Rural broadband users face price hike over claims of 'urban subsidy'

BeerWolf

LINK

... curious how much of a hike it would be. I wouldn't mind paying it if it means getting fibre, since I'm currently paying €65 just for mobile broadband. But it mentions a hike on a measly 5mb connection ?

Hiking prices for a rubbish connection is just plain out stupid.

Big Lar

We pay an extra €40 - €50 per year for electricity in rural areas so it seems that there is a template out there already, although it should be noted that we get the exact same electrical service all over the country rural or urban. Cannot say this about broadband thou.

Rossi IRL

Broadband should be priced on speed, i shouldnt be paying more for 2.5mb than others who are getting 120mb


we rural folk already pay more

murphaph

Big Lar wrote: »

We pay an extra €40 - €50 per year for electricity in rural areas so it seems that there is a template out there already, although it should be noted that we get the exact same electrical service all over the country rural or urban. Cannot say this about broadband thou.

It costs on average significantly more than 50 quid extra to maintain overhead rural supplies of course. In urban areas it's mostly ducted safe away from the elements.

OneEightSeven

Hopefully, they will go ahead with it. It will help deter people from seeking a cheaper lifestyle in the countryside and live in the urban areas like the rest of us.

BeerWolf

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Hopefully, they will go ahead with it. It will help deter people from seeking a cheaper lifestyle in the countryside and live in the urban areas like the rest of us.

You're seriously trying to be smug for being an urbanite?

Sod off with them jackass comments...

OneEightSeven

BeerWolf wrote: »

You're seriously trying to be smug for being an urbanite?

The only pathetic people around here are those who believe they are entitled high speed broadband whilst enjoying the cheaper lifestyle offered by rural areas.

I'm not being smug, I'm being realistic. Fibre optic broadband is the only way rural areas will reach the speeds offered in urban areas but it costs too much to roll out fibre to rural areas.

Rural folk then come on here and demand that the government subsidize the roll out even though they're being subsidized already. Pardon me for not wanting my tax money to be wasted like that. It's bad enough we're paying for accommodation for single mothers and feeding their children just because some or many of them prefer being career mothers instead of earning a living, but that's a debate for a different forum because I could go on about them and others who sponge off the rest off us.

polaris68

The Commission for Communications Regulation (Comreg) has found that urban broadband customers are subsidising rural users..............Eircom may be allowed to charge correspondingly higher prices outside (urban areas) subject to the proposed notification and approval procedures.

Interestingly, there is no mention that Eircom would be required to charge correspondingly lower prices inside (urban areas) if this goes ahead!

Simi

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The only pathetic people around here are those who believe they are entitled high speed broadband whilst enjoying the cheaper lifestyle offered by rural areas.

I'm not being smug, I'm being realistic. Fibre optic broadband is the only way rural areas will reach the speeds offered in urban areas but it costs too much to roll out fibre to rural areas.

Rural folk then come on here and demand that the government subsidize the roll out even though they're being subsidized already. Pardon me for not wanting my tax money to be wasted like that. It's bad enough we're paying for accommodation for single mothers and feeding their children just because some or many of them prefer being career mothers instead of earning a living, but that's a debate for a different forum because I could go on about them and others who sponge off the rest off us.

Wow, just wow.

BeerWolf

OneEightSeven wrote: »

/snip

You are being smug because you got this intricate believe that people living in the country are solely people in the country for a 'cheaper' lifestyle, and to that extent probably implying of people living in the country that work in towns / cities...

Regardless of where people live they pay the same amount of taxes as you, by accordance of their income and such.

MBSnr

Simi wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

+1. But then you should read his other posts about the same subject.... We must all move to urban areas regardless if we can or not..... Simples apparently.

shruikan2553

Maybe they might improve things if they can charge more to recoup costs.
Would be nice to see a drop in price for urban areas but I doubt that will happen.

BeerWolf

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Maybe they might improve things if they can charge more to recoup costs.
Would be nice to see a drop in price for urban areas but I doubt that will happen.

You do realise people in rural areas are paying heck of a lot more as it is for FWA and mobile broadband for €35-70+ for a limited data allowances of 10-70GB, with up to 8MB speeds [often being unreliable], while people on fibre are only paying €30 or less for UNLIMITED of up to 200MB ?

