nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

ED E

They've published!

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.

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/revealed-700000-homes-and-businesses-to-get-subsidised-fast-broadband-in-new-plan-30769126.html

Edit: Video

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

westyIrl

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The owners could just abandon parts of it that were not profitable to maintain?

That is my interpretation of it. When the contract with the state will be finished in 25 years, the subsidised network reverts to the ownership of the private consortium.

One would hope there would be some form of 'USO' put into the mix regarding existing/new connections and possibly maintaining the network would be feasible for the private sector once it's built.

However, the state having no stake left after expiration of the contract does concern me, even if not too many people worry about what goes on in 25 yrs tbh. Then again they managed to enforce the USO on Eir which is private.

Jim

oscarBravo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The owners could just abandon parts of it that were not profitable to maintain?

Unlikely. As KOR says, there will be a USO, and in any case there are orders of magnitude of difference between the cost of building a network and the cost of maintaining it.

Not commercially viable to build doesn't imply not commercially viable to own.

Johnboy1951

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unlikely. As KOR says, there will be a USO, and in any case there are orders of magnitude of difference between the cost of building a network and the cost of maintaining it.

Not commercially viable to build doesn't imply not commercially viable to own.

Well a lot might depend on a considerable number of variables ......

will this future USO be specific to phone calls or to broadband or both?

a USO is unlikely to specify a particular technical means of compliance so a substitute wireless solution might be used

having access to eir poles is one thing, but after the 25 years what happens? If the poles are not maintained how could the fibre be maintained?

With no stake in the game after all the money is paid the gov will have no leverage (IF it wanted to) to insist on 'the owner' maintaining or improving the network.

At least those on Siro are assured that the underlying infrastructure (poles & lines) will be maintained into the future.

To date I have read nothing at all about this aspect of the NBP, except 'expectations' that some future USO will somehow solve the potential problems.

I am not as convinced as some about that.

oscarBravo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

will this future USO be specific to phone calls or to broadband or both?

In 25 years?!

That's a couple of lifetimes in telecoms terms. 25 years ago there was one dial-up ISP in Ireland, INEX was three years away, and DSL was almost a decade away.

I think the idea of a USO for calls only in 25 years' time isn't something that we need to worry about. Sure, there are no guarantees, but let's face it, the ownership model of the NBP isn't likely to change between now and the contract award.

Johnboy1951

oscarBravo wrote: »

In 25 years?!

That's a couple of lifetimes in telecoms terms. 25 years ago there was one dial-up ISP in Ireland, INEX was three years away, and DSL was almost a decade away.

I think the idea of a USO for calls only in 25 years' time isn't something that we need to worry about. Sure, there are no guarantees, but let's face it, the ownership model of the NBP isn't likely to change between now and the contract award.

So what is this future USO that you envision going to specify?

How does that vision alleviate the concern around the abandonment of part of the NBP infrastructure once the time expires?

For all you or I know the whole idea of USO could well be abandoned in 25 years.

The concerns exist at present as there are apparently no built in fall-back positions (we have been made aware of) concerning the infrastructure the taxpayer is funding.

Marlow

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So what is this future USO that you envision going to specify?

The NBP is for broadband ... and broadband only ... whatever else is done on that network, is a different story.

It also replaces the need for the current USO in place and basically moves the monopoly partially from Eircom to the NBP company.

So ... 1+1 = USO is for broadband, hopefully with a minimum bandwidth figure, that can be adjusted gradually.

Then again, I wouldn't trust those numpties to get it right.

/M

westyIrl

Marlow wrote: »

Then again, I wouldn't trust those numpties to get it right.

/M

I think this is the nub of it. I reckon in 25 years there'll be a replay of the privatisation of Eircom saga in relation to NBP. Handing over infrastructure the state paid to build bla bla bla. Far better than dealing with a network that never got built however!

Anyone have any idea when details of the tender, price etc. might become public or is it closed shop until a winner is announced?

Thanks

Jim

oscarBravo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So what is this future USO that you envision going to specify?

I think that trying to predict the telecoms landscape 25 years out is a fool's errand. Let's keep the pressure on as time goes by.

