Rural Fibre Broadband, Really?

MrAbyss

Why? Colossal money to spend on fiber to every rural home when 5G is around the corner.

Billions for something that will obsolete in a year or two.

OneEightSeven

MrAbyss wrote: »

Why? Colossal money to spend on fiber to every rural home when 5G is around the corner.

Billions for something that will obsolete in a year or two.

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.

Wildsurfer

What about farms and rural buisness there Jackeen.... will we move them all up to Dublin so we can avail of all your wonderful city has to offer?

Wanderer78

OneEightSeven wrote: »

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.

can you make those pie charts bigger please, im struggling to see them? thanks

Le shovelle

bungalow dwellers with their large gardens eh

beauf

We already do this with other taxes as some counties don't generate enough income to be self sufficient anyway. So that's a bit of red herring.

We have huge problems with urbanisation. But I agree this scattergun development of one off isolated housing should never have been allowed unless it's working farm or business that needs to located where it is. New development should be focused on towns and villages which are in decline.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

There needs to be a defined cut off point in place so this isn't a blank cheque. This project could double in price very easily, as we've seen over and over with these big state projects.

I think there is an economic argument to be made to bring high speed broadband to every population centre. Let's say the cut off is a rural village with at least 100 people living in it. But trying to connect every single one off house in the country is madness. Connecting up a home on the side of a mountain makes no financial sense.

There are many advantages to living on the side of a mountain compared to living in a built up urban area. Low crime, low pollution, more space, more greenery, cheaper and bigger accommodation ect. The compromise is that servives won't and can't be as good. That's the deal. There's pros and cons to both sides of it.

I'm sick of 'rural' Ireland complaining that they are not being looked after. Yet by every reasonable measure, they take a hell of a lot more than nearly any other segment of Irish society.

If you want high speed broadband while living on the side of a mountain, that's fine, but pay for it yourself.

Eggs For Dinner

Dublin is dysfunctional when it comes to infrastructure such as transport, services and housing. Anything that stems the flow of people and businesses to the capital helps the national economy

Plumbthedepths

OneEightSeven wrote: »

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.

Get over yourself.

Plumbthedepths

Thankfully electricity already exists in rural Ireland, imagine the whinging.

cj maxx

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There needs to be a defined cut off point in place so this isn't a blank cheque. This project could double in price very easily, as we've seen over and over with these big state projects.

I think there is an economic argument to be made to bring high speed broadband to every population centre. Let's say the cut off is a rural village with at least 100 people living in it. But trying to connect every single one off house in the country is madness. Connecting up a home on the side of a mountain makes no financial sense.

There are many advantages to living on the side of a mountain compared to living in a built up urban area. Low crime, low pollution, more space, more greenery, cheaper and bigger accommodation ect. The compromise is that servives won't and can't be as good. That's the deal. There's pros and cons to both sides of it.

I'm sick of 'rural' Ireland complaining that they are not being looked after. Yet by every reasonable measure, they take a hell of a lot more than nearly any other segment of Irish society.

If you want high speed broadband while living on the side of a mountain, that's fine, but pay for it yourself.

Also pumping your own water at a significant cost. The septic tanks at a significant cost.
No waste collection .
Most one off country housing are farms. Or people who work and live In agricultural areas. Poor dubs me hole !

tom1ie

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Get over yourself.

He’s dead right though. If ya want high speed broadband, move to an urban centre.

The J Stands for Jay

Wildsurfer wrote: »

What about farms and rural buisness there Jackeen.... will we move them all up to Dublin so we can avail of all your wonderful city has to offer?

No, just follow sustainable development practices and build your mcmansion onto the existing towns and villages.

beauf

cjmc wrote: »

...
Most one off country housing are farms. Or people who work and live In agricultural areas. ...

I would doubt that's true considering the numbers that's have left farming.

But a lot of rural business like farms need broadband to compete today. A lot of it had gone high tech to stay competitive.

But seems an odd spend considering the problems with housing and health system.

realdanbreen

OneEightSeven wrote: »

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.

Ah come on you're not going to begrudge us broadband are you. I mean it would be different if we were already getting cheaper home insurance, car insurance, less crime, no traffic jams, less pollution, cheaper drink !

beauf

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Dublin is dysfunctional when it comes to infrastructure such as transport, services and housing. Anything that stems the flow of people and businesses to the capital helps the national economy

Urbanisation is a world wide trend so not simple problem to solve.

But certainly we should at least try.