You got it good already is what I'm saying...

murphaph

BeerWolf wrote: »

Regardless of where people live they pay the same amount of taxes as you, by accordance of their income and such.

Yes but if I choose to live on top of a remote mountain and still pay tax, do you think a subsidised FTTH or whatever connection should be run to my self imposed exile?

Most people don't live on the top of a mountain but the point stands: Running FTTH etc. to one off housing is painfully expensive and when it's installed it's much more expensive to maintain because it's so windy in Ireland and wide scale downing of cables is pretty common place in winter.

In an urban location it costs about a grand to run FTTH so there's a return to be had inside a couple of years for a business that decides to run it. In the case of one off development it costs ten times as much so the return just isn't there.

You are then asking your fellow citizens to pay for your connection. In reality, the vast majority of those living in one off development do not need to live where they do. They want the extra space etc. that comes with such living....but such living also comes at a price that shouldn't be picked up by the rest of society!

I would go so far as to provide grants to rural folks who can prove a NEED to live outside an urban area (urban area doesn't mean metropolis, it means anything from a village to a large city, clustered development basically, whether rural or urban). Livestock farmers could argue that they NEED to be near their cattle and so on. The man who makes gates or sheds for the farmer or who does his accounts or sells him feed or provides medical care to his animals however does NOT need to live in a one off property! That's 90% of people living in one off development that could just as easily live in a clustered development (hamlet, village, town or city) that could be serviced with broadband and everything else much more efficiently.

One off development IS NOT even native to Ireland. It started in the 1960's. It's a myth that it has always been this way. Planning controls failed to prevent the one off development as it did in GB (NI also failed as they had bigger problems to worry about) but that doesn't mean we should all pay a financial price for that failure.

frozenfrozen

You're a business, that's your service, don't treat me like **** because I don't live in Dublin. People in rural areas are crying out to THROW money at anyone who can provide internet. If they can't figure out a way to make profit on that there's something very wrong.

edit to clarify, they make it seem like they're doing people outside of cities a favour by providing internet when its a service just like anything else. When they run fibre to my area I'll pay higher prices if needs be, but they make it seem like I'm paying under the odds at the moment. I'm getting a terrible service compared to what's available elsewhere in the country, and I'm paying more than what those on the better connection are paying. This price difference for those outside of urban areas already exists.

ED E

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Broadband should be priced on speed, i shouldnt be paying more for 2.5mb than others who are getting 120mb

we rural folk already pay more

The fact is it is cheaper for UPC to run a coax cable and provide 120Mb in Dublin or Limerick or Cork than it is for eircom to run a 4Km POTS line to provide you 2Mb. The only reason you have any connection is because they are the USO. The rate of faults, callouts and maintenance is huge on rural lines. They lose money hand over fist on some of the longer ones.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

You're a business, that's your service, don't treat me like **** because I don't live in Dublin. People in rural areas are crying out to THROW money at anyone who can provide internet. If they can't figure out a way to make profit on that there's something very wrong.

Eircom were asset stripped twice. They dont have the cash to do €1mil+ upgrades on small 400 line rural exchanges. An upgrade like that will take 20years + to pay itself back, a full VDSL cab will pay for itself in 5.


Maybe if eircom stop losing money on rural DSL you all might see some upgrades. Could end up being a good thing.

BeerWolf

murphaph wrote: »

/snip

Christ, you make it sound like all rural people live out in the middle of no where in isolation... A lot of rural people are only a few minutes drive from towns, with neighbours around them.

Personally, I'm only a 10 minute drive from Dublin City, and a 2 minute drive from a town... Unfortunately this town, of a population of 400+, is the only town in ALL of Co. Dublin to not be enabled for broadband - and I'm only 2km from the exchange there... :mad: !!

frozenfrozen

ED E wrote: »

The fact is it is cheaper for UPC to run a coax cable and provide 120Mb in Dublin or Limerick or Cork than it is for eircom to run a 4Km POTS line to provide you 2Mb. The only reason you have any connection is because they are the USO. The rate of faults, callouts and maintenance is huge on rural lines. They lose money hand over fist on some of the longer ones.



Eircom were asset stripped twice. They dont have the cash to do €1mil+ upgrades on small 400 line rural exchanges. An upgrade like that will take 20years + to pay itself back, a full VDSL cab will pay for itself in 5.