Johnboy1951

westyIrl wrote: »

I think this is the nub of it. I reckon in 25 years there'll be a replay of the privatisation of Eircom saga in relation to NBP. Handing over infrastructure the state paid to build bla bla bla. Far better than dealing with a network that never got built however!

Anyone have any idea when details of the tender, price etc. might become public or is it closed shop until a winner is announced?

Thanks

Jim

I expect details to be withheld for 'commercial reasons'.
The overall spend by gov over a number of years will come out; but who knows what will happen to those figures in the future?
Probably increase ... I am sure they will find excuses if they need them.

funnyname

There's fibre (Eir connecting a tiny village with ftth and avoiding our fttc village) running 400m from my house (nbp area) and houses a lot closer, will the nbp be able to connect to Eir's infrastructure to keep costs down or are we going to end up duplicating work for the glorified box ticking exercise of creating "competition" to keep prices down (that's another joke)

user1842

I really worry about the future of this. An extra network is being creating on top of another providers network and pole infrastructure. Basically it puts Eir in the driving seat and will be a total mess when it comes to repairs, upkeep and new connections once the network is built.
What happens when Eir changes owner again? or this consortium have a disagreement and part ways in the future.
Network industries are natural monopolies and should never be in the hands of private companies.
I really, really hope this does not end in tears but I think it will.

Marlow

user1842 wrote: »

What happens when Eir changes owner again? or this consortium have a disagreement and part ways in the future.

This is based on Comreg regulated products and pricing. Meaning, that no matter who owns Eircom has to provide the product and at that pricing.

They can't just pull the plug on it. It would mean fines or going bust.

/M

westyIrl

Just noticed that the DCCAE published this on youtube today. Just usual gibberish really.

However, @2:05

100Mbps to the home and 1Gbps to businesses.

Naughten said somewhat similar in the Dáil yesterday. They do seem to be differentiating for some reason.

Jim

rob808

westyIrl wrote: »

Just noticed that the DCCAE published this on youtube today. Just usual gibberish really.

However, @2:05

Naughten said somewhat similar in the Dáil yesterday. They do seem to be differentiating for some reason.

Jim

The 100mb a EU target that why he probably said it in the Dail.

tsue921i8wljb3

Another article raising the issue of Denis O'Brien having any part of this process. It is still unclear if DOB has actually put any money into the consortium or if Actavo are simply there as a logistics supplier.

Something that has not really been mentioned is the withdrawal of John Laing. As the article states a lot of serious players have now left and questions need to be asked about whether the consortium's funding is secure.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/denis-o-brien-s-entry-provides-another-twist-to-state-s-broadband-saga-1.3636244

Also I had not realised that it was the Kelly Group that had built the enet trial network in Ballyseedy.

https://www.kelly.co.uk/case-studies/enet-ftth-tralee/s677/

fritzelly

The whole thing gets dodgier every passing day

Nuphor

Spotted https://www.nationalbroadbandireland.ie/ with a "Coming Soon" message just after the announcement (relatively recently registered in August).

Seems to have been updated today with a password prompt - guess we'll see something here over the next few weeks/months.

dashoonage

Nuphor wrote: »

Spotted https://www.nationalbroadbandireland.ie/ with a "Coming Soon" message just after the announcement (relatively recently registered in August).

Seems to have been updated today with a password prompt - guess we'll see something here over the next few weeks/months.

never mind.

Poulgorm

user1842 wrote: »

I really worry about the future of this. An extra network is being creating on top of another providers network and pole infrastructure. Basically it puts Eir in the driving seat and will be a total mess when it comes to repairs, upkeep and new connections once the network is built.
What happens when Eir changes owner again? or this consortium have a disagreement and part ways in the future.
Network industries are natural monopolies and should never be in the hands of private companies.
I really, really hope this does not end in tears but I think it will.

When (if?) the rural part of the country has FTTH, Eir's copper network will become obsolete. Eir want to get out of copper anyway. Eir will be glad to be rid of the obligation to supply and maintain a copper network to rural Ireland. They have already said that they want to ditch it.

So, your fears are unfounded, I think

rodge123

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0924/995704-time-for-a-reboot-on-irelands-broadband-plan/

Would they just shut up and let the goverment spend whatever they want in the nbp!
Sign it dennnissssssss!

