Smoke signals versus rural broadband - better bang for buck?

worded

Call me old fashioned but some times old ways are best ...

Better bang for buck ?

https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/how-to-send-smoke-signal1.htm

Your Face

Comedy is a tough gig.

worded

See pic

Your Face

worded wrote: »

See pic

Comedy is a tough gig.

pOrNhuB iS a huMaN rIgHt

But really, I'm from a field outside a small village, outside another village and our broadband at home is fine. I think some media and politicians think we're all still using dial-up in the sticks. We we have a choice of six providers, have no trouble streaming or accessing other content.

I know there's awful coverage in some places, but those are the trade-offs we make for living in very remote places. Even where I'm based in Dublin, the broadband sometimes dips at certain times.

Also, I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, but I don't trust Granahan McCourt (GMC), and neither apparently does the Department of a public Expenditure.

kneemos

Will they need to dig up driveways to get it from the road to your house?
Also the cost of such will I'm sure be a big disincentive.

Charles Babbage

kneemos wrote: »

Will they need to dig up driveways to get it from the road to your house?
Also the cost of such will I'm sure be a big disincentive.

How does the phone cable reach your house?

dxhound2005

This was 10 years ago but back then a pigeon was quicker than the internet in South Africa.

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-carrier-pigeon-faster-broadband-internet.html

KikiLaRue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

pOrNhuB iS a huMaN rIgHt

But really, I'm from a field outside a small village, outside another village and our broadband at home is fine. I think some media and politicians think we're all still using dial-up in the sticks. We we have a choice of six providers, have no trouble streaming or accessing other content.

I know there's awful coverage in some places, but those are the trade-offs we make for living in very remote places. Even where I'm based in Dublin, the broadband sometimes dips at certain times.

Also, I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, but I don't trust Granahan McCourt (GMC), and neither apparently does the Department of a public Expenditure.

Made this point on another thread this morning. Our broadband at home is okay too (I’m from ten minutes outside a medium sized town) but I don’t think I could run a business with say 30-50 employees off it.

If we’re ever going to get serious about investment outside of Dublin, we have to invest in infrastructure, and high speed broadband is as crucial as a motorway these days to many sectors.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

OneEightSeven

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Made this point on another thread this morning. Our broadband at home is okay too (I’m from ten minutes outside a medium sized town) but I don’t think I could run a business with say 30-50 employees off it.

If we’re ever going to get serious about investment outside of Dublin, we have to invest in infrastructure, and high speed broadband is as crucial as a motorway these days to many sectors.

Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet.

One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services.

It will also encourage more people to live rurally, which will contribute to the decline of countryside towns as towns need to be of a certain population density to be sustainable, so if you actually care about creating a counterbalance to Dublin, you should oppose the NBP and encourage people to move house to an area covered by commercial high-speed internet.

Eircom rolled out fibre to 350k one-off houses and the take-up rate is only 20%. There are many vacant and holiday homes in remote parts of the West, so the take-up rate for the NBP will mos likely be lower than 20%. €3 billion for <100,000‬ homes just so boggers can watch Netflix and porn is just ridiculous.

The whole "working from homes" excuse doesn't cut it either, you can work from home in an urban area. My sister-in-law does it.

This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a problem with one-off housing. These types of homes aren't sustainable. Germany banned planning permission for homes more than 500 meters outside of urban areas because they had the common sense to foresee these issues down the road - Ireland didn't. Germany's rural population is only 20%, Ireland's is 37% and we still allow people to build one-off houses under "locals only" clauses and corrupt councilors doing their constituents a few favours for votes.

Eventually, another essential technology will come along and we're stuck with the same problem.

Fr_Dougal

It’s a political exercise to win the rural vote, a very expensive one at that, and an utter waste or resources.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Made this point on another thread this morning. Our broadband at home is okay too (I’m from ten minutes outside a medium sized town) but I don’t think I could run a business with say 30-50 employees off it.

If we’re ever going to get serious about investment outside of Dublin, we have to invest in infrastructure, and high speed broadband is as crucial as a motorway these days to many sectors.

I totally agree with all of this, but we should be focusing on high-speed broadband for the likes of Thurles and Clonmel -- medium or small towns -- not Terryglass and Cloughjordan, small hamlets where medium-sized enterprises are unlikely to want to locate anyway.

It just seems like such an overreach and it's difficult to avoid the fact that there are two elections imminent, and a General Election might happen before December.

theguzman

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

It’s a political exercise to win the rural vote, a very expensive one at that, and an utter waste or resources.

Please explain a better use of resources? More money for the HSE perhaps, Extra funds for Universities or maybe Social Housing? Which would you prefer?

Fr_Dougal

theguzman wrote: »

Please explain a better use of resources? More money for the HSE perhaps, Extra funds for Universities or maybe Social Housing? Which would you prefer?