Maybe if eircom stop losing money on rural DSL you all might see some upgrades. Could end up being a good thing.

the 400 line rural exchanges are even more worthless to them when they've driven half the population of the area onto 3g dongles because of the bad service. Making the price higher again won't do anything to get them more customers and will just piss off those that they have.

It's all well and good saying that it costs tonnes to provide it to rual areas, but so what? Are these areas just never going to get proper internet? If it will take 20 years to pay off then why don't they start now? Why haven't I been asked if I was willing to pay 1000/500/whatever euro for a fibre connection to my home? I live in a tiny place but there's still a row of 100 houses, each side. Do like google fibre and charge an installation fee, offer a free service and a paid service. Everyone would pay the 500 installation fee/ whatever it would be if it meant they didn't have to use 3g dongles anymore, even if a low tier was only free for 1 -2 years, that's still cheaper than the dongle. Then they'd have access to all of those people to charge them 50 80 100 200 a month whether they want 10mb up to 1gig connection for the case of businesses, or whatever the cost would be. I'm obviously making it overly simplistic, but the fact is these homes will eventually need to have fibre, people are willing to pay, and every month it's not here, people are giving their money to competitors.


*obviously not every home would pay a large installation fee, but realistically a ****load of people would obviously want a proper internet connection that would serve their home for the next X amount of years. You would see the cost of the connection be added to the value of your home instantly anyway.

murphaph

BeerWolf wrote: »

Christ, you make it sound like all rural people live out in the middle of no where in isolation... A lot of rural people are only a few minutes drive from towns, with neighbours around them.

No, many rural dwellers have chosen to live in villages (not a few minutes drive from one), rather than a one off property a couple of miles from the village (what you have done). That 2 minute drive is more than enough to make it financially unviable to run FTTH out to you from that village/town you live 2 minutes from. Sorry but that is the reality...

BeerWolf wrote: »

Personally, I'm only a 10 minute drive from Dublin City, and a 2 minute drive from a town... Unfortunately this town, of a population of 400+, is the only town in ALL of Co. Dublin to not be enabled for broadband - and I'm only 2km from the exchange there... :mad: !!

Your local town should be enabled alright. That's a different matter entirely though.

murphaph

500 quid wouldn't come anywhere near close enough to providing FTTH to a one off property. Sure they're looking at a grand in urban areas. Multiply your 500 by 20 to get actual cost.

the_syco

BeerWolf wrote: »

You are being smug because you got this intricate believe that people living in the country are solely people in the country for a 'cheaper' lifestyle, and to that extent probably implying of people living in the country that work in towns / cities...

If you pay for the fibre to your house, by the metre, including all associated works, labour, etc, sure.

Otherwise, no, as it's high cost for low return. As opposed to high cost and high return from people in the city.

BeerWolf

murphaph wrote: »

That 2 minute drive is more than enough to make it financially unviable to run FTTH out to you from that village/town you live 2 minutes from. Sorry but that is the reality...

the_syco wrote: »

If you pay for the fibre to your house, by the metre, including all associated works, labour, etc, sure.

Otherwise, no, as it's high cost for low return. As opposed to high cost and high return from people in the city.

Obviously FTTH is incredibly unrealistic for rural customers... I'm talking more of FTTC, where the connection still carries over copper lines.

I've got a neighbour that's got a connection up to 24MB, unfortunately the lines her side's on is hooked up to another exchange. My line, if I tried for fixed broadband I'd be getting at most 1MB... and this is from another exchange from a town that's a fair bit further away where I'm at the very tethering end of it. The closest town to me, 2km of pop. 400+, it's exchange hasn't been enabled at all...

While I wouldn't mind paying more than urban dwellers for FIXED broadband... I'd be seriously annoyed if they did this for wireless broadband...

EazyD

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the 400 line rural exchanges are even more worthless to them when they've driven half the population of the area onto 3g dongles because of the bad service. Making the price higher again won't do anything to get them more customers and will just piss off those that they have.

