Why 'safety net' for our rural broadband users is wearing thin

clohamon

Adrian Weckler meets with Comreg Chairman Kevin O'Brien, who explains his thinking on a broadband Universal Service Obligation.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/why-safety-net-for-our-rural-broadband-users-is-wearing-thin-30004809.html

"It's a question that's often debated," he said. "But we haven't thought that it was necessary to designate broadband as a universal service obligation and I'll give you the reasons why. First, the market has actually delivered for most of the country, meaning that you now see broadband penetration [as a percentage] in the high sixties. Then you have national and rural broadband schemes together ensuring that a basic level of broadband is available throughout the country. We thought it would be creating an unnecessary burden to repeat all of that in the name of universal services. So we've left things at the safety net level."

watty

Delusional

Has "national and rural broadband schemes" delivered a SINGLE broadband connection?

Hint: Satellite and Mobile OF ANY KIND are not and unlikely to ever be Broadband. This is basic Physics and Economics (Massive LEO swarm or about x20 as many masts needed to give average DSL speed. Satellite Bandwidth is the most expensive and longest latency on the Planet)

SpaceTime

I think they need to designate it, but it needs to be on a technology-neutral basis.

ADSL, VDSL2 and probably most other wireline services including fibre are totally unsuited to some of the ribbon and scatter development patterns in rural Ireland and even many urban hinterlands.

We need world-leading radio/microwave services. Instead what we've had to date is small ISPs trying (very hard) to rollout complex networks on shoestring budgets in rural areas. This has resulted in wireless services getting a bad reputation as these networks often lack bandwidth or are using old tech.

Then on top of that, we'd 3 getting the national broadband scheme and using UMTS (3G) modems to provide it instead of something more appropriate.

The best thing ComReg could do is designate a large block of radio spectrum to rural broadband (and ban its use in urban areas where VDSL2+ cable exist as bringing large volumes of users in high density areas onboard would just clog it up unnecessarily).

Then ComReg should ensure that sites are made available with fibre access so that service providers in rural areas can locate towers there.

The other thing that should be looked at is actually helping Eircom and ESB to get fibre-to-mast type solutions out to rural areas by placing small cabinets / transmission towers on existing infrastructure and linking them back by fibre.

A small cabinet with an antenna similar size to a VDSL2 box in an urban area might be able to provide high speed broadband to a large scattered community.

If such a service were made available on a wholesale basis to all ISPs like the way VDSL2 is in towns/cities/villages, then it would be an open market.

I really think we need to start innovating in this area and stop thinking about broadband as being ADSL provided from a telephone exchange by eircom.

There's no reason we couldn't have a "Fibre-Powered Wireless" in rural areas and actually get decent and consistent speeds with relatively low ping times.

Ireland's not Singapore or Holland. It's a rather uniquely low density place (outside of cities and large towns) and we need to be realistic about how we opt to provide services. All that should matter is the end result not the choice of technology.

I really do think we're not thinking outside the box (or the exchange in this case).

watty

Fibre oddly is one of the most suitable technologies!

Wireless with enough spectrum for Broadband needs Line of Sight and is only suitable for small rural clusters with LOS to a hill near fibre and and ESB. It's a valuable tool for up to 20 or 30 homes, but only with Line Of Sight. If ALL of GSM band and So called Digital Dividend band was used as a single band then a mast could deliver non-LOS for maybe 10 households.

Nor is Ireland uniquely low density.

SpaceTime

watty wrote: »

Fibre oddly is one of the most suitable technologies!

Wireless with enough spectrum for Broadband needs Line of Sight and is only suitable for small rural clusters with LOS to a hill near fibre and and ESB.

Nor is Ireland uniquely low density.

Depends what frequencies you opt to use.

I'd actually suggest we look at using lower down UHF channels that had been used for TV.

There was a lot of talk about using frequencies lower than those used for GSM like maybe 700MHz at one stage in the USA.

We have a lot of unused spectrum since the digital switch over.

oscarBravo

900MHz is license-exempt in the US, and several WISPs use it - its propagation characteristics make it useful for non-LOS, but also make it a nightmare for frequency reuse. Interference is a big problem.

watty

SpaceTime wrote: »

We have a lot of unused spectrum since the digital switch over.

No we don't! Actually they sold 790MHz to 862MHz already. That is Comreg/Ofcom propaganda. They actually want to chip away till DTT is so crippled compared to Cable and Satellite that they can justify closing Broadcast Terrestrial TV entirely. That is their selfish goal and policy. It will be too late when the Politicians and Public realise what the "Digital Dividend" really means.

Once it's gone TV will NEVER get it back. If there was a commitment to better TV coverage, or all channels HD or a decent non-interlaced frame rate TV would very quickly run out. There is a channel plan assuming 6 x 8 MHz channels in now LESS spectrum than was planned for 4.

Digital TV does make channel reuse easier. But the current 790 to 862 TV sell off assumed only SD TV, no 3D, no HD, no higher frame rate etc.

No more TV spectrum should be sold off.

As it is Mobile now has 800, 900, 1800, 2100 and shortly 2500 MHz bands. It's terribly badly utilised. Without decent regulation and re-organisation any further TV spectrum sell off will simply go to highest bidder which will be Mobile.

I argued that ALL of the Digital Dividend 790MHz to 862MHz and the unused and badly used 870 to 880(864-868 is SRD ) allocated now in Rural Areas to FWALA (Fixed Wireless Broadband)

Current GSM Band is supposed to be now "technology neutral"! (880.0–915.0 925.0–960.0 with 915 to 925 empty duplex guard band). So in some rural areas Mobile could in theory use only 1800, 2100, 2500 and allow 790 to 862 uplink and 872 to 960 downlink (saving 10MHz spectrum) This would allow MINIMUM peak time speeds of 20Mbps and off peak 30Mbps always on compared with the minimum of 0.12Mbps of Mobile, connection on demand only and no assurance of a connection, nor of not dropping.

Fixed Wireless in a Band gives about x8 to x16 the capacity of mobile because two polarisations can be used and directional roof aerials outdoors instead of very low gain omnidirectional Mobile Modem or Handset aerials, often indoors.

Selling spectrum licences as much as possible to as many operators as you can means only poor capacity Mobile and never anything else. It doesn't benefit the consumer (a false concept of competition) and results in Mobile services on average 1/4 as good as if one Wholesale operator for all Mobile bands.

Unlicensed spectrum is useless outdoors after a while. You can't deliver quality service.

Victor

Implement a property tax supplement on rural households to fund this broadband.

clohamon

Victor wrote: »

Implement a property tax supplement on rural households to fund this broadband.

100% coverage and adoption benefits everyone, including urban dwellers.

Taxes have a way of getting misplaced. €13.5M was appropriated from European taxpayers specifically to fund the Rural Broadband Scheme. None of it was spent.

watty

None of the NBS money from Europe or Irish Tax payer paid for Broadband. It mostly financed Three to build more Mobile Phone base stations, which they were obligated to do anyway and hadn't in breach of licence.