NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

fergus1001 · 28-09-2018 11:59PM

ED E wrote:

They've published!

ED E wrote:

*insert merry-go-round gif here*

we have come a loooong way for this to be fÃ©cked up now

jd · 29-09-2018 12:03AM

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

PAC set to examine the NBP tender process.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/pac-to-examine-national-broadband-plan-872058.html

Something new for Marc MacSharry to have at the mercy of his mighty intellect..

9726_9726 · 29-09-2018 01:29PM

fritzelly wrote: »

Whilst this may seem like a hassle for those on 1mb download it's good these questions are being asked now because something smells a bit off and may come back to bite you down the road.

I can totally understand those who are screaming for it saying, "we don't care if suitcases of cash are unloaded by the truckload to Denis O' Brien, or whoever, just start the rollout".

I am sorted for broadband, but that does not take away my entitlement to have an opinion. A crooked tender process, to award a contract to an entity part-owned by the state, part owned by a previous benefactor of state corruption, to spend *my* money on a network that will end up, like Telecom Eireann, in private hands?

I really don't have anything good to say about that, sorry, guys. My money, my opinion.

The gap fund model is all wrong at this stage.

Someone will reply and day, "I don't care - I want broadband", which again, I understand.

KOR101 · 29-09-2018 01:46PM

The gap fund model is all wrong at this stage.

The original argument really presupposed that Eir and/or SIRO would build a better network if they knew they would end up owning it. McCourt is the exact opposite of this, a venture capitalust that will looking to offload the new company in 3/4 years time. If the Govt can tie him down on the tech used, then well enough.

Actavo is a non-argument in my opinion. If SIRO had won, wouldn't they be doing it anyway. Also, all these subcontractors are a movable feast.

Marlow · 29-09-2018 01:59PM

KOR101 wrote: »

Actavo is a non-argument in my opinion. If SIRO had won, wouldn't they be doing it anyway. Also, all these subcontractors are a movable feast.

Not really. Yes, SIRO is using Actavo for installations. But their network is being build by Gealtec, Huawei, KN, TLI, etc.

And they can pick, choose and replace as they see fit. They would also not have been mentioned in the tender specifically.

But in this case they are now an official irreplaceable part of the consortium under the tender. And that's an entire different story. Even though, I wouldn't give a toss about that.

What's wrong is that the current consortium is not what entered the tendering process in the first place. Its like letting Imagine in on the tendering process in the last 5 minutes.

And then there is the fact, that enet is till part of it. And that's owned 78% by the IIF which again has the state as a massive shareholder. Still not cosher.

/M

9726_9726 · 29-09-2018 03:01PM

Marlow wrote: »

Not really. Yes, SIRO is using Actavo for installations. But their network is being build by Gealtec, Huawei, KN, TLI, etc.

And they can pick, choose and replace as they see fit. They would also not have been mentioned in the tender specifically.

But in this case they are now an official irreplaceable part of the consortium under the tender. And that's an entire different story. Even though, I wouldn't give a toss about that.

What's wrong is that the current consortium is not what entered the tendering process in the first place. Its like letting Imagine in on the tendering process in the last 5 minutes.

And then there is the fact, that enet is till part of it. And that's owned 78% by the IIF which again has the state as a massive shareholder. Still not cosher.

/M

Putting Enet in 12pt print under McCourt in 18pt print is a shallow and insulting bit of shuffling.

The network should be state owned, if you and I are paying for it.

KOR101 · 01-10-2018 10:07PM

Catherine Murphy at the Public Accounts Committee last Thursday....

There are two elements to it. One is the fact that Enet was awarded the contract in 2004 and the contract was then extended until 2030 without going back to the market with a tender. Much of what has gone on in relation to the issue is opaque and requires scrutiny. In mid-2017 the infrastructural investment fund invested €200 million in Enet. To be honest, I find that curious given that it is buying into a company whose only product is owned by the State, so the investment was in the State's own asset, as it were.

