Where are we going to get the 2.5 billion to do FTTH?

clohamon

Yes it will be taxes all the way, but it may not be as hard as imagined, bearing in mind that the government imposed a new tax on users of mobile phones and data last year - €850,000,000.
It was like taking candy from a baby, hardly anyone noticed. Those that did, cheered.

A few suggestions.

• NGA levy - all current and future fixed line NGA connections pay a levy. (Eircom and UPC)
• Copper levy - Eircom dial-up and xDSL (including VDSL) customers to pay
• Per connection levy for all licenced communications entities.
• Data tax.
• Raise income tax.
• Raise corporation tax
• Raise the household charge.
• Raise and ring fence part of the Broadcast Tax.
  
• Social media mooching tax. €1/entry, (re)tweet or like on all non-commercial accounts during office hours.
• 1 cent on texts (smee again)
  
  

bealtine

That estimate pre-supposes that the TIF estimates are correct and that FTTH would be done "that" way...

smee again

I'd like to see a 1c tax on texts, if it reduces the amount sent then so be it. It's money for nothing for the mobile phone companies and there are plenty of free alternatives as most already have data packages.

bk

bealtine wrote: »

That estimate pre-supposes that the TIF estimates are correct and that FTTH would be done "that" way...

I think the estimate is pretty accurate, it lines up with my own estimates.

There are 1.6 million homes in Ireland and about 2 million premises (including business).

Other European Telcos have said that it costs about €1000 per premises to do FTTH in mostly urban areas, so add a good extra bit for rural areas too.

So it would certainly be in the €2 to €2.5 billion range.

clohamon, as for your idea of taxing everyone in order to bring FTTH to rural areas, I'm not comfortable with that idea.

As it is 700,000 urban homes pretty much already have FTTH via UPC * and if the ESB rolls FTTH to the remaining 400,000 urban homes, then almost all urban homes will have gotten FTTH without the need for such direct taxation measures.

So that then raises the question, if FTTH can be delivered on a commercial basis to urban dwellers, should these urban dwellers be forced to pay for the life style choices made by those in rural areas?

I don't think so, instead I think rural dwellers should pay more for FTTH, much in the same way as they do for electricity, water, etc.

Again, a good approach to this would be to have Eircom install VDSL2 in every village in Ireland and then follow a BT model where people can request as pay for a FTTH connection from the local village.

People in rural areas could then either opt to pay the €1000 install fee up front, or have the install cost added to their monthly broadband bill over the next 10 or 20 years (probably about an extra €10 per month over 20 years).

So urban dwellers pay about €30 per month for phone and BB and rural dwellers pay about €40 per month for FTTH Broadband. Not a bad deal at al, IMO.

* Yes I know UPC isn't actually FTTH, but it's HFC network pretty much equals the speeds that FTTH deliver, at least the type of FTTH (GPON) which Eircom is planning.

bealtine

bk wrote: »

I think the estimate is pretty accurate, it lines up with my own estimates.

There are 1.6 million homes in Ireland and about 2 million premises (including business).

Other European Telcos have said that it costs about €1000 per premises to do FTTH in mostly urban areas, so add a good extra bit for rural areas too.

So it would certainly be in the €2 to €2.5 billion range.

Well the last time I read the TIF advocacy thing, admittedly a while back, the whole estimate was predicated on massive civil and ducting works, these simply are not needed (in the main) as fibre can easily be "clipped" to existing telegraph poles bringing down the cost of FTTH substantially

bk

bealtine wrote: »

Well the last time I read the TIF advocacy thing, admittedly a while back, the whole estimate was predicated on massive civil and ducting works, these simply are not needed (in the main) as fibre can easily be "clipped" to existing telegraph poles bringing down the cost of FTTH substantially

Hopefully the ESB will go ahead with their rollout in urban areas, which will give us a better idea of the costs in the real world and hopefully a template and experience for rural areas.

However while clipping to a pole might be cheaper then ducts, it has to be balanced with the fact that the €1000 number is based on urban installs. Rural installs while they might benefit from clipping along poles, need to be balanced with the fact that the fibres runs will be much longer, much more spread out and thus more expensive.

Also such installs will have higher maintenance costs due to being exposed up on the poles.

I really wouldn't expect much change from 2.5 billion for FTTH to every home in Ireland. Wish I was wrong, but I very much doubt it.

bealtine

bk wrote: »

Hopefully the ESB will go ahead with their rollout in urban areas, which will give us a better idea of the costs in the real world and hopefully a template and experience for rural areas.

However while clipping to a pole might be cheaper then ducts, it has to be balanced with the fact that the €1000 number is based on urban installs. Rural installs while they might benefit from clipping along poles, need to be balanced with the fact that the fibres runs will be much longer, much more spread out and thus more expensive.

Also such installs will have higher maintenance costs due to being exposed up on the poles.

