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.
fritzelly wrote: » State now buys (majority of) company managing state assets at a probably inflated price
fritzelly wrote: » That twitter link makes me confused Let me see if I've got this right... State gives tender to tiny company Tiny company sells itself to a US company (hmm down the rabbit hole) Somebody wants to know the details of the tender State fights tooth and nail against it State finds its a losing battle Naughten suddenly without any kind of tendering (is that not illegal for state contracts) extends their contracts bumping enets value considerably State now buys (majority of) company managing state assets at a probably inflated price FOI dead in the water (edit actually why does that negate the original FOI request?) And after all that not a single high speed broadband connection Who was getting these brown envelopes I would like to know.
Marlow wrote: » No no .. State floats 25% of a company who buys the majority of a company managing state assets at a totally inflated price .. (approx 6-10x the rate of lets say fiber from Dublin to Paris), without giving the state a decent cut back. So a little bit more convoluted. But otherwise you nailed it. Now ... putting contrast on it, eNet is now indirectly a partially state-owned asset. Then go back to the FOI process and review the fight there and how that's now even more a loosing battle for government and enet under those circumstances. /M
fritzelly wrote: » This is so convuluted it's easy to forgive anyone not following it. The IIF started by Irish Life, backed up by the government, managed by some Australian company buys a company engaged by the state to manage state assets and who are the only remaining company in another state tender... IIF who also own Airspeed Telecom...hmmm Ohhh my mind is blown trying to follow all this. Call me cynical but this all stinks of corruption.
westyIrl wrote: » fritzelly wrote: » This is so convuluted it's easy to forgive anyone not following it. The IIF started by Irish Life, backed up by the government, managed by some Australian company buys a company engaged by the state to manage state assets and who are the only remaining company in another state tender... IIF who also own Airspeed Telecom...hmmm Ohhh my mind is blown trying to follow all this. Call me cynical but this all stinks of corruption. I suppose one could summarise that the State's investment benefits from it awarding the tender to ENET, which is probably the definition of conflict of interest. Doesn't smell of dasies no matter how you look at it. Jim
fritzelly wrote: » managed by some Australian company .
9726_9726 wrote: This all makes Lowry and Dinny look like a couple of altar boys.
ED E wrote: » Think I'll jog on to Iceland or somewhere, silly little country....
KOR101 wrote: » No need’ for broadband cash detailshttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-need-for-broadband-cash-details-509jm8x2w?t=ie
In the coming months, enet-SSE crews will commence the first phase of deployment delivering the new fibre-to-the-premises broadband network to 18,000 premises in nine towns in the West and North West. This first phase, which will complete within 12 months of commencement, will connect Ballinasloe, Roscommon Town, Manorhamilton, Bundoran, Ballyshannon, Donegal Town, Ballybofey, Stranorlar, and Buncrana
shigllgetcha wrote: » I dont know if the enet 100m rollout was ever going to be actual rural broadband like the NBP area or just a urban rollout in rural towns ala SIRO. > n the coming months, enet-SSE crews will commence the first phase of deployment delivering the new fibre-to-the-premises broadband network to 18,000 premises in nine towns in the West and North West. This first phase, which will complete within 12 months of commencement, will connect Ballinasloe, Roscommon Town, Manorhamilton, Bundoran, Ballyshannon, Donegal Town, Ballybofey, Stranorlar, and Buncrana 18,000 premises seems like far too many to cover the NBP area for 9 pretty small towns. It sounds alot more like a rollout for just the urban areas of those towns.
Grab All Association wrote: Nothing more about it unusually.
KOR101 wrote: » All told, the project has a mounting credibility problem.
fritzelly wrote: » Still talking about eir coming back in - with the new owner I think that ship has sailed, he will be money hungry and there is only one place that will work
Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: » I can't see it myself. Adrian Weckler seems to have started the rumour and now others are running with it. I'd go so far as to say that I believe eir would like to see the whole process collapse now. I can see them playing hard ball with any access requests for their network to leverage even more pressure on enet.
smelly sock wrote: » I think you are on the money Navi. No way Eir are going to re enter and build an infrastructure at an expense which wont turn a profit for donkeys years.
Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: » Weckler's theory is even more bizarre than that. According to him enet would hire eir as a sub-contractor to build out their network. They would be paid upfront for the work but would have no long term ownership of the network. So essentially they would be cannibalising their own business (how many people in intervention areas are paying line rental and broadband subscriptiona to eir) for whatever they would be getting paid to build the infrastructure.
The government has approved the drafting of a bill to ensure access to infrastructure, such as ducts and poles, needed for the planned rollout of high-speed broadband to 540,000 rural homes and businesses. The legislation will also set out the costs of accessing it. A Department of Communications spokesman said that the bill was aimed at “facilitating the efficient and effective delivery” of the plan (NBP). “It seeks to provide certainty in relation to access to critical infrastructure required to deliver the NBP and the terms and conditions including cost, of that access,” he said. “It provides that disputes in relation to access and/or terms and conditions of access will be determined by the Commission for Communications Regulation. The proposed provisions would apply only in relation to the NBP and are not limited to the infrastructure of any one provider. The bill is being drafted by the Office of the Attorney-General and it is anticipated that it will be brought to government for approval to initiate in the Oireachtas during the autumn term.”