Johnboy1951

rodge123 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0924/995704-time-for-a-reboot-on-irelands-broadband-plan/

Would they just shut up and let the goverment spend whatever they want in the nbp!
Sign it dennnissssssss!

The reason for this vastly higher than expected subsidy is due to the ridiculous decision to allow Eir to carve out the 300,000 most commercially viable premises in the original intervention area proposed for the NBP.

'Allow'? It could not be prevented under law ....... what does the writer think should have been done about that?

With most of the rest of the article I do agree.
I believe it would be preferable to have a slower roll out on electricity network, fully owned by the tax payer.
Even at a much higher cost!

bennyineire

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

'Allow'? It could not be prevented under law ....... what does the write think should have been done about that?

With most of the rest of the article I do agree.
I believe it would be preferable to have a slower roll out on electricity network, fully owned by the tax payer.
Even at a much higher cost!

But he suggesting ridiculous things like getting Irish water and the ESB to put in ducting. The vast majority of light civil works by Irish water and the ESB is been done in Urban areas.

We just need to build the FXXking thing now, no more delays even if it does cost more

Marlow

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

'Allow'? It could not be prevented under law ....... what does the writer think should have been done about that?

This is not about allowing or disallowing. Eircom PLC (as a group) could have been and were planning to do that rollout anyhow.

The stunt they pulled .. and this is what the writer is on about .. is that they told the government, that they would roll it out 2 years earlier/quicker, committed to deadlines and the premises were then removed from the NBP. If they had stayed earmarked under the NBP, it would have been feasable for example for SIRO to cover these premises.

A lot of these premises have broadband in some form or shape, be it from regional providers, mobile broadband, even sub-standard ADSL1. The requirement of the NBP was 30 Mbit/s minimum and scalable upwards from there.

By removing the premises from the NBP, the government deemed to have saved a few bob, but essentially derailed the NBP.

/M

BarryM

There were/are many errors leading to the present fiasco.

1 Instead of slavishly following the UK, principally, the physical network, owned by the state at the time, should have been separated from the service suppliers in the privatisation.
2 A policy of investment in baseline infrastructure for telecoms, with sharing between public and private money, should have been implemented.
3 Other state owned enterprises, ESB. CIE, the Guards, etc., etc. should have been required to coordinate their telecoms investments.
4 State services, such as breast check, flu vaccine, exam management, CSO, etc., should be required to provide "first mover" investment in data management, to create basic investment.

+++

Some aspects of these could and should be implemented.

user1842

I feel sorry for these guys. Fibre, fibre everywhere but..........
(I would hope EIR would cover these guys as fibre is passing within 10 meters of some properties. However as there is no sign of any work, with regard to the light blue area, I would not hold out hope).

listermint

Did they literally just put circles around the houses...?

That map doesnt even make sense. You obviously are not covering the areas if they are an island of colour surrounded.

tsue921i8wljb3

listermint wrote: »

Did they literally just put circles around the houses...?

That map doesnt even make sense. You obviously are not covering the areas if they are an island of colour surrounded.

It is the result of homes that were ostensibly covered by FTTC that transpired were not actually receiving at least 30Mb for various reasons. I think there were 80000 such premises at last count scattered throughout the country.

listermint

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

It is the result of homes that were ostensibly covered by FTTC that transpired were not actually receiving at least 30Mb for various reasons. I think there were 80000 such premises at last count scattered throughout the country.

The map ergo should be adjusted then because they are not providing coverage to the fields around them nor the roads. So its not accurate.

tsue921i8wljb3

listermint wrote: »

The map ergo should be adjusted then because they are not providing coverage to the fields around them nor the roads. So its not accurate.

It has been adjusted. The yellow dots would have originally been dark blue and will need to be covered under the NBP which in itself will not be trivial because of their location.

It all stemmed from the original poor mapping practice of drawing a 1KM radius circle around each cabinet and assuming every premises within was covered. eir must have known about such cases but nothing was said and we ended up with the current mess.

BArra

Those houses marked in amber were originally included in the 300k, the dark blue around them means 30mb is available but..it's not, they just ambered the houses when eir reduced their ftth rollout