It's all well and good saying that it costs tonnes to provide it to rual areas, but so what? Are these areas just never going to get proper internet? If it will take 20 years to pay off then why don't they start now? Why haven't I been asked if I was willing to pay 1000/500/whatever euro for a fibre connection to my home? I live in a tiny place but there's still a row of 100 houses, each side. Do like google fibre and charge an installation fee, offer a free service and a paid service. Everyone would pay the 500 installation fee/ whatever it would be if it meant they didn't have to use 3g dongles anymore, even if a low tier was only free for 1 -2 years, that's still cheaper than the dongle. Then they'd have access to all of those people to charge them 50 80 100 200 a month whether they want 10mb up to 1gig connection for the case of businesses, or whatever the cost would be. I'm obviously making it overly simplistic, but the fact is these homes will eventually need to have fibre, people are willing to pay, and every month it's not here, people are giving their money to competitors.


*obviously not every home would pay a large installation fee, but realistically a ****load of people would obviously want a proper internet connection that would serve their home for the next X amount of years. You would see the cost of the connection be added to the value of your home instantly anyway.

While you make some valid arguments the simple fact remains that it is in no way profitable for companies to sink money into rural infrastructure.

ED E

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the 400 line rural exchanges are even more worthless to them when they've driven half the population of the area onto 3g dongles because of the bad service. Making the price higher again won't do anything to get them more customers and will just piss off those that they have.

It's all well and good saying that it costs tonnes to provide it to rual areas, but so what? Are these areas just never going to get proper internet? If it will take 20 years to pay off then why don't they start now? Why haven't I been asked if I was willing to pay 1000/500/whatever euro for a fibre connection to my home? I live in a tiny place but there's still a row of 100 houses, each side. Do like google fibre and charge an installation fee, offer a free service and a paid service. Everyone would pay the 500 installation fee/ whatever it would be if it meant they didn't have to use 3g dongles anymore, even if a low tier was only free for 1 -2 years, that's still cheaper than the dongle. Then they'd have access to all of those people to charge them 50 80 100 200 a month whether they want 10mb up to 1gig connection for the case of businesses, or whatever the cost would be. I'm obviously making it overly simplistic, but the fact is these homes will eventually need to have fibre, people are willing to pay, and every month it's not here, people are giving their money to competitors.


*obviously not every home would pay a large installation fee, but realistically a ****load of people would obviously want a proper internet connection that would serve their home for the next X amount of years. You would see the cost of the connection be added to the value of your home instantly anyway.

If making the price higher drives them off that might be a net gain! If that exchange is costing as much to run as it makes then it shutting down (or as good as) is no biggie. 3G is a better solution rurally. Meteor will still get paid.

The reason not to start now is, as Ive already said, they do not have the cash. Eircom have gone all in on VDSL. Until that proverbial hand finishes they dont have the cash to consider offering rural upgrades, even with the inhabitants willing to pay it back. Im sure you wont get homeowners to front €10k each. And thats for good DSL/VDSL. FTTH is only in trials in urban areas. You wont get it for a decade, simple as.

same ol sh1te

Ffs people, there are people living on boats with fibre in Holland.

the_syco

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Ffs people, there are people living on boats with fibre in Holland.

These boats be in cities, or in the countryside? Context matters.

murphaph

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Ffs people, there are people living on boats with fibre in Holland.

Come on now. The settlement patterns are totally different. Rural one off housing doesn't exist in any quantity in Holland. I bet those boats are in urban centres too.

@BeerWolf: The problem with VDSL (FTTC) is that it's basically useless for our one off development. The speeds drop off a cliff after a few hundred metres and it's not even a runner at all beyond 2km. Realistically the only fixed BB solution for Ireland's one offs is FTTH, but you'll be waiting. Quality wireless is the way to go (and the huge fibre rollouts will help no end with backhaul, which was always the problem there) for the next decade at least for such properties.

BeerWolf

ED E wrote: »

3G is a better solution rurally

Mobile broadband is all fine and dandy until you see the incredibly pathetic amount of data allowances on them... Majority of them range between 5-30GB, and only one offers 60GB. Especially taking into account 4G, with all that speed... still retains the same allowances as 3G - what's the point of that speed then, use it up faster?

The world is transitioning for everything being streamed [eg. Netflix, Twitch, etc.], and so many sites you're forced to waste data to watch 5 seconds of whatever advert being displayed before you can skip it. To many, regular TV no longer exists [with unlimited broadband anyways].

Client software, example, for Games are getting huge - up to 30+GB to download.