Monorail.

Or maybe a children’s hospital to cater for the south/southwest of the country.

theguzman

theguzman wrote: »

Please explain a better use of resources? More money for the HSE perhaps, Extra funds for Universities or maybe Social Housing? Which would you prefer?

how about doing bloody nothing with it!

Stop borrowing.

Fine Gael never deserved its self-proclaimed status as the party of prudence (look at Garret Fitzgerald's record) but they're now running at billions of euro over budget across a number of projects.

I'm a left-winger and even I really just want them to stop overspending at this stage, especially if there's another recession anticipated.

When even SF is asking you to stop the spending madness, you know shít has just gotten serious.

Gary kk

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet.

One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services.

I am not so sure about it been heavily subsidised by urban areas I would like to see the facts if you could link them please. More expensive to run, get services yeah sure that makes since. But to say that rural Ireland is heavily subsidised buy urban areas not so sure.

joeguevara

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/

ILoveYourVibes

90% of broadband funds will be used for porn the other 10% used for arguing online.

smurgen

joeguevara wrote: »

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/

This is what i can't understand. Surely a wireless option would be far better for rural areas?

ednwireland

joeguevara wrote: »

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/

so wrong on so many levels .. Oh and fibre is needed to deliver enough bandwidth to the extra masts needed by 5g otherwise it gets swamped just like 4g does now.
Arguments against this really are I'm all right jack arguments

listermint

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I totally agree with all of this, but we should be focusing on high-speed broadband for the likes of Thurles and Clonmel -- medium or small towns -- not Terryglass and Cloughjordan, small hamlets where medium-sized enterprises are unlikely to want to locate anyway.

It just seems like such an overreach and it's difficult to avoid the fact that there are two elections imminent, and a General Election might happen before December.

Pony.

Copper had to replaced at some point.you will need fibre to back haul 5g and 5g is a mesh style network.

Future proofing this now is the apt think to do.

It connects people to healthcare it makes connectivity for driverless cars possible. It allows work from home and small businesses to flourish.

Not doing it would be two fingers to the economy we are trying to incubate

M5

joeguevara wrote: »

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/

5g will not be faster or better than fiber optic. That article is from 2013,in tech terms that's jurassic! Satellite broadband is limited by the distances the signal has to travel and also the multiple medium changes. 1 second ping times par for the course.

It won't be satellite either. It will be masts. It has smaller cells than 4g so more masts. Every yahoo in every small town will be up in arms if you attempt to put up a mast (will somebody think of the children). Mountain s, hills, weather all effect speeds so reliability is an issue even if 100% coverage (which will also be expensive)

As far as optic is concerned if the cables are ran to every house properly the infrastructure can be used for next gen tech if installed with high tech future proofing (also called conduit)

Atoms for Peace

Do we really need 1Gb fibre direct to every house in country? I have my doubts. I currently only have ~3mb 3g which is adequate for general usage including streaming video.

KikiLaRue

Sometimes the government does things that don’t make economic sense because it’s good for society.

The State could NOT afford free education for all when Donagh O’Malley announced it. The two teacher schools out in the middle of nowhere are a drain on the state (tbh these should all be shut now but that’s a different rant)

It didn’t make economic sense to pursue rural electrification, but ultimately electricity came to be regarded as a necessity rather than a luxury and had to be provided to everyone.

I believe the same is true of broadband. Society is going to look totally different in 25 years, I don’t think it’s fair or right to leave rural Ireland behind.

Gary kk

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Do we really need 1Gb fibre direct to every house in country? I have my doubts. I currently only have ~3mb 3g which is adequate for general usage including streaming video.

Could you post a speed test please

wexfordman2

joeguevara wrote: »

This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite.

Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/

400mhz spectrum forma start!!! Backhaul requirements, geographic topography, building losses etc etc etc
The article.you linked is a crick of whyte written by someone who has no clue. Even if it was written 6 years ago.

is_that_so

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Sometimes the government does things that don’t make economic sense because it’s good for society.

The State could NOT afford free education for all when Donagh O’Malley announced it. The two teacher schools out in the middle of nowhere are a drain on the state (tbh these should all be shut now but that’s a different rant)

It didn’t make economic sense to pursue rural electrification, but ultimately electricity came to be regarded as a necessity rather than a luxury and had to be provided to everyone.

I believe the same is true of broadband. Society is going to look totally different in 25 years, I don’t think it’s fair or right to leave rural Ireland behind.

I don't think there is much disagreement about the need for it but what is under question is how the process was run and whether it will actually be the most efficient use of funds.

NIMAN

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Do we really need 1Gb fibre direct to every house in country? I have my doubts. I currently only have ~3mb 3g which is adequate for general usage including streaming video.