I really wouldn't expect much change from 2.5 billion for FTTH to every home in Ireland. Wish I was wrong, but I very much doubt it.

Yeah fair points but not necessarily borne out by current experiences, the figures may have been correct a few years ago.

The fibre runs out west like to Clifden etc are all clipped to poles and if the fibre runs can handle the winds and storms in the West then it should be robust enough in the more sheltered parts of the country (like everywhere:)). Dingle is the same iirc.

I'm not saying it's all going to be done for 50c but I do think the 2.5 billion estimate is way too high and yes the ESB rollout will give us more robust figures

clohamon

bk wrote: »

clohamon, as for your idea of taxing everyone in order to bring FTTH to rural areas, I'm not comfortable with that idea.

I don't suppose so.

bk wrote: »

As it is 700,000 urban homes pretty much already have FTTH via UPC * and if the ESB rolls FTTH to the remaining 400,000 urban homes, then almost all urban homes will have gotten FTTH without the need for such direct taxation measures.

So that then raises the question, if FTTH can be delivered on a commercial basis to urban dwellers, should these urban dwellers be forced to pay for the life style choices made by those in rural areas?

The reasons rural dwellers live where they do are as much to do with the legacy of colonisation and corrupt planning as anything. The other reasons are probably varied. Talking about "life style choice" is pejorative. The estimation of net transfers between town and country is probably quite complicated.

If you see communications networks as a public utility, then everyone (100%) must move forward in equal step. That's where the wider benefits are. The planning/dispersion debate is a different issue. The remedy to it (if that is what you want to do) is on a wholly different timescale to the broadband - maybe 100 or 200 years. Which is not to say that we shouldn't have a debate about dispersion, or even try to remedy it, just not at the expense of broadband.

bk wrote: »

I don't think so, instead I think rural dwellers should pay more for FTTH, much in the same way as they do for electricity, water, etc.

Some kind of PSO levy could contribute to higher operating costs (if they existed) in rural areas - but not capital costs.

bk wrote: »

Again, a good approach to this would be to have Eircom install VDSL2 in every village in Ireland and then follow a BT model where people can request as pay for a FTTH connection from the local village.

I think everyone is agreed that FTTH is a better technical solution. This thread is about how to pay for it. It seems to me that FTTH would also be cheaper in very rural areas. If you have made that decision, then putting VDSL cabinets in the villages seems like a waste. The emphasis ought to be on how to get the best technical solution rather than making the most of what we're given by eircom. Doing FTTH on a one-off basis (while being gouged by eircom) seems like an inefficient roll-out plan.

bk wrote: »

People in rural areas could then either opt to pay the €1000 install fee up front, or have the install cost added to their monthly broadband bill over the next 10 or 20 years (probably about an extra €10 per month over 20 years).

Some financing like this might be necessary in the absence of a national coverage plan.

watty

Isn't phone & Electricity USO?

Also we are not talking "real" Rural in many cases. 15 minutes commute distance from a City Centre other than Cork or Dublin may put you in 1Mbps to 3Mbps DSL or no Broadband. Coupled with perhaps 1/2 the price to buy a house with small garden vs house with almost no garden in the city explains it. There are still places till recently in major cities with poor or no Broadband. Eircom is of course ugrading most where it isn't needed, where UPC would wipe them out. Shows the fallacy of the "Competition" Mantra for anything that should have USO. Also there are SIX large energy companies in UK and they STILL are calling for more competition. They are deluded. With six majors already, more competition may cause prices to rise, not fall as the goal for all of them is Shareholder profits not the best deal for Customer.

Blame 90 years of rubbish planning, not "life style" choices. Why are there over 400,000 Septic tanks? Why has almost nowhere (especially towns and virtually every small town / village) other than Tallaght or Shannon New Town ever had a sustainable development plan with mix of houses and site sizes and the main cities "development" for last 40 years has been stuff as many poorly made, rubbish insulated, rectangular semis in as possible. Raheen isn't even inside Limerick City, as is much else of Limerick City Suburban development in last 40 years! More stupidity.

We need better local government, properly funded and better central government. Ignore the Vested Interests and Developers. Better Regulation & penalties and enforcement.

It would make you weep the wasted money and lost for ever opportunities. Of course in the last 50 years South American and African countries have be run worse.

Stinicker

A very valid valid post by Watty, sadly any common sense like this is unheard of in Ireland and why plan sensibly when you can have brown envelopes and build houses near the top of Carauntohill altogether.

The previous administration have alot to answer for in Ireland when there could have been a golden opportunity to at least fibre duct every new house built from say 2004-2005 onwards and make some attempt at future proofing the things. Instead quite alot of the tiger era housing stock were so poorly built that you'd be better-off build a new house today than buy a slapjob tiger era mass-market McMansion.