If these mobile broadband providers had offers strictly for rural customers at fixed locations, and gave data allowances of like 70-150GB that'd be a good start...

same ol sh1te

the_syco wrote: »

These boats be in cities, or in the countryside? Context matters.

Semi-Urban, but the point is it was funded by government spending which is what needs to happen. We can deliver fibre to every household, but not without a Government initiative.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

same ol sh1te

BeerWolf wrote: »

.


If these mobile broadband providers had offers strictly for rural customers at fixed locations, and gave data allowances of like 70-150GB that'd be a good start...

Mobile isn't suitable, it needs these limits in place. Fixed wireless can be a stop gap fix for decent rural speeds but the end goal needs to be fibre

ED E

BeerWolf wrote: »

Mobile broadband is all fine and dandy until you see the incredibly pathetic amount of data allowances on them... Majority of them range between 5-30GB, and only one offers 60GB. Especially taking into account 4G, with all that speed... still retains the same allowances as 3G - what's the point of that speed then, use it up faster?

The world is transitioning for everything being streamed [eg. Netflix, Twitch, etc.], and so many sites you're forced to waste data to watch 5 seconds of whatever advert being displayed before you can skip it. To many, regular TV no longer exists [with unlimited broadband anyways].

Client software, example, for Games are getting huge - up to 30+GB to download.


If these mobile broadband providers had offers strictly for rural customers at fixed locations, and gave data allowances of like 70-150GB that'd be a good start...

They cant. Its a shared medium. 3G has good burst speeds but if everyone is bursting all the time then everyone gets **** speeds. Its not what you want, I can understand that, but in reality a 30GB/mo at 6Mb(with good LOS) is cheaper than 1-2Mb DSL on an old exchange. Well I suppose it depends on your priorities.

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Mobile isn't suitable, it needs these limits in place. Fixed wireless can be a stop gap fix for decent rural speeds but the end goal needs to be fibre

Fixed wireless SHOULD be a very good stop gap, problem is very few WISPs do a good job, Big Lar being the exception with his community scheme.

Regarding FW, if the money was there as Frozen suggested surely there would be a high grade FW provider operating at premium rates with good speeds and service. But from what I've seen there isnt. Not even close. So personally I dont believe rural people will pay €80+ for BB no matter what the service, at least not enough to make the masts viable.

same ol sh1te

ED E wrote: »

They cant. Its a shared medium. 3G has good burst speeds but if everyone is bursting all the time then everyone gets **** speeds. Its not what you want, I can understand that, but in reality a 30GB/mo at 6Mb(with good LOS) is cheaper than 1-2Mb DSL on an old exchange. Well I suppose it depends on your priorities.



Fixed wireless SHOULD be a very good stop gap, problem is very few WISPs do a good job, Big Lar being the exception with his community scheme.

Regarding FW, if the money was there as Frozen suggested surely there would be a high grade FW provider operating at premium rates with good speeds and service. But from what I've seen there isnt. Not even close. So personally I dont believe rural people will pay €80+ for BB no matter what the service, at least not enough to make the masts viable.

The reason few fixed wireless providers do a good job is down to finance, most use unlicensed gear as the licenced is either not available or too restrictive and expensive, Comreg see it as a cash cow

bk

The problem with broadband in rural areas, is that most broadband technologies are very constrained by distance.

For instance VDSL really only works well up to 1km from the cabinet and not at all beyond 2km. Wireless suffers from the issues.

So when you say your are only a "few minutes" drive from a village, that probably puts you beyond 2km of the village and thus truly rural and very expensive to service.

The only technology that doesn't suffer from this problem is Fibre, it can do 20km with no degradation and can go unlimited distances with repeaters every 20km. That is why we talk about FTTH being the ultimate solution to the rural broadband problem. Not because of it's very high speeds, but more because it doesn't degrade over distance like all other broadband technologies, thus making it ideally suited to rural areas.

But people need to be realistic, FTTH is frighteningly expensive. FTTH in urban areas costs about €1000 per home, but in rural areas it will cost between €10,000 and €20,000 per home!

Just look at the UK, where BT have a scheme where anyone in the country can order FTTH, but you most pay the full cost of getting the fibre laid from your nearest VDSL cabinet. Here is what the costs look like:

BT charge £3.50 per meter, so £3,500 per km
+ £750 fixed install charge
+ £99 + VAT per month for service!

