The government has published a new map outlining in detail 700,000 rural homes and businesses which will be connected to state-subsidised broadband of at least 30 megabits per second (Mbs) from 2016.
Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: » The pace of the project is a disappointment no doubt but it is such an unusual undertaking involving disparate competing private concerns and a large amount of public funding that once the lawyers and consultants got involved delays were inevitable.
listermint wrote: » It is very much a 'ss' tbh. 3 years and tenders are not even in. Laughable , we are out there trying to attract business to Ireland post brexit and we dont seem to visualize BB infrastructure as serious capital investment.
Marlow wrote: » You can thank Dial-Up Dempsey for that legacy. Ireland has always been at least 3-4 years behind everybody else .. generally 10 years ... when it comes to communications and information technology. Sure, who in their right mind needs more than 9600 Baud ? And of course it's fair to pay one of the highest line rental charges for that or any other phone line based service. /M
listermint wrote: » Its not fair to pass it off like that tbh, we have been complaining about BB or lack of here for 10 years. This nonsense is 3 years itself in the making and we are out their hocking for business across Europe and the rest of the world with people who have not got a breeze about the subject matter at the controls. Ministers of no communication, the last once chosen because he was the youngest of the bunch. Its time to be upset not time for ah sure you know ...
Persiancowboy wrote: » It's completely unfair to state that those running the NBP process don't have a breeze about the subject matter. While everyone who posts here is 100% genuinely interested in getting this broadband problem sorted for once and for all, it doesn't mean that they all fully understand the complexity and detail that a project of this nature entails, especially when EU funding is part of the process. It is also worth remembering the extremely litigious nature of the telecoms industry and the very deep pockets of many of the players involved (some of whom seem to use the Courts as a business tool). As has been pointed out here previously by many posters, eir's miraculous discovery of an additional 300,000 "commercial" premises in the NBP intervention area has resulted in significant delays to the project...you can hardly blame anyone but eir for that? Given the design of the proposed intervention it is my personal view that the Department is also attempting to fully and finally address this huge infrastructural deficit and therefore unlike the previous NBS intervention, once this is done the State will not need to intervene again in the future. I appreciate it doesn't always fit some peoples' narrative but there are huge parts of the EU that have very similar (and at times worse) BB issues as rural Ireland does. For example, if you live in the UK, BT's proposed solution is to use vectoring on its copper network to provide "high-speed broadband". The process is torturous but one missed step by the Dept will set this whole thing back years if an interested party lodges an official complaint either through the Courts here or to DG Comp. Believe me, no body wants that to happen.
turbbo wrote: » A lot of this could have been avoided if they predicted Eirs swipe at the 300k. The EU maybe would have adjusted the terms of their funding in the NBP to stop nonsense like that happening which we can all agree slows the rollout down and prevents healthy competition in the market.
user1842 wrote: » Are the EU providing any funding to this? I don't think they are. The Department just wants to make sure that the Commission does not get involved if there is a possibility that Ireland will breach state aid rules when awarding the contract. I think we will be paying 100% of the cost, I could be wrong though.
oscarBravo wrote: » I still don't think you get it. The point of state intervention is to provide services in places where commercial providers can't or won't. When a commercial provider says that it plans to provide services to 300k premises, the government is absolutely prohibited from including those premises in the intervention, just as they are prohibited from including (say) any housing estates where Virgin Media provide services.
turbbo wrote: » No you don't get it. The 300k that Eir have taken is fine. But what happens everybody else? They wait is what happens. Because the dept. did nothing. They've already waited 3 years. Take yer head out of the sand.
turbbo wrote: » State aid??
MajesticDonkey wrote: » What should the DCENR have done?
user1842 wrote: » European Union state procurement rules which set-out how state procurement should be run and when state aid is allowable (e.g. market failure)
turbbo wrote: » negotiate a more flexible deal with the EU
ED E wrote: » So you want them to have changed EU wide competition law to neuter one telco in one of the smallest members? Yeah. Likely. If you take in the density of our dwelling patterns we're ahead of the curve, not behind. Understandably posters are impatient but really we don't want to get this wrong. The US taxpayer subsidised a rollout in 1997, the telcos took the money and gave it to their shareholders. World leading economy and still have shocking residential comms to this day. Do it once, do it right. We'll be using this infrastructure for 20yrs. Don't be the US, dont be Australia.
turbbo wrote: » What I said - predicted that Eir would make a land grab and negotiate a more flexible deal with the EU that would prevent land grabs before the NBP.
Persiancowboy wrote: » Nobody looking at the original NBP intervention map published by DCENR in 2014 could have foreseen that any commercial player would make a private investment in the amber areas. Even with Mystic Meg and her crystal ball could Dept have predicted what eir did. I’ve said it time and again here...its decision does not stand up on commercial grounds...it was done for strategic reasons only (and appears to have been hugely successful in that SIRO have walked away).
As for cutting a deal with EU to prevent this....wishful thinking. EU don’t do one-off deals. State Aid rules are written for everyone, irrespective of market size or conditions ....up to each Member State to work within those parameters. And has already been said you cannot design rules to prevent commercial investment, even if you have grounds for being sceptical about the motives. Best you can do is ensure that those promises are kept ( hence I suspect the “contract” Dept signed with eir on the 300,000).
BarryM wrote: » Look further, for example, Finland, a country with a small population and a huge landmass. There is 100gb networking everywhere. How was this done? The state, "approved" by the EU, laid down a basic network infrastructure and private suppliers pay a rent to use it. In France, France Telecom was privatised in a similar way. FT kept the network and are responsible for upgrading, and all the private operators have the RIGHT to access at cost. In Ireland the mantra is "telecomms is private, we cannot interfere" complete lack of imagination, as usual.
user1842 wrote: As least we learned our lesson with the ESB and did not privatise that network.
jgbyr wrote: » From today's Irish Examinerhttp://www.irishexaminer.com/business/national-broadband-plan-is-at-least-10-to-12-years-away-462150.html
oscarBravo wrote: » You're saying that the government should have prevented a commercial rollout of fibre in rural Ireland, and that the European Union should have been complicit in this.
ED E wrote: » I'm not even going to bother trying to answer that, clearly your domain knowledge is trending towards zero.
turbbo wrote: » No, I'm saying that there was room for at least 2 commercial rollouts, by dividing the areas as evenly as possible - rather than Eir taking all the profitable convenient areas.
oscarBravo wrote: » You're still not getting it. It's a commercial rollout, which means that eir can roll out wherever they like. It's not a question of "dividing the areas"; that still implies that the government could have told eir not to roll out commercially to at least some of the places they're doing so. Your entire beef seems to be premised on the idea that the 300k was somehow awarded to eir, and should have been (at least in part) awarded to someone else. You need to get that misapprehension out of your head.
turbbo wrote: » If we were to follow your idea of how a commercial telecoms company should operate we'd have a completely separate network for each operator? You're applying shop like commercial rules eg. if you want to shop with lidl you shop in a lidl store, you don't go to a generic store and have the option of buying lidl or Tesco items. That is how the infrastructure should be treated - generic - as earlier posters mentioned we fupped everything up by privatising the infrastructure but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be regulating the $hit out of it now. Just because it's the way it is doesn't mean it can't be improved. The way it is now with Eir controlling the infrastructure means we'll be the most expensive country for bb for years. Need I remind you they are a private company and want to make money and lots of it!