It might suffice now, but in a couple of years it will be out of date if you plan to do anything other than simple surfing with it.

Pkiernan

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet.

One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services.

It will also encourage more people to live rurally, which will contribute to the decline of countryside towns as towns need to be of a certain population density to be sustainable, so if you actually care about creating a counterbalance to Dublin, you should oppose the NBP and encourage people to move house to an area covered by commercial high-speed internet.

Eircom rolled out fibre to 350k one-off houses and the take-up rate is only 20%. There are many vacant and holiday homes in remote parts of the West, so the take-up rate for the NBP will mos likely be lower than 20%. €3 billion for <100,000‬ homes just so boggers can watch Netflix and porn is just ridiculous.

The whole "working from homes" excuse doesn't cut it either, you can work from home in an urban area. My sister-in-law does it.

This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a problem with one-off housing. These types of homes aren't sustainable. Germany banned planning permission for homes more than 500 meters outside of urban areas because they had the common sense to foresee these issues down the road - Ireland didn't. Germany's rural population is only 20%, Ireland's is 37% and we still allow people to build one-off houses under "locals only" clauses and corrupt councilors doing their constituents a few favours for votes.

Eventually, another essential technology will come along and we're stuck with the same problem.

Here we go. The far left telling us we all need to cram ourselves into dirty, polluted, crime ridden cities.

No thanks.

Roger Hassenforder

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think there is much disagreement about the need for it but what is under question is how the process was run and whether it will actually be the most efficient use of funds.

This is it for me.
Its something im willing to suck up.

But not for an asset we wont own, and the involvement of Denis O'Brien, and all the other bidders pulling out, and the Dept. Of public expenditure using unprecedented language to say the project as is, is nuts.

Should be rolled out like rural electrification scheme by state body.

KikiLaRue

is_that_so wrote: »

I don't think there is much disagreement about the need for it but what is under question is how the process was run and whether it will actually be the most efficient use of funds.

Ah I totally get that, but there are a few on here saying it’s not worth pursuing at all
“So a few boggers can get Netflix and pornhub”

Atoms for Peace

Pkiernan wrote: »

Here we go. The far left telling us we all need to cram ourselves into dirty, polluted, crime ridden cities.

No thanks.

There is a compromise solution. How about we first supply fibre broadband to villages and small towns while incentive people to move to rural villages rather than a one off house.

Gary kk

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

There is a compromise solution. How about we first supply fibre broadband to villages and small towns while incentive people to move to rural villages rather than a one off house.

A hey get real.How about we get people in Dublin to move cork to easy the housing crisis in Dublin. It's so easy I can't believe no one else though of it

KikiLaRue

Gary kk wrote: »

A hey get real.How about we get people in Dublin to move cork to easy the housing crisis in Dublin. It's so easy I can't believe no one else though of it

Is this a joke?

The housing crisis is almost as bad in Dublin as it is in Cork?

whisky_galore

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Is this a joke?

The housing crisis is almost as bad in Dublin as it is in Cork?

Just someone talking out of their hoop, as is so often the case.

Gary kk

whisky_galore wrote: »

Just someone talking out of their hoop, as is so often the case.

It's a joke

Atoms for Peace

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

There is a compromise solution. How about we first supply fibre broadband to villages and small towns while incentive people to move to rural villages rather than a one off house.

Because lots of people don’t want to live in towns or estates they want their own private house which isn’t tiny and has lots of private outside space not stuck to a neighbor. Lots of people also build rurally as they own the land and want to live next to family trying to force these to live where they don’t want to live us ninsess.

It’s a disgrace that fiber BB hasn’t already been rolled out to all areas, farms need it to begin with and serving farms means you will pass by pretty much every other house also so you might as well connect them.

If they just paid eir to do it rather than this nonsense scheme then a lot of the county would be covered. Eir’s idiotic roll out was a disgrace they run the fiber to a few houses and stop and move into the next road, it would have been so quick for them to cover all the houses in the areas they just connected up a few houses. They stopped the fiber 200 meters from my house leaving half the houses without BB and the half with it on the road, it would have taken them a few hours to finish it in the road and they have done the same on all the roads off the main road the the area. The thing is there would have been a higher uptake from the houses they didn’t connect compared to the ones they did so it was stupid by them also.

Anyone giving out about this is a Dub where all the investment and money goes to in this county so their opinion isn’t worth even considering.

whisky_galore

Gary kk wrote: »

It's a joke

Remind us when to laugh.

snotboogie

Nobody knows what “rural Ireland” is, so politicians are making hay off our terrible knowledge of our own demographics. Supplying every town in the country with broadband is absolutely no issue, supplying every McMansion in the state with fiberoptic is madness. “Rural Ireland” if you mean outside Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, will be saved by people moving back to the towns which are being deserted in favor of one off houses.

snotboogie

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Because lots of people don’t want to live in towns or estates they want their own private house which isn’t tiny and has lots of private outside space not stuck to a neighbor. Lots of people also build rurally as they own the land and want to live next to family trying to force these to live where they don’t want to live us ninsess.