So for a 2km run (pretty short in rural standards), you are looking at a cost of £7750 or €9,700

4km run costs €18,900

Etc. you get the idea! This is the real world cost of doing FTTH.

The reality is it would cost the government about 8 Billion to connect every home in the country to FTTH!! It just isn't going to happen, no one is going to subsidise that.

People in rural Ireland will need to look at a more realistic plan.

- Make sure every single village in Ireland is connected to a fibre network. This fibre could then be used to power the local exchange, VDSL cabinets, 3G/4G towers and Fixed Wireless Towers to feed the surrounding areas. Basically it fixes the rural backhaul problem. Doing so will likely cost about 500 million and looks like might happen as part of the national broadband plan.

- Get Eircom to move there now unused ADSL2+ gear from urban exchanges to these rural exchanges. Maybe even put in place VDSL cabs in these rural villages.

- Give some subsidies to fixed wireless companies and community schemes to help them get started, with some practical consultants and expertise. Also reduce the licensing costs of regulated spectrum so small companies and communities can use it in the UK.

Basically aim to get minimum 30mb/s, no cap broadband to every home in rural Ireland by fixed wireless as a stopgap to FTTH.

- In the longterm plan for FTTH to every home. I'd love to see Eircom and the ESB introduce a Fibre On Demand scheme where anyone can order FTTH, but have to pay the real costs themselves.

After all if you paid half the price for your home in the country then you would in Dublin, etc. Then it shouldn't be the end of the world putting some of the savings you made towards paying the 20k for FTTH. Specially if you are going to be living their for the next 30 years.

Perhaps the government could help out by giving low interest loans to help spread the cost out over 30 years.

These are the types of practical solutions to fixing the rural broadband we need. Rural Ireland is going to have to do it for themselves (like they did in the past with deflector schemes) and not just sit around and wait for the government to do it for them.

PeadarB

ESB Telecoms are part of the ESB, a semi-state organisation ultimately under State control. E|net run the MANs on behalf of the State, which paid €176m to construct them. They provide fibre connections for mostly businesses via several incumbents in 98 or so towns around the country. Take a radius of say 40 - 60 km from each of those, country covered. Eircom have the largest, and the only "private" fibre network in the country. They allow the various providers use their services. E|net have recently allowed eircom access in Birr.

Surely its time to knock some heads together and force these disparate entities onto the same page. The ComReg shower have a lot to answer for. Begs the question - who is screwing who in these grand plans. Money talks and if you think for one moment that any business is going to get involved in all this without the promise of megabucks in return - forget it.


Taxpayer money has been spread about like confetti to create the core infrastructures in the provisioning of genuine fibre connectivity. Problem is its being hogged by those interests that stand to gain the most financially. Eircoms hybrid fibre is already past its sell by date. The european experience is that if we can get away with old copper infrastructure, albeit modernised, it plugs the gap for the time being.

We are being dragged kicking and screaming into a modern comms age. Its all the more difficult when the providers have their eye on each other rather than the customers and end users.

Knowing Ireland were in for a long delay for proper country wide provision - with a lot of jealousy, frustration, tears and shoddy service in the interim. Still thats just about par for the course. Rural electrification only took off properly in the 1950's and wasn't completed until 2003. This was done at little or no cost to the customer as it was seen as a national long term investment. Those one off houses in the countryside paid additional costs to connect and higher ongoing maintenance costs in their electricity bills for that privilege.


Why not roll out fibre at national cost as a long term investment. The heavy work is mostly done already but you would wonder if the powers that be have any clue at all of what is required. Duplication and duplicity abounds.

the_syco

bk wrote: »

- Make sure every single village in Ireland is connected to a fibre network. This fibre could then be used to power the local exchange, VDSL cabinets, 3G/4G towers and Fixed Wireless Towers to feed the surrounding areas. Basically it fixes the rural backhaul problem. Doing so will likely cost about 500 million and looks like might happen as part of the national broadband plan.

I hope Vodafone builds on ESB Telecoms Fibre Network to do just that by 2015.

ED E

the_syco wrote: »

I hope Vodafone builds on ESB Telecoms Fibre Network to do just that by 2015.

