would cost and how it would be paid for?

Billions, but only a small few of them. IrelandOffline has some estimates done, and I think it's been bandied about by a industry insider somewhere too. €4bn or less, as a ball park.

kippy wrote: »

How exactly is this going to attract further jobs to this country or indeed is it seen as a necessary service - bearing in mind the alternatives currently available.

The large FDIs have said as much. We need them.

kippy wrote: »

I know of very few homeworkers who absolutely require a 100Meg connection

right now, I can only think of those that work with video (production/marketing/etc.). If we're just discussing right now, then you're missing the point. What will we need capacity for in the near future? Video production (couple that with our favourable tax environment for the film industry here), remote call-centres, next generate tele-presence, and even just basic workflows over VPN in the not so distant future.

A few megabits is all most people need is what left us with the NBS. Money that could have been much better spent (and actually delivery quality broadband).

kippy wrote: »

Look, again, ideal world scenario, the powerline stuff comes alone and ESB networks provides services to all. The infrastructure is already in place.

Powerline research has all but ruled it out (interference), unless you're talking about wrapping fibre. If you're talking about fibre, then have you not just come full circle?

kippy

cgarvey wrote: »

Billions, but only a small few of them. IrelandOffline has some estimates done, and I think it's been bandied about by a industry insider somewhere too. €4bn or less, as a ball park.

The large FDIs have said as much. We need them.

4 billion is not a small few billion.
So FDI will be determined whether a house in the remotest part of the country has 100Meg broadband?

right now, I can only think of those that work with video (production/marketing/etc.). If we're just discussing right now, then you're missing the point. What will we need capacity for in the near future? Video production (couple that with our favourable tax environment for the film industry here), remote call-centres, next generate tele-presence, and even just basic workflows over VPN in the not so distant future.

Again, the type of operations will rely on 100meg broadband going to every house in the country?

A few megabits is all most people need is what left us with the NBS. Money that could have been much better spent (and actually delivery quality broadband).

I've no idea what the NBS costs to be honest and I don't believe it's a great option but as a stop gap........was it not better to get some level of connectivity to those that didnt have it than "wait it out" until the monies needed to provide a faster service appeared from somewhere?

Powerline research has all but ruled it out (interference), unless you're talking about wrapping fibre. If you're talking about fibre, then have you not just come full circle?

As I said, I havent been keeping pace with powerline, that is unfortunate.
No, fibre on powerline brings probably the same costs (well, maybe less thinking about it)

PogMoThoin

kippy wrote: »

4 billion is not a small few billion

It is, How much are those banks getting again?

kippy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

It is, How much are those banks getting again?

I knew someone would mention that.......
There are a lot of other things in this country that 4 billion could be better spent on, especially in these times, than banks or fibre to every house in the country, which would give a return faster and create far more economic activity.


Again, how does streaming TV over fibre to a house in the most rural of areas impact on the investment decisions of a major employer.

PogMoThoin

It's narrow minded short sighted thinking like yours that has us in the mess we're in. We've had plenty bad plans and band aid fixes that brought nobody broadband. We're not building for today, we need to plan and build for the the future, and in doing so aim for the highest speeds possible, because one day even this will not be fast enough. We are already well behind the rest of the world, we need to at least be planning our complete fibre rollout now, starting with getting it to each and every town and not stopping until we have it to every single premises no matter how remote. Finland can do it for a few million inside the Arctic circle.

kippy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

It's narrow minded short sighted thinking like yours that has us in the mess we're in. We've had plenty bad plans and band aid fixes that brought nobody broadband. We're not building for today, we need to plan and build for the the future, and in doing so aim for the highest speeds possible, because one day even this will not be fast enough. We are already well behind the rest of the world, we need to at least be planning our complete fibre rollout now, starting with getting it to each and every town and not stopping until we have it to every single premises no matter how remote. Finland can do it for a few million inside the Arctic circle.

What mess are you talking about?
Really, it is crazy to expect fibre to every house in the country especially considering the situation the country is in.
I don't see broadband speeds having an impact on the investment decisions of Google, Ebay, Facebook, Paypal, Intel - whatever tech companies you want to mention and you know why?
Because ultimately these organisations can be provided with the connectivity they require.

Get fibre to all the towns in the country and provide and infrastructure there, break it out to some form of wireless to get to those further out, by all means, but running fibre everywhere just doesnt make sense on a lot of levels.

PogMoThoin

kippy wrote: »

What mess are you talking about?

Me thinks you're trolling now. The NBS gifted €250 million to Three to build a fourth mobile phone network, it didn't bring a single person broadband, in fact some people disconnected perfectly working broadband because the flyer came through their door with the Minister saying this was the answer to their needs. Some of them even ended up with satellite dishes on their gables and a contract they couldn't break.

kippy wrote: »

Really, it is crazy to expect fibre to every house in the country especially considering the situation the country is in.

I don't, I expect a long term plan with that being the end game, say 10 years

kippy wrote: »

I don't see broadband speeds having an impact on the investment decisions of Google, Ebay, Facebook, Paypal, Intel - whatever tech companies you want to mention and you know why?
Because ultimately these organisations can be provided with the connectivity they require.

Good luck in getting any of them to invest outside of the cities where they can be provided for. How does a large town attract investment without the infrastructure. We have already seen the start of a digital divide: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/digital-21/item/27614-first-signs-of-irelands-di

kippy wrote: »

Get fibre to all the towns in the country and provide and infrastructure there, break it out to some form of wireless to get to those further out, by all means, but running fibre everywhere just doesnt make sense on a lot of levels.

Agreed, but this is another band aid fix, the end aim has to be fibre.