There are probably two issues. The first is that when the investment was made, Enet was vying for the broadband contract. It is not clear which came first. That is something we need to know because it would have had a bearing on the investment. Broadband has been a huge source of frustration for a long time, given that much has been promised and the roll-out has been hugely disappointing outside of major urban centres. A lot of money has been invested. The situation is opaque and there is a need for scrutiny into what happened. We are now at the point where, currently, there is only one tender. We talk about the need for competitive tendering. The personnel within the company who made the tender has changed over time. I do not know if we can look at the issue but it is happening in real time. The problem is that Actavo, formerly Sitserv, was involved, and there is a commission of investigation into it. The whole issue is hugely problematic. At the very least in this term we should get the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment to come before the committee to get a better understanding of what has happened to date in terms of the investment that was made in relation to this contract and about having better oversight of this.

Seán Fleming, in reply...............

I think we agree to put the Department and the investment in broadband onto the work programme in terms of lessons learnt from the past and where we are going. The Government programme divides the country up into various areas, including what is known as an amber area that will be subject to the new contract where there is only one bidder. My experience is that private companies who provide broadband commercially outside of the scheme are eating into the amber areas on the edge of towns. I fear the Department is trundling along thinking the amber areas will have X number of people and are constructing the contract on that basis. By the time the work is ready to start a lot of cherry-picking will have happened in the amber areas and there will be fewer houses available for incorporation into the plan. Broadband is a dynamic issue and is not fixed while tenders and revised tenders take place. The other operators are eating into the good bits of the amber areas as we speak and by the time a contract is signed the total population of the amber areas requiring broadband will have changed from today's configuration. Even though we are talking about future expenditure I hope the lesson has been learnt from the previous process. We will put broadband issues into the work programme.

Catherine Murphy.....

Thank you, Chairman. I am curious as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has done any report on this.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy.......

Not on the current procurement. We would not specifically examine or report on a live procurement situation. We looked at the rural broadband scheme in 2010 or 2011, and a previous generation of metropolitan area networks, MANs, were looked at and reported on.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2018-09-27a.5&s=national+broadband+plan#g367

Johnboy1951 · 01-10-2018 11:03PM

So that is a plan ....... let the commercial operator/s move along into the NBP area, reducing number of premises remaining, and then roll out a NBP over a much reduced area.
Maybe the NBP infrastructure could be kept in state ownership in such circumstances.

It could work to the benefit of the taxpayer I suppose.

tsue921i8wljb3 · 01-10-2018 11:09PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So that is a plan ....... let the commercial operator/s move along into the NBP area, reducing number of premises remaining, and then roll out a NBP over a much reduced area.
Maybe the NBP infrastructure could be kept in state ownership in such circumstances.

It could work to the benefit of the taxpayer I suppose.

It's not really a plan though. They are covering some extra premises in areas where it suits them, in instances it is like we saw in Ballyshannon in the other thread where they passed premises that were closer to the town. The extra premises they cover is not going to drastically reduce the intervention number.

Talking about state ownership is going to restart the whole process as far as I can see. The tender was made on the ownership model agreed upon.

Johnboy1951 · 01-10-2018 11:14PM

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

It's not really a plan though. They are covering some extra premises in areas where it suits them, in instances it is like we saw in Ballyshannon in the other thread where they passed premises that were closer to the town. The extra premises they cover is not going to drastically reduce the intervention number.

Talking about state ownership is going to restart the whole process as far as I can see. The tender was made on the ownership model agreed upon.

Yes it was ..... but also on the basis that there were competing tenders and a lot more premises to be covered.
So that has gone out the window.

It is most likely time for a re-think, and a re-assessment of what remains and how best to achieve new goals (as the min 30Mb/s is also long gone out of date).

tsue921i8wljb3 · 01-10-2018 11:17PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yes it was ..... but also on the basis that there were competing tenders and a lot more premises to be covered.
So that has gone out the window.