I think you mean 2020. We wont have fibre to most villages for a while.

bk

the_syco wrote: »

I hope Vodafone builds on ESB Telecoms Fibre Network to do just that by 2015.

The ESB/Vodafone JV won't, it is aimed purely at doing FTTH in urban areas.

However a separate project, the National Broadband Plan, which we currently have less info on seems to be planning to do that from 2016, maybe using some of the ESB's existing electricity network.

In other words, two separate plans.

MBSnr

PeadarB wrote: »

ESB Telecoms are part of the ESB, a semi-state organisation ultimately under State control. E|net run the MANs on behalf of the State, which paid €176m to construct them. They provide fibre connections for mostly businesses via several incumbents in 98 or so towns around the country. Take a radius of say 40 - 60 km from each of those, country covered. Eircom have the largest, and the only "private" fibre network in the country. They allow the various providers use their services. E|net have recently allowed eircom access in Birr.

Surely its time to knock some heads together and force these disparate entities onto the same page. The ComReg shower have a lot to answer for. Begs the question - who is screwing who in these grand plans. Money talks and if you think for one moment that any business is going to get involved in all this without the promise of megabucks in return - forget it.


Taxpayer money has been spread about like confetti to create the core infrastructures in the provisioning of genuine fibre connectivity. Problem is its being hogged by those interests that stand to gain the most financially. Eircoms hybrid fibre is already past its sell by date. The european experience is that if we can get away with old copper infrastructure, albeit modernised, it plugs the gap for the time being.

We are being dragged kicking and screaming into a modern comms age. Its all the more difficult when the providers have their eye on each other rather than the customers and end users.

Knowing Ireland were in for a long delay for proper country wide provision - with a lot of jealousy, frustration, tears and shoddy service in the interim. Still thats just about par for the course. Rural electrification only took off properly in the 1950's and wasn't completed until 2003. This was done at little or no cost to the customer as it was seen as a national long term investment. Those one off houses in the countryside paid additional costs to connect and higher ongoing maintenance costs in their electricity bills for that privilege.


Why not roll out fibre at national cost as a long term investment. The heavy work is mostly done already but you would wonder if the powers that be have any clue at all of what is required. Duplication and duplicity abounds.

MAN fibre (10Mb/10Mb) at my work costs over €1000 pm.
Eircom VDSL (40Mb/10Mb) at my work costs €55 pm.

Enet have been milking it in for years - surely they must have easily paid off that initial investment starting back in 2003.......KERCHIN $$$.

I wonder what ComReg actually do....? Seems to me they are paid to do what the communication companies tell them, other than the other way around. Hardly regulation is it? I'm struggling to think of something positive that I've read about them....

bk

MBSnr wrote: »

MAN fibre (10Mb/10Mb) at my work costs over €1000 pm.
Eircom VDSL (40Mb/10Mb) at my work costs €55 pm.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

That MAN fibre is a dedicated, zero contention link with a business class service level agreement (SLA).

Eircom VDSL is a contented home/small business product with no SLA.

Trust me Eircom would charge you much more then €1000 pm for the same class of service from them.

MBSnr

bk wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges.

That MAN fibre is a dedicated, zero contention link with a business class service level agreement (SLA).

Eircom VDSL is a contented home/small business product with no SLA.

Trust me Eircom would charge you much more then €1000 pm for the same class of service from them.

Perhaps - but interestingly the MAN has dropped more times than the VDSL since the Eircom install.....

shruikan2553

BeerWolf wrote: »

You do realise people in rural areas are paying heck of a lot more as it is for FWA and mobile broadband for €35-70+ for a limited data allowances of 10-70GB, with up to 8MB speeds [often being unreliable], while people on fibre are only paying €30 or less for UNLIMITED of up to 200MB ?

You got it good already is what I'm saying...

I do have it good and it only gets better with new technology but I choose to live in urban areas which have UPC and fiber.

This isnt aimed at anyone in particular but I find there are people who have to drive to get anywhere and expect fiber broadband. Im all for giving people the option to pay to get it done but dont expect it to happen any time soon, if a fast connection is so important then live in an area with it otherwise get used to have **** internet because you decided once off housing was a great idea.

ED E

bk wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges.

That MAN fibre is a dedicated, zero contention link with a business class service level agreement (SLA).

