National Broadband Plan - necessary/wasted investment?

cgcsb

Locals and Europeans are this Friday. This daft notion can be discarded thereafter. Problem solved

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Locals and Europeans are this Friday. This daft notion can be discarded thereafter. Problem solved

Well, there is a GE in the offing. Perhaps that needs to be got through as well.

I am not against it, but I consider it is a project that has gone too far - every premises? Is that a serious proposition? No commitment to take it up?

The only other service that is universal is the post.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Where have I said that I support it?

Broadband to every home in the country is a stupid idea, but there isn't a single party who opposes it.

FG's way is as cheap as it is going to be, but it is not worth it, but not a single one of the hypocritical opposition has the balls to say we shouldn't do it. We have the usual weasel words about FG messing up or that the state unicorns could build it cheaper.

The simple thing is, either you believe that broadband to every home is a good idea so you are in favour of the only option that can deliver it - FG's option, or you are like me, and you think it is a stupid idea and you are against rural broadband in principle.

It is time that we woke up and realised that the stupid dispersed rural pattern of living that this country has implemented for years is not sustainable. Project 2040 actually recognises this, but the NBP is the complete opposite.

So, I ask you again, where do you stand on rural broadband? Are you as craven as every other politician in the country and afraid to say it is a bad idea? If you support it, explain how it can be done cheaper.

It was FG that came up with the mad cap idea of providing broadband for every household in rural Ireland as a vote buying exercise with a price tag of 800 Million which in the space of 18 months has quadrupled to 3 Billion.
Other political parties do not need to get caught up in a debacle of FG`s on making to show it for what it is. A ham-fisted attempt by FG, the supposed party of propriety, to buy votes using public money.
The Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform has already shown that which when taken in consideration with the Children`s Hospital, the money wasted on that other mad cap FG scheme, water charges and the housing/ rental crisis, regardless of this attempted vote buying scam, makes them look incapable and inept in dealing with any capital budget project.



As to your "FG`s way is as cheap as it is going to be" again you appear to be either unaware or are ignoring the Dept Of Public Expenditure and Reform view in how it could be done more or less at the estimate of 18 months ago.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

It was FG that came up with the mad cap idea of providing broadband for every household in rural Ireland as a vote buying exercise with a price tag of 800 Million which in the space of 18 months has quadrupled to 3 Billion.
Other political parties do not need to get caught up in a debacle of FG`s on making to show it for what it is. A ham-fisted attempt by FG, the supposed party of propriety, to buy votes using public money.
The Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform has already shown that which when taken in consideration with the Children`s Hospital, the money wasted on that other mad cap FG scheme, water charges and the housing/ rental crisis, regardless of this attempted vote buying scam, makes them look incapable and inept in dealing with any capital budget project.



As to your "FG`s way is as cheap as it is going to be" again you appear to be either unaware or are ignoring the Dept Of Public Expenditure and Reform view in how it could be done more or less at the estimate of 18 months ago.

I am more interested in the technical merits and whether people think it is a good idea or not to have broadband to every home.

My view is clear - it is a bad idea.

My problem with the politics is that there isn't a politician anywhere brave enough to agree with that. Like your post, they retreat into waffle about doing it better or different or worse, the Denis O'Brien conspiracy. To me, it doesn't matter whether it costs the original €800m (which was always fantasy) or the more realistic minimum of €3bn, it is still a bad idea.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there is a GE in the offing. Perhaps that needs to be got through as well.

I am not against it, but I consider it is a project that has gone too far - every premises? Is that a serious proposition? No commitment to take it up?

The only other service that is universal is the post.

If a commitment to connect every village was proposed instead, there'd be an argument in favour of that. But I suppose, that work is, mostly done.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I am more interested in the technical merits and whether people think it is a good idea or not to have broadband to every home.

My view is clear - it is a bad idea.

My problem with the politics is that there isn't a politician anywhere brave enough to agree with that. Like your post, they retreat into waffle about doing it better or different or worse, the Denis O'Brien conspiracy. To me, it doesn't matter whether it costs the original €800m (which was always fantasy) or the more realistic minimum of €3bn, it is still a bad idea.

Actually from reading your posts you sound like someone who wishes for some party other than FG to also put forward the equally absurd idea of the state funding and supplying broadband on demand to every household and holiday home in the state, so you can then argue it cannot be done any cheaper than the FG figure of 3Billion euro.


I did not retreat to any waffle and I would have no problem with rural broadband being rolled out on the basis suggested by the Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform for the original cost proposed before FG lost the run of themselves attempting to buy every rural vote with this insane proposal using public monies.

