Satellite providers deserve a pat on the back

jwt

Satellite providers deserve a pat on the back

Apart from Last Mile I am aware of no other ISP group who are pushing forward GBS, drumming up business or knocking on people’s doors.

You may argue that they have to, or that they are using GBS to further their own ends but isn't that the point?

GBS should be an opportunity for ISPs to promote their service, garner new customers and get a foot in the door ahead of the big guys. At the same time they further the roll out of GBS and everyone wins. Ildana, Mediasat and Digiweb seem to be the ones constantly attending GBS seminars, pushing their wares and raising their profile.


In my opinion all ISPs should be doing this. Although personally not satisfied that sat is the right technology for GBS, if a community is thinking of using GBS and a sat provider proactively approaches them who do you think will get the business. Put another way, who deserves to get the business.

Compare and contrast

John

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

In my opinion all ISPs should be doing this. Although personally not satisfied that sat is the right technology for GBS, if a community is thinking of using GBS and a sat provider proactively approaches them who do you think will get the business. Put another way, who deserves to get the business.

Compare and contrast

Most of the ISPs are simply going to resell Eircoms broadband and so don't count as far as broadband rollouts are concerned. It is a shame though that more non-resellers aren't active. Well done to IOFFL and others for attending these meetings and informing people of the pros and cons of the different types of broadband. Really, anything based on satellite should not get funding since it doesn't make use of other state investments in infrastructure.

Mr_Man

jwt wrote:

Satellite providers deserve a pat on the back

Apart from Last Mile I am aware of no other ISP group who are pushing forward GBS, drumming up business or knocking on people’s doors.

You may argue that they have to, or that they are using GBS to further their own ends but isn't that the point?

GBS should be an opportunity for ISPs to promote their service, garner new customers and get a foot in the door ahead of the big guys. At the same time they further the roll out of GBS and everyone wins. Ildana, Mediasat and Digiweb seem to be the ones constantly attending GBS seminars, pushing their wares and raising their profile.


In my opinion all ISPs should be doing this. Although personally not satisfied that sat is the right technology for GBS, if a community is thinking of using GBS and a sat provider proactively approaches them who do you think will get the business. Put another way, who deserves to get the business.

Compare and contrast

John

Setting up a GBS scheme we contacted every ISP listed on the Government Website. Got two replies, one Sat one Wireless - so at least one wireless company is interested in getting involved.

M.

damien

Isn't there like over 100 on that ISP list ? And just 2 got back to you ? Jesus.

Mr_Man

Disappointing to say the least, especially given the demand there is for broadband here. I guess most ISP's are just happy to take the money from the normal punters and anything that involves a bit of work in the short term is too much hassle.

M.

eircomtribunal

I think you look and blame into the wrong direction. Why should ISP's invest money, time and effort into a business that has as little future as the deflector business? The incumbent can, whenever he sees the business necessity, wipe out most of these efforts.
In my hometown wireless broadband is offered with the help of a €120 000 BMW grant; within some months Eircom will enable the exchange (already on fibre, so their investment will be at around € 10 000) and proof the BMW action a waste of money. The reach of the existing wireless offer is not further than the dsl will be.

Don't get me wrong: I am not blaming the provider (last mile) to take the grant and offer the service – I am a happy customer of their service.
But in the whole this is all a wasteful detour. With an intelligent regulator the incumbent would have been forced to roll out dsl to 95% – and then we could have used the money and concentrate the effort to help the rest.

There is an interesting article in the German magazine SPIEGEL about alternative wireless broadband networks in Denmark: "Freie Netze" (Free networks). Perhaps running the text through a translation utility can help? http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,344502,00.html

P

tomk

eircomtribunal wrote:

There is an interesting article in the German magazine SPIEGEL about alternative wireless broadband networks in Denmark

This is what the Google translator makes of it:

Broadband between dyke and dune

By Sonja Ernst

Straight ones, where it is beautiful, want the telefongesellschaften often not: Where little humans live, the structure of InterNet infrastructures is not worthwhile itself. In free net communities activists and Doerfler show the "Telkos", how one creates it nevertheless: better, more cheaply and naturally broadband.