Eircom VDSL is a contented home/small business product with no SLA.

Trust me Eircom would charge you much more then €1000 pm for the same class of service from them.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. NGA has no contention, at least for now, and 8hr SLA isn't super expensive.

same ol sh1te

ED E wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree. NGA has no contention, at least for now, and 8hr SLA isn't super expensive.

Uncongested is the word they use, it is not uncontended.

godskitchen

bk wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges.

That MAN fibre is a dedicated, zero cwirelessly n link with a business class service level agreement (SLA).

Eircom VDSL is a contented home/small business product with no SLA.

Trust me Eircom would charge you much more then €1000 pm for the same class of service from them.

Rubbish,

I look after a business connected to the MAN and the service has gone down twice in the last year. All the businesses I look after connected to vdsl have had exactly zero down time apart from some reboots of the modem, which have only happened at night.

The MANs here are a joke, cost is way too high and they will be unused as soon as vdsl becomes more wide spread.

I can't think of a single real world advantage to being connected to a MAN. Some of them are even wirelessly back hauled. What a joke

murphaph

At least with the MANs the fibre is in the ground. The wireless backhauls will surely be eliminated with the various fibre rollouts taking place and the MANs can be improved (10Mb on fibre is a joke of a speed in this day and age).

mikom

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Hopefully, they will go ahead with it. It will help deter people from seeking a cheaper lifestyle in the countryside and live in the urban areas like the rest of us.

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The only pathetic people around here are those who believe they are entitled high speed broadband whilst enjoying the cheaper lifestyle offered by rural areas.

I'm not being smug, I'm being realistic. Fibre optic broadband is the only way rural areas will reach the speeds offered in urban areas but it costs too much to roll out fibre to rural areas.

Rural folk then come on here and demand that the government subsidize the roll out even though they're being subsidized already. Pardon me for not wanting my tax money to be wasted like that. It's bad enough we're paying for accommodation for single mothers and feeding their children just because some or many of them prefer being career mothers instead of earning a living, but that's a debate for a different forum because I could go on about them and others who sponge off the rest off us.

You live at home with your mother.
Tell me I am wrong.
.
.

same ol sh1te

godskitchen wrote: »

Rubbish,

I look after a business connected to the MAN and the service has gone down twice in the last year. All the businesses I look after connected to vdsl have had exactly zero down time apart from some reboots of the modem, which have only happened at night.

The MANs here are a joke, cost is way too high and they will be unused as soon as vdsl becomes more wide spread.

I can't think of a single real world advantage to being connected to a MAN. Some of them are even wirelessly back hauled. What a joke

Is the Man your client is connected to fed by wireless link by a fixed wireless provider? Man is just a ring of fibre going nowhere, there was no plan to get fibre to them

Gonzo

this is an absolute joke, why do they want to charge rural and semi-rural users an increased charge for sub-standard 8meg or less broadband when there are no fibre services in the first place. They want to charge us and extra fee for adsl broadband which can go up to 6km from an exchange by default. Increased costs for what? paying for fibre that does not exist, can't remember any KN vans digging up my road or installing cabinets.

What about the other 200 people in my area who also struggle on classic adsl broadband who scream at their computers trying to send an email or load something from youtube, will they all have to pay this extra cost too?

If we were all to get fibre, then I would perfectly understand paying a bit more than urban users for similar fibre services, but paying an extra subsidy for some poor excuse of a broadband service that will crawl in about 2 years time is just not on.

godskitchen

murphaph wrote: »

At least with the MANs the fibre is in the ground. The wireless backhauls will surely be eliminated with the various fibre rollouts taking place and the MANs can be improved (10Mb on fibre is a joke of a speed in this day and age).

It's been in the ground 14+ years and nothing done with it yet.....

godskitchen

murphaph wrote: »

At least with the MANs the fibre is in the ground. The wireless backhauls will surely be eliminated with the various fibre rollouts taking place and the MANs can be improved (10Mb on fibre is a joke of a speed in this day and age).

It's been in the ground 14+ years and nothing done with it yet.....

godskitchen

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Is the Man your client is connected to fed by wireless link by a fixed wireless provider? Man is just a ring of fibre going nowhere, there was no plan to get fibre to them

Nope, it's fttp, installed at ridiculous cost some years ago before I was looking after the IT.