I don't get the anti countryside agenda. It's a bit like cutting the branch you're standing in. Dragging everyone into cities will make everything worse in those cities.

biko

Wanderer78 wrote: »

can you make those pie charts bigger please, im struggling to see them? thanks

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Get over yourself.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Ah come on you're not going to begrudge us broadband are you. I mean it would be different if we were already getting cheaper home insurance, car insurance, less crime, no traffic jams, less pollution, cheaper drink !

Can you quote large images and add a one-liner more often? I want to add lots of scrolling to my thread experience.

Bob the Seducer

cjmc wrote: »

Also pumping your own water at a significant cost. The septic tanks at a significant cost.
No waste collection .
Most one off country housing are farms. Or people who work and live In agricultural areas. Poor dubs me hole !

Don't forget no footpaths, no street lighting, no public transport, no Garda stations, no post offices etc... Since there are no services in rural Ireland, rural tax payers money must be subsidising the ones provided in towns and cities!

realdanbreen

beauf wrote: »

I don't get the anti countryside agenda. .

I guess if you're stuck in traffic as you head in to spend the day in an office block you can get a bit frustrated and jealous.

thegills

This project doesnt deliver fibre to the homes only passes them. I think there will be an installation charge to get the fibre to the homes.

Wanderer78

OneEightSeven wrote: »

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

can you make those pie charts bigger please, im struggling to see them? thanks

biko wrote: »

Can you quote large images and add a one-liner more often? I want to add lots of scrolling to my thread experience.

you wanted it, you got it!

Vic_08

This isn't just a small number of rural houses, it is over 500,000 premises, around 25% of the population.

Suggesting that it is acceptable that a quarter of the country should just do without proper internet provision is nonsense.

That said this is an utter sh!tshow. Allowing Eir to pick which areas they wanted to serve and ditch everywhere else was always going to leave the taxpayer paying way over the odds for the remainder.

The price itself is mind boggling €3bn (+ €2bn the company is supposedly adding) is over €9,000 per premises, that is just insanely expensive for running fibre optic over already existing copper phone infrastructure.

Plumbthedepths

tom1ie wrote: »

He’s dead right though. If ya want high speed broadband, move to an urban centre.

He's not, you plus him need to understand the concept of society.

tom1ie

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

He's not, you plus him need to understand the concept of society.

Nope. You need to understand the concept of value for money.
Offer fbb to urban centers.
If people want fbb, move to urban centers or get people to pay for a fbb connection to their premise themselves.
Urban centers in this instance can still mean small villages.

Roger_007

I live in a rural area where there is fibre available along a road half a kilometre one side of me and along another road three quarters of a kilometre the other side. The fibre was installed by KN, (subcontracting for EIR), as an overhead line strung on existing telephone poles.
I enquired from EIR if they had any plans to service the road that I live on which connects to both those roads and on which there are 15 houses. They told me they had no plans to do so.
I don't understand the logic of this as all that is required is to string fibre overhead along 7 poles.
Why can't all rural areas be serviced by using the existing telephone poles to bring fibre to every home which already has a landline connected? Surely this couldn't cost €3 billion?

listermint

MrAbyss wrote: »

Why? Colossal money to spend on fiber to every rural home when 5G is around the corner.

Billions for something that will obsolete in a year or two.

Hi. I'm a poster who doesn't have a clue about the technologies involved..and things 5g is a panacea for connection.

I suggest you research 5G and how it works. And what the limitations are.


Otherwise no point embarrassing oneself.

is_that_so

listermint wrote: »

Hi. I'm a poster who doesn't have a clue about the technologies involved..and things 5g is a panacea for connection.

I suggest you research 5G and how it works. And what the limitations are.


Otherwise no point embarrassing oneself.

What you should have said is, actually 5G may not solve all your problems. Here's a helpful link I found to explain all about it and its limitations! I'd say get more coffee!

Fr_Dougal

There’s an election in May, hence the mad panic to get this signed off. It’s purely political.

ednwireland

Roger_007 wrote: »

Why can't all rural areas be serviced by using the existing telephone poles to bring fibre to every home which already has a landline connected? Surely this couldn't cost €3 billion?

eir tried to scupper the NBP (as its a direct competitor for its network) by cherry picking the easier places to run fibre. its stops pretty indiscriminatly and even if it runs past your property you may find you're too far form a junction box to connect. im the same as you 500m on a spur from the end of open eir's fibre rollout with several house on the line past me.

Imagine wont service my property even though they allegedly have the service in my area as i cant see there "high" point which isnt very high.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There needs to be a defined cut off point in place so this isn't a blank cheque. This project could double in price very easily, as we've seen over and over with these big state projects.