It is most likely time for a re-think, and a re-assessment of what remains and how best to achieve new goals (as the min 30Mb/s is also long gone out of date).

How many more years is that going to add to the saga?

9726_9726 · 01-10-2018 11:18PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So that is a plan ....... let the commercial operator/s move along into the NBP area, reducing number of premises remaining, and then roll out a NBP over a much reduced area.
Maybe the NBP infrastructure could be kept in state ownership in such circumstances.

It could work to the benefit of the taxpayer I suppose.

If the NBP actually makes it past the High Court, State Aid, any possible tribunal re Enet/IIF/Siteserve, etc, there is nothing stopping any commercial operator providing service inside or outside intervention areas. At least a provider could then get on with things, operate with decent margins and own their own network. There are many avenues open to operators to sell services, both on-net or over wholesale and if the NBP rolls out over the next 5 or 10 years, then it's just one more platform to sell over.

The industry already deals with two dominant wholesale networks, paid for by the tax payer and sold off. (Eircom first, Enet second)

Maybe here comes another one, under our noses while we do nothing about it! (Enet third, here we go again, but with an unholy marriage to Denis O' Brien this time out. You couldn't make this banana republic stuff up).

I have heard plenty of talk in the margins of industry events where operators are carrying on regardless, having listened to this crack since 2012. We all have to deal with Enet already, btw. Better the three devils we know? Hmmm.

Johnboy1951 · 01-10-2018 11:19PM

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

How many more years is that going to add to the saga?

That of course is unanswerable until done.

fritzelly · 01-10-2018 11:24PM

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That of course is unanswerable until done.

And in 20 years time we have a tribunal questioning the awarding of a contract, giving away millions of euros and nothing to show for it except infrastructure owned by an American company...

Marlow · 01-10-2018 11:31PM

9726_9726 wrote: »

there is nothing stopping any commercial operator providing service inside or outside intervention areas. At least a provider could then get on with things, operate with decent margins and own their own network.

There are already providers in these intervention areas. And there is nothing to stop them from upping their game and provide a service that's well beyond what the NBP tries to archive.

So, yes .. the only thing the NBP tries to archive is a minimum level of service in the intervention area. It does not create a monopoly nor any other provider from covering these areas.

/M

Johnboy1951 · 01-10-2018 11:44PM

fritzelly wrote: »

And in 20 years time we have a tribunal questioning the awarding of a contract, giving away millions of euros and nothing to show for it except infrastructure owned by an American company...

Not if it is in state ownership as I posted.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So that is a plan ....... let the commercial operator/s move along into the NBP area, reducing number of premises remaining, and then roll out a NBP over a much reduced area.
Maybe the NBP infrastructure could be kept in state ownership in such circumstances.

It could work to the benefit of the taxpayer I suppose.

SkepticQuark · 01-10-2018 11:51PM

Marlow wrote: »

There are already providers in these intervention areas. And there is nothing to stop them from upping their game and provide a service that's well beyond what the NBP tries to archive.

So, yes .. the only thing the NBP tries to archive is a minimum level of service in the intervention area. It does not create a monopoly nor any other provider from covering these areas.

/M

Providers, it's worth pointing out who have had years to up their game.

Marlow · 02-10-2018 12:00AM

roddy15 wrote: »

Providers, it's worth pointing out who have had years to up their game.

Some providers have. Some providers have not. Also, it's very expensive to bring that sort of bandwidth into rural areas. It's hard for some of these providers to up their game, when the backbone infrastructure nor the access infrastructure accomodate that increase.

Imagine is a good example: if they had the backbone capacity and stopped oversubscribing their sectors to hell, they'd be a worthy contender.