The Greens meadows and cows, the Baltic Sea before the door - there is hardly nevertheless unfortunately work, no daily paper and no InterNet. Eight humans in the Danish Djursland had it fullly to be social "off-lines" and built their own non-commercial wireless wideband network: Today it is European-wide the largest. 2200 households are part of the net - hard core Technikfreaks, IT Berufler in the suit and pragmatic farmers go through.

"we wanted to set up no European record", say Bjarke Nielsen, of one of the fathers of the Djursland net. Before two years everything began: Fast got around oneself, as easily the participation in a free network is actual. It hands a computer with radio net map and on the building roof or grain memory an antenna, which sends to the next neighbour and receives from it. Thus develops a kind Intranet, which is fed into the "genuine" World Wide Web over a standard Provider. So user world-wide the sides of the Djurslaender can click and in reverse.

The Djurslaender divides the Provider entrance, which lowers the costs; communication as well as telephoning in the "Djursland Intranet" are free.

But Bjarke Nielsen had the money saving and its friends not in the sense. The Danish telecommunications companies supply 95 per cent of all Danes with DSL, the remaining five per cent live mostly in Djursland. In the thinly settled region in the northeast the "Telkos" could not make profits - neither with glass fiber nor with DSL. The costs of the wiring less user over far distances away would have the Djurslaender never "einsurfen" to be able.

But a wireless net, where "the distance" does not cost anything, did not come the Danish Telekom into the sense.

Resemble chances for all

"in the last ten years it went constantly downhill", says Nielsen, 59. The early pensioner made long computer art, before he became an IT advisor. In Djursland the only hospital closed, then the daily paper closed and the aunt Emma shops yielded few giant supermarkets.

"unemployment increased and those, which could go, went", thus Nielsen. "enterprises without professional IT structures are not competitive. Everyone should be part of the modern information world - households and companies." The vision to stretch a wideband network was not only a technical challenge, but for Nielsen a social responsibility.

Because all should profit from the Djursland net, technical aid and organization were necessary. The pioneers of Djursland created a service center and offer today "all inclusive" packages: For 260 euro receive user a directional antenna, cable for the connection to the computer, a radio net map, instructions and the Hotline number for emergencies.

One half of the money covers material costs, the other one the receipt of the radio net. Still the Djursland net rests on the enthusiasm of freiwilliger aid - however in the service center already two jobs developed.

After free software now free nets?

Once in the net, the Djurslaender for monthly 13 euro surfen nonstop by DSL however not only: They can read finally again daily paper on-line. With "djurslands.net" a message portal for the region developed: Each town has its own platform and each user can own pieces of news on-line place. A team of freiwilliger authors developed, which takes up and articles on the starting side makes exciting message. The daily column writer, a retired journalist, commentates the policy in Djursland.

The Djurslaender makes it forwards: Free nets function. "free" are them, because the carrier structures belong to the Usern. With each new household the net grows, completely anarchisch - without center and Provider. The net is open to all. Clemens Cap, professor for information and communication services at the University of Rostock, recognizes therein a "certain political radicalism".

For Cap the classical creation of value pushes here to its borders. Is comparable with free software such as Linux or Wikipedia, to the on-line encyclopedia written by Usern - both are absolutely competitive on the commercial market. "" return the on investment" is here unimportant." One does not want "open Mars Expetitionen" or "open of atomic power plants", so Cap: "however open Net is conceivable."

lomb

eircomtribunal wrote:

I think you look and blame into the wrong direction. Why should ISP's invest money, time and effort into a business that has as little future as the deflector business? The incumbent can, whenever he sees the business necessity, wipe out most of these efforts.
In my hometown wireless broadband is offered with the help of a €120 000 BMW grant; within some months Eircom will enable the exchange (already on fibre, so their investment will be at around € 10 000) and proof the BMW action a waste of money. The reach of the existing wireless offer is not further than the dsl will be.

Don't get me wrong: I am not blaming the provider (last mile) to take the grant and offer the service – I am a happy customer of their service.
But in the whole this is all a wasteful detour. With an intelligent regulator the incumbent would have been forced to roll out dsl to 95% – and then we could have used the money and concentrate the effort to help the rest.