Agreed. So much could be done with a far lesser price tag.

I think there is an economic argument to be made to bring high speed broadband to every population centre. Let's say the cut off is a rural village with at least 100 people living in it. But trying to connect every single one off house in the country is madness. Connecting up a home on the side of a mountain makes no financial sense.

Again, I'd agree although I'd bump up the population to 500-1000. Many town census include those living outside the actual towns themselves. There's little genuine need for every village to be connected.

There are many advantages to living on the side of a mountain compared to living in a built up urban area. Low crime, low pollution, more space, more greenery, cheaper and bigger accommodation ect. The compromise is that servives won't and can't be as good. That's the deal. There's pros and cons to both sides of it.

Except you're using an extreme. That of living in the middle of nowhere or up a mountain. A reasonably sized town should have the same benefits (in terms of services) of living in a city. (although no need for a subway system :pac:) The difference is in options for consumerism and most people would accept that. What most people won't accept is that a city person is more important than any other citizen of the nation.

I'm sick of 'rural' Ireland complaining that they are not being looked after. Yet by every reasonable measure, they take a hell of a lot more than nearly any other segment of Irish society.

If you want high speed broadband while living on the side of a mountain, that's fine, but pay for it yourself.

Sure, I can appreciate that but at the same time, it should be considered that the pressure to move to a major population center like a city is a problem. The countryside of Ireland shouldn't be depopulated because people can't go without the services needed for normal living. Do you really want more of the population moving to Dublin? That would really improve the traffic problems, and other issues that already exist because Dublin wasn't designed to handle such populations.

While I agree that people should pay for high speed broadband, I'd consider that the same for everyone. Some services should be charged, and the monies collected put forward to improve all similar services. Ireland is supposed to become a technology hub but it doesn't really have the infrastructure. I know three companies who considered moving to Ireland to set up development offices but decided to go to Poland instead because Dublin was too expensive, and the remainder of Ireland wasn't advanced enough for their needs.

Rural Ireland does need some love, simply because Dublin can't be everything. Neither can the other Irish cities. There must be more than the cities, otherwise we're just following the same steps as other countries who are finding their countryside depopulated and greater social problems due to the high city populations. What will Ireland be like with a population of 12 million? With immigration and birth rates, such a population isn't so far fetched anymore. Ireland's issues often come about because of short term planning rather than considering how the future will change the country and it's society.

meeeeh

tom1ie wrote: »

Nope. You need to understand the concept of value for money.
Offer fbb to urban centers.
If people want fbb, move to urban centers or get people to pay for a fbb connection to their premise themselves.
Urban centers in this instance can still mean small villages.

Why would we do that. We got access to decent state schools, very few social issues, nice community with good standard of living and 5 min drive to work and shops without traffic jams. If we get Dubs to pay for our fiber it would really stupid to move and sacrifice our lifestyle and 2 acre garden.

is_that_so

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

There’s an election in May, hence the mad panic to get this signed off. It’s purely political.

Perhaps. FF, the alternative government, are supportive of the concept, just not this process. It's good politics for those with an eye on their rural vote and FF will just co-opt the plan and claim some credit. They might even propose more bells and whistles to it!

topper75

If I stay subscribed to this thread, will I find out why my taxes go to fund Dublin Bus when I never actually use it?

MrAbyss

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Dublin is dysfunctional when it comes to infrastructure such as transport, services and housing. Anything that stems the flow of people and businesses to the capital helps the national economy

So we cancel the Metro and let Dublin die so people in Achill can stream Netflx faster?

MrAbyss

MrAbyss wrote: »

So we cancel the Metro and let Dublin die so people in Achill can stream Netflx faster?

A little melodramatic don't you think? :rolleyes:

listermint

MrAbyss wrote: »

So we cancel the Metro and let Dublin die so people in Achill can stream Netflx faster?

Your false equivalence means I'm beginning to suspect your only here to ramp up a non existent division.


Or else it's just grade A level stupidity.

Thelonious Monk

Less success and infrastructure in Dublin means less money for you culchie plebs in your ugly bungalows, dont bite the hand that feeds you

ednwireland

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Less success and infrastructure in Dublin means less money for you culchie plebs in your ugly bungalows, dont bite the hand that feeds you

and less money for infrastructure outside dublin means more people in dublin multyplying the problems you already have - careful what you wish for.

AndyBoBandy

Didn't I read somewhere that this deal/plan involves running the fibre cables needed alongside Eir's phone line network, and basically 'renting' the pole space off Eir (at a cost of many millions per year).