But as long as they don't delivery quality opposed to quantity .... it won't help.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3 · 02-10-2018 10:05AM

Denis Naughten and Seán Kyne are due before the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment Committee at 2.30pm today to answer questions about the NBP and also somewhat bizarrely about spending too little.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ministers-grilled-over-broadband-underspend-37375196.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/communications-panelto-probe-broadband-bid-872804.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/32/communications-climate-action-and-environment/

tsue921i8wljb3 · 02-10-2018 10:15AM

Interesting piece about an Aran Island company that went with Viatel to provide a point to point link for connectivity after becoming frustrated waiting for the NBP.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/aran-broadband-viatal-100mbps-inismeain-knitting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh8g4EPTpWc

ED E · 02-10-2018 10:28AM

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Interesting piece about an Aran Island company ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

You meant:

9726_9726 · 02-10-2018 11:35AM

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Interesting piece about an Aran Island company that went with Viatel to provide a point to point link for connectivity after becoming frustrated waiting for the NBP.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/aran-broadband-viatal-100mbps-inismeain-knitting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh8g4EPTpWc

Nice case study. This would be available over 90% of the country from many providers.

Costs would not be feasible for residential though, at around a couple of grand install and €7K - €10K per annum.

Certainly a good option instead of moving a whole business.

9726_9726 · 02-10-2018 11:36AM

fritzelly wrote: »

And in 20 years time we have a tribunal questioning the awarding of a contract, giving away millions of euros and nothing to show for it except infrastructure owned by an American company...

It's the same as giving away Telecom Eireann's network, all over again. No lessons learned.

9726_9726 · 02-10-2018 11:45AM

roddy15 wrote: »

Providers, it's worth pointing out who have had years to up their game.

The Department/Comreg have done all they can to kill regional providers, rather than supporting them. Instead, they wish to centralise power in some tax/vulture-funded central, controllable authority and look after the boys as if it were the 80s all over again.

Indigenous regional providers have to use 5GHz spectrum primarily, which makes it very difficult progress. The state makes ZERO practical PTMP spectrum available for residential services provided by regional providers. The 3.xGHz scheme was withdrawn and auctioned at the highest possible price to big telcos leaving nothing for regional players, who desperately want to move forward and provide kick-ass services to secure local connectivity, employment and their own businesses.

A common misconception in the public is that regional providers (usually WISPs) are "tight" with bandwidth. IP Transit (wholesale bandwidth) is really cheap nowadays. Forward-looking regional providers WANT to provide as much as possible, but are constrained by backhaul duopolies and having ZERO spectrum to work with.

Shame on the State for holding back countless forward-looking entrepreneurs from solving this problem.

ED E · 02-10-2018 03:32PM

And no for some light relief:

KOR101 · 02-10-2018 06:23PM

A ‘Robust’ Tendering Process

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/10/02/a-robust-tendering-process/

tsue921i8wljb3 · 02-10-2018 06:30PM

KOR101 wrote: »

A ‘Robust’ Tendering Process

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/10/02/a-robust-tendering-process/

The comments on that article are "interesting". Ireland doesn't own it's own satellites being the stand out effort.

Ultimanemo · 02-10-2018 08:16PM

ED E wrote: »

And no for some light relief:

For us, more likely it will be fibre to the grave

KOR101 · 03-10-2018 11:01AM

The communications minister said yesterday that he attended a meeting with David McCourt, head of the private investment firm Granahan McCourt, who told him that the British company SSE may withdraw from the process.

Mr Naughten told the Oireachtas communications committee yesterday: “Mr McCourt made the point at that discussion that there may be a request put into the Department [of Communications] for an evaluation in relation to a change to the consortium, but that’s not a matter for me. I would have no direct input or role in relation to that and that was a matter for the procurement process.”

Timmy Dooley, Fianna Fáil communications spokesman, described the meeting as bizarre and questioned why the minister would meet a bidder if he had no role in the procurement process.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/naughten-must-explain-meeting-with-bidder-9p26hh3fv?t=iel

Pique · 03-10-2018 01:25PM

Oh FFS. This is going to unravel, isn't it.

NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

Comments