There is an interesting article in the German magazine SPIEGEL about alternative wireless broadband networks in Denmark: "Freie Netze" (Free networks). Perhaps running the text through a translation utility can help? http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,344502,00.html

P

yeah its all a waste of time and money, the future is ADSL and everyone knows it. any money or time invested today wont provide a return in a few years when the majority have access to adsl.

shoegirl

The problem as far as I can see it is that eircom will happily come in AFTER thousands have been spent and interest drummed up. Naturally a product that is unavailable will not be in general demand. What is disturbing is that eircom are so willing to exploit the rise in demand after somebody else has subsidised the infrasstructure that they previously refused to do at a smaller cost.

Perhaps the new proposal to oblige eircom to guarantee 28k+ for internet use may begin to breakdown their current refusal to fix their own faults.

SkepticOne

Where are people getting the idea that if Eircom upgrade an exchange, whatever prior public investment is "wiped out"? I think those people are forgetting that at every stage of DSL role out to date, Eircom have had the begging bowl out. This begging dates back to before they had any service at all including Dublin and urban areas. "Hey you want broadband," says Eircom, "why not pay us to do it!?" Yet, in the absence of alternative suppliers, Eircom would have demanded billions. If a report in the SBP a while back is to be believed, they already have.

And at every stage, there have been people believing that Eircom should be cajoled into exchanges by bribery and regulation. These people have been proved wrong time and time again. Eircom have only responded when their business is under threat in some way and they move to respond to this threat.

People have said that the fibre rings were a waste. Apeing Eircom themselves, they said it was a "duplication" of the "national infrastructure", forgetting that this infrastructure was owned by the Eircom monopoly. Yet Smart is now planning to use this same "duplicate" infrastructure to provide DSL far in excess of Eircom's standard offerings.

I'm amased that people think regulation is the way forward given that our current regulators have trouble getting their heads round the concept of "universal" in the USO at the extremely low speed of 28.8k.

Let's stop listening to Eircom. They would love everyone to believe that the future lies in everything being owned and run by them. This lets them extort the maximum from the tax-payer and the end user for each tiny bit of improvement. Eircom would love everyone to believe that regulation is the key to improvement because they know full well that this will never be the case.

We should of course, continue to use regulation where it makes sense but it is folly in the extreme to think that it is the answer to everything.

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

Where are people getting the idea that if Eircom upgrade an exchange, whatever prior public investment is "wiped out"?

Not whatever, but a lot. And a lot of potential competitors will not compete because of the threat.

And at every stage, there have been people believing that Eircom should be cajoled into exchanges by bribery and regulation.

In countries with no existing competition (cable) t h e way of creating this competition would have been for the regulator to introduce functioning Local Loop Unbundling. That is not cajoling and that would have worked just as well as it did in Denmark, Japan and other countries. Our way of belatedly creating competition by way of wireless has been disastrously slow and a detour. It would have been much better to use State aided wireless Internet access for the areas where dsl is genuinely difficult to deploy.
Of course if you accept that we cannot change our useless ComReg, then regulation is no help and you'd be correct.

People have said that the fibre rings were a waste. Apeing Eircom themselves, they said it was a "duplication" of the "national infrastructure", forgetting that this infrastructure was owned by the Eircom monopoly. Yet Smart is now planning to use this same "duplicate" infrastructure to provide DSL far in excess of Eircom's standard offerings.

Smart will use very little of the MAN's infrastructure, but that use is insignificant for its operational success and economy. Its use of LLU is the important thing – and ComReg's failure to provide this possibility for so long is the sticking point.

P.

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

In countries with no existing competition (cable) t h e way of creating this competition would have been for the regulator to introduce functioning Local Loop Unbundling. That is not cajoling and that would have worked just as well as it did in Denmark, Japan and other countries.

Yet, in Japan there is significant cable competition. Although it doesn't provide the sort of speeds and doesn't get the same number of subscribers, it keeps the incumbent on its toes as far as maintenance of basic infrastructure. Those who don't get the required service from the incumbent can opt to leave altogether.