No wonder Eir pulled out of the bidding process when they realised the (only) other bid/option involved Eir earning huge annual revenue for basically doing nothing!

Eir didn't want the contract, but they'll probably end up doing all the work anyway as a sub-contractor to the company that did win the contract (who have no experience of installing high speed internet service).

So everyone still gets their cut of the action.

tom1ie

Without a doubt we need to be encouraging investment and companies to relocate outside of Dublin to other URBAN areas like the other cities and big towns (eg portlaoise).
This will take the pressure of Dublin.
If we can do this plus invest in Dublin’s infrastructure then we will be on the right track.
However this, everyone get fiber broadband at the cost of 5b no matter where you live is pure nonsense.

realdanbreen

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Less success and infrastructure in Dublin means less money for you culchie plebs in your ugly bungalows, dont bite the hand that feeds you

Get back up to your flat before I ring your probation officer!

tom1ie

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Didn't I read somewhere that this deal/plan involves running the fibre cables needed alongside Eir's phone line network, and basically 'renting' the pole space off Eir (at a cost of many millions per year).

No wonder Eir pulled out of the bidding process when they realised the (only) other bid/option involved Eir earning huge annual revenue for basically doing nothing!

Yes and add in the fact ESB networks already have a fiber backbone system traversing the length and breadth of the country...........

Buford T. Justice XIX

tom1ie wrote: »

He’s dead right though. If ya want high speed broadband, move to an urban centre.

If the argument is to move to where services are available with minimal cost, shouldn't the population of Dublin be moving west, closer to the Shannon for their water supply?

And out into Meath and Kildare to be closer to their waste management centers?

And out into the middle of nowhere to be nearer to their supply of electricity from turbines/power stations/quarries/cement factories to be closer to the services they need?

tom1ie

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

If the argument is to move to where services are available with minimal cost, shouldn't the population of Dublin be moving west, closer to the Shannon for their water supply?

And out into Meath and Kildare to be closer to their waste management centers?

And out into the middle of nowhere to be nearer to their supply of electricity from turbines/power stations/quarries/cement factories to be closer to the services they need?

No.

Buford T. Justice XIX

tom1ie wrote: »

No.

So some services can be provided to those that want them without moving closer to the nearest point of provision and others not?

What's the differentiation for that reasoning and who gets to make it?

Thelonious Monk

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

So some services can be provided to those that want them without moving closer to the nearest point of provision and others not?

What's the differentiation for that reasoning and who gets to make it?

Water where i live comes from reservoirs nearby in Wicklow. It is a lot easier for services to he provided to large populations rather than one off housing but you farming folk dont seem to be very bright when it comes to these matters.

Gary kk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Water where i live comes from reservoirs nearby in Wicklow. It is a lot easier for services to he provided to large populations rather than one off housing but you farming folk dont seem to be very bright when it comes to these matters.

Well it will be coming from the Shannon shortly as well. Pretty sure the farmer will have to pay for the broadband. It not like the water in urban areas you know where 7 billion has been spent and the bill is still climbing. Granted water is more important. But then again been more important why would anyone not want to pay the fair share for what they use.

MrAbyss

Deleted User wrote: »

A little melodramatic don't you think? :rolleyes:

and people in rural Ireland are never melodramatic about their 'plights'?

Melodrama always been, and remains the only economic and development plan Bungalow Bliss Ireland ever had or will ever have.

Plumbthedepths

tom1ie wrote: »

Nope. You need to understand the concept of value for money.
Offer fbb to urban centers.
If people want fbb, move to urban centers or get people to pay for a fbb connection to their premise themselves.
Urban centers in this instance can still mean small villages.

You need to understand rural dwellers are every bit entitled to have broadband access as our urban counterparts. Society dude.

UrbanFret

Le shovelle wrote: »

bungalow dwellers with their large gardens eh

Garden size must have a major effect on Broadband speed. Never knew that.:D

MrAbyss

The first underground rail system for Dublin was implemented in 1973. It has been rebranded and canceled constantly since. The city has some of the worst traffic congestion in Europe.

There is still no sign of it on the horizon. People stuck in traffic 3 hours a day are told 'sure buses (stuck in the same traffic) are enough' by mostly rural TDs who determine the fate of the GDRs commuters. Successive governments have failed to properly develop an absolutely vital modern commuter rail system for the city. It has got to the point now whereby multinationals are even complaining about it.

However Xhamster to Ballymagash for the same cost as both the MetroLink and DartUNDERGROUND combined = BLANK CHEQUE written by same TDs.

and you wonder why people are angry about this Rural Broadband bull****?