I never mentioned any Denis O`Brien conspiracy. I did ask you, afair, that with there being a case still proceeding through the courts where a state contract for a mobile phone licence contract was flipped at a not inconsiderate profit by the then successful bidder shortly after obtaining said contract, was there anything to prevent this sole bidder doing likewise.

You either choose not to answer or you do not know.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Actually from reading your posts you sound like someone who wishes for some party other than FG to also put forward the equally absurd idea of the state funding and supplying broadband on demand to every household and holiday home in the state, so you can then argue it cannot be done any cheaper than the FG figure of 3Billion euro.


I did not retreat to any waffle and I would have no problem with rural broadband being rolled out on the basis suggested by the Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform for the original cost proposed before FG lost the run of themselves attempting to buy every rural vote with this insane proposal using public monies.

I never mentioned any Denis O`Brien conspiracy. I did ask you, afair, that with there being a case still proceeding through the courts where a state contract for a mobile phone licence contract was flipped at a not inconsiderate profit by the then successful bidder shortly after obtaining said contract, was there anything to prevent this sole bidder doing likewise.

You either choose not to answer or you do not know.

Well then, we are in agreement on many points. DPER are suggesting a limited roll-out, I support that.

However, I haven't seen a single politician come out and say that broadband to every house is the wrong thing to do. If you can link to such a statement, I will accept I am mistaken.

bk

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but just to explain this point.

Sam Russell wrote: »

5: Why is this rollout defined as FTTH when other technologies might be more relevant, depending on the locations being served?

For example, much of rural development is ribbon in nature where the co-ax used by NTL can provide more the 150mbs and would be much lower cost and be more robust. A WISP solution could provide more remote locations with a solution, assuming that fibre is connected to the masts.

Were any of these considered?

Virgin's network isn't just co-ax, it is a Hybrid Fibre Coax (HFC). Basically it is mostly fibre until a local node/cabinet, where it gets converted to coax for the "last mile".

Virgin have been putting cabs all over Dublin. As speeds get faster, the fibre is getting closer and closer to peoples homes.

The reason why you wouldn't go for a similar hfc network in rural areas is because their isn't any coax cable already in place.

Roughly 90% of the cost of this is in labour, the cost of pulling a new cable to each home. It doesn't matter if the cable is coax, fibre or twisted pair, the cost is much the same. So if you are going to pull new cable, it might as well be fibre, since it offers the highest speeds and best reliability. You'd save very little if anything using coax instead. Maybe it would cost 2.8b rather then 3b, but not much difference in the greater scheme of things.

The only way to greatly reduce the cost from a tech perspective, is if you avoid pulling new cable. So either reuse the existing POTS network with some form of DSL or use wireless tech. Obviously those come with trade off's in terms of performance and reliability.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Well then, we are in agreement on many points. DPER are suggesting a limited roll-out, I support that.

However, I haven't seen a single politician come out and say that broadband to every house is the wrong thing to do. If you can link to such a statement, I will accept I am mistaken.

You really aren`t that naive are you to somehow believe that any party political debate is anything other than an attempt by one party or parties to score points ?


Why would any party waste their time or energy getting involved in a debate on this to score points off FG ?
This is a turkey of FG`s own making, now being turned into nothing other than an attempt to buy votes with a crazy proposal that has mushroomed to quadruple the price tag they announced a mere 18 months ago.


Other parties do not need to get drawn into a debate with FG, (as much as I imagine FG would love them too to help in muddying the waters), to score points and call it for what it is.

The Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform, (a Dept created by FG afair to ensure these type of shenanigans stopped), has already done that for them in the eyes of the public. Especially when you add in the Children`s Hospital budgeting debacle and the housing/rental crisis.

Sam Russell

There is an event on Thursday night with Eoin Reeves who advised the government on the national broadband plan who has written a report about PPPs using the broadband plan as a case study and talking about the risks of exporting the model to the developing world. https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/public-launch-buyer-beware-a-critique-of-ppps-tickets-73293622197

Date And Time
Thu, 26 September 2019

19:00pm – 21:00pm

Location
Carmelite Community Centre
56 Aungier Street
D02 T258 Dublin 2

It should be interesting. Free entry - all welcome.

CatInABox

Whether you agree with this plan or not, it's just been granted permission by the European Commission under State Aid rules. I believe that this was one of the final hurdles this had to pass before contracts are to be signed.

https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/1195297194242379777