Our way of belatedly creating competition by way of wireless has been disastrously slow and a detour. It would have been much better to use State aided wireless Internet access for the areas where dsl is genuinely difficult to deploy.

I agree it has been belated and minimal to date but consumers in those towns that now have alternative infrastructure now have far greater power. If it was simply DSL, even under LLU by a different company, they would not have this power. Those with poor infrastructure (on pair gains) etc, will still have trouble getting broadband of any sort. If you were on a pair gain and Last Mile opted to upgrade the exchange with DSL then you would be in a far worse position than now. You would be now be trying to get Last Mile to force Eircom to provide you with a line. Eircom will always have the power since they own the infrastructure and provide ComReg with everything they know.

Of course if you accept that we cannot change our useless ComReg, then regulation is no help and you'd be correct.

There may be some prospect of changing ComReg but there will always be problems fundamental to regulation. Eircom will always run rings around them since they hold the information upon which ComReg makes decisions. We can suspect that this information is wrong but we can never prove it.

Smart will use very little of the MAN's infrastructure, but that use is insignificant for its operational success and economy.

They make use of it for corporate customers. This use makes it worthwhile to do deals with national providers like the ESB to bring bandwidth to the rings. Off the back of these deals, Smart can provide DSL at a cheap price. If it was just DSL it might not be worth it.

Its use of LLU is the important thing – and ComReg's failure to provide this possibility for so long is the sticking point.

I think we are going to find that LLU does not solve as many problems as we once thought. It's main benefit will be to those who can already get DSL. These people will enjoy faster speeds. Those on pair gains are still at the beginning of a very long road since Eircom, who never had an incentive to remove them will be even less inclined since their removel may lead to business going to another company. Better from Eircom's point of view to keep them in place and manipulate the regulator accordingly.

Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of better regulation but I regard placing all hopes for improvement on better regulation to be very unwise. Things need to progress in a balanced way. We have only ourselves to blame if, having placed all our hopes on regulation, this regulation subsequently fails.

eircomtribunal

SkepticOne wrote:

Yet, in Japan there is significant cable competition. Although it doesn't provide the sort of speeds and doesn't get the same number of subscribers, it keeps the incumbent on its toes as far as maintenance of basic infrastructure. Those who don't get the required service from the incumbent can opt to leave altogether.

Sorry, but that is just not so. Japan is the prime example for broadband success without effective cable competition, but by means of regulator enforced LLU.(The reasons why the Japanese gov was serious have a lot to do with "old enemy" SKorea's success). Cable will not help those in any significant manner who are on long and pair-gained rural lines.

Wireless will help those, but again ComReg has devised the 3.5 gig scheme in a way that makes it unattractive, uneconomical to go into those areas.

It has nothing to do with putting all eggs into the regulator basket, but with knowing that without good regulation all possible emerging competition will be hindered.

P.

SkepticOne

eircomtribunal wrote:

Sorry, but that is just not so. Japan is the prime example for broadband success without effective cable competition, but by means of regulator enforced LLU.(The reasons why the Japanese gov was serious have a lot to do with "old enemy" SKorea's success). Cable will not help those in any significant manner who are on long and pair-gained rural lines.

Well about 50% of the population are passed by two-way capable cable in Japan. This is far greater than the percentage of any form of alternative in Ireland. In addition to this, they are a highly urbanised population and so the issues of long and pair gained lines is not such an issue in Japan. The combination of high urbanisation and infrastructural competition means that LLU is particularly suitable for that country. Large sections of the population live very close to exchanges and so very high speeds are possible.

LLU is a good thing and I don't oppose it. We just need to accept that it not the total solution. It still leaves large numbers of people without any alternative. What is being suggested is that any attempts to promote more fundamental infrastructural competition is a waste and that this money should be spent on catering to pure fringe areas completely out of reach. I believe that this is misguided. Those who won't be able to get DSL (under LLU or otherwise) will be scattered throughout the country including the middle of cities. The economic case for alternative infrastructure is gone if only fringe areas are catered to and this will mean a far greater amount of public money being spent.