If you want a massive McMansion and are so anti community that you “don’t want to be stuck next to a neighbor” you shouldn’t expect the state to bankrupt itself to provide your one off house with urban services

Pkiernan

snotboogie wrote: »

If you want a massive McMansion and are so anti community that you “don’t want to be stuck next to a neighbor” you shouldn’t expect the state to bankrupt itself to provide your one off house with urban services

We also shouldn't expect the State to bankroll a 20 billion euro per year Welfare bill, but a lot of lefties have no issue with that.

M5

M5 wrote: »

5g will not be faster or better than fiber optic. That article is from 2013,in tech terms that's jurassic!

And yet, and yet... People are claiming with apparent certainty that the proposed broadband infrastructure will be future-proofed for 35 years.

By the time the last National Broadband Scheme was up and running, it was already obsolete.

This isn't an argument against doing anything, in case it becomes obsolete. It's just that people (particularly Government ministers currently in the middle of an election campaign) are claiming all kinds of certainties about it, when senior civil service servants are essentially telling them it doesn't make sense.

If we must invest all of these billions in such a dubious project, can we not at least own it? Can we not at least see what GMC are putting into it? The whole thing seems like a Tribunal in its embryo stage.

The high horse brigade

We got 30 years of tech advancement on the copper network from 56k to a hundred megabits per second and it will be the same for fibre. Fibre is in its infancy. To get faster speeds you just change the optics either end.

Gary kk

whisky_galore wrote: »

Remind us when to laugh.

About now

snotboogie

snotboogie wrote: »

If you want a massive McMansion and are so anti community that you “don’t want to be stuck next to a neighbor” you shouldn’t expect the state to bankrupt itself to provide your one off house with urban services

Anyone using the term “McMansion” cannot be taken seriously.

3 billion spread over many years is pocket change, about 500 million of which is going straight back in vat so it’s really only 2.5 billion to begin with for a vital infracture that every house hold should have. People who want to live rurally are as entitled to fiber BB as anyone in a city.

snotboogie

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Anyone using the term “McMansion” cannot be taken seriously.

3 billion spread over many years is pocket change, about 500 million of which is going straight back in vat so it’s really only 2.5 billion to begin with for a vital infracture that every house hold should have. People who want to live rurally are as entitled to fiber BB as anyone in a city.

You do understand that the cost per house is higher the lower the density? “City” is a red herring, there are hundreds of towns all over the country that should have fiber broadband, that doesn’t mean that every McMansion is entitled to it, especially at a subsidy of up to 20k per house. 3 billion is pocket change? That’s your excuse?

The high horse brigade

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Anyone using the term “McMansion” cannot be taken seriously.

3 billion spread over many years is pocket change, about 500 million of which is going straight back in vat so it’s really only 2.5 billion to begin with for a vital infracture that every house hold should have. People who want to live rurally are as entitled to fiber BB as anyone in a city.

It's also 550M of contingency funding for a disaster like a hurricane taking out lots of the network. So in reality is only 2Billion.

I agree with you, money will spent. I'm sick and tired of this I'm alright Jack attitude filling these threads on here. Broadband is as essential as running water, electricity and flushing toilets.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »

Anyone using the term “McMansion” cannot be taken seriously.

3 billion spread over many years is pocket change, about 500 million of which is going straight back in vat so it’s really only 2.5 billion to begin with for a vital infracture that every house hold should have. People who want to live rurally are as entitled to fiber BB as anyone in a city.

The term ‘McMansion’ doesn’t mean just any big house. Some large houses and mansions are elegantly designed. McMansions are large houses or mansions that are external eyesores. Small houses can be eyesores too of course but because they’re small, they don’t stick out so much. McMansions have all kinds of ugly appendages and/or rooflines because what the occupier wants internally can’t be reconciled with a pleasing exterior.

whisky_galore

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The term ‘McMansion’ doesn’t mean just any big house. Some large houses and mansions are elegantly designed. McMansions are large houses or mansions that are external eyesores. Small houses can be eyesores too of course but because they’re small, they don’t stick out so much. McMansions have all kinds of ugly appendages and/or rooflines because what the occupier wants internally can’t be reconciled with a pleasing exterior.

A large modern ugly home the size of a small hotel with a handful of humans residing within. Like the Anglo Irish mansions of old but without any class or other redeeming features.

Gary kk

A lot of hate there guys did some rural person run over a pet when you where small