NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

But as Enet is now 100% owned by the state, the prices are within its control.

Does that not have a potential to resolve this problem?

No. Because they are STILL not regulated. Ownership does not mean, that you control the pricing. You've said it a good few times.

Until eNet is put under regulation, nothing changes. And that could have been done even in private ownership. Because it's a state asset they manage. Comreg is not interested in more work.

/M

Comreg pretty much not interested in anything period!

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems to be dated 12 May 2016!

Old pricing. Do you know, how frequent market pricing changes ? Also, how much it depends on, how you negotiate ? And what overall volume you buy ? And what contract you commit to.

My 5k pricing is from 2014. But it was a 3 year minimum contract.

/M

The Department *detests* regional ISPs. I've been at meetings and seen this first hand.

There are some seriously driven entrepreneurs running some of the more progressive ones, thriving in the face of a State that wants to wipe them out. These are the Michael O' Leary/Get It Done types and they have been getting it done despite having no access to primo spectrum and being constantly sidelined and undermined.

There is no panacea for broadband. It's a patchwork of data transmission technologies, with real constraints due to physics. It needs to be attacked on all fronts.

Let's just assume the NBP was saved, the tender awarded, it then passes EU State Aid (pretty much impossible at this stage), has no legal challenge, first areas go into design stage, contractors tool up, hiring is done, Enet/GMC goes over 140 measly headcount, funding is released, shovels in ground in a few politically desirable election districts, problems ironed out, business processes put in place, OSS platform scales, support department in place, design phase 2 areas, build commenced, etc, etc, etc.

That's a LOT of ifs. At BEST it is going to take YEARS and years to get momentum. Politicians have been telling people what they want to hear, like Trump told the Steel Belt they'd get jobs and the southerners he'd build a wall.

Those of us in the industry know that this will take years, all going well. And it's not going well.

Now if Eir wanted to bang it out, they could, like they are for the 300K. Nobody else can build it in a few years. But they don't want to and they shouldn't. They are there to make money and that would break them.

FTTH is where we must get to. Everything else is inferior, no question. But that's a long road - which nobody wants to hear, but I'm sorry, it's true.

In say a 7 year timeframe, ALL platforms should be maximised. FTTH first and foremost, but also FWA (give the ISPs *spectrum*, not money), remover barriers to deploying local fibre networks, etc. It all helps., But do not under any circumstances do these things instead of the NBP. FTTH is the only job that should have.

m99T

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems to be dated 12 May 2016!

Marlow wrote: »

It's a bit old, I'd say. But until start of this year, I was paying 5k/year + VAT for 10 Mbit/s layer2 to eNet .. from Athlone to City West ... and that was highly discounted.

/M

As bad as that price was I believe Hibernia was worse. Must have a look through the email archives.

m99T

fritzelly wrote: »

Am I reading those prices right for 10Mb??? Good god (and I do assume they mean Megabyte)

Apparently not! Just found this:

KOR101

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

Brave shout! If the media start digging around this MAN concession and the fact McCourt then profited from the sale of shares in enet that may have been price inflated by the Ministerial decision. I think he might become someone the Government don't want to deal with.

I don't think that McCourt can deliver anyway, at least not at the cost the Govt thinks. As someone said, surely ENET would have the greatest cost of completing the NBP. But, it is too easy to just say give it to X. There has to be a procurement process, and I think if you started from scratch you would probably end up with a similar mess the next time around.

The bottom line is the whether the proposed technology is 'fit for purpose'. The same contractors will implement it regardless of who wins. And, shoot me for saying it, the cost is of second order importance.

Thats ridiculous prices for bits - not even giving the correct abbreviation

fritzelly wrote: »

Thats ridiculous prices for bits - not even giving the correct abbreviation

No. That's the reality across Ireland.

10 Mbit/s uncontended 5-8k
100 Mbit/s uncontended 15-20k
1 Gbit/s uncontended 28-35k
10 Gbit/s uncontended 40k-60k

pretty much normal pricing. If you buy smart, you can get it for half that. But that requires volume. Term of contract also makes a difference to pricing. All pricing annual. eNet nearly always at the top end of the spectrum.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

It's on Prime Time now.

Johnboy1951

KOR101 wrote: »

I don't think that McCourt can deliver anyway, at least not at the cost the Govt thinks. As someone said, surely ENET would have the greatest cost of completing the NBP. But, it is too easy to just say give it to X. There has to be a procurement process, and I think if you started from scratch you would probably end up with a similar mess the next time around.

The bottom line is the whether the proposed technology is 'fit for purpose'. The same contractors will implement it regardless of who wins. And, shoot me for saying it, the cost is of second order importance.

There is no commercial interest in these areas.
So the gov has two choices
1. subsidise a 'commercial' roll out
or
2. roll out a state paid scheme

We know from previous information that 1. above results in commercial ownership of the infrastructure.
We also know that 2. above would be very costly indeed.

We now wait to see if the gov will jump from 1. to 2.

If 1. it seems apparent that they will have to start the tendering process all over again. I think the present process is too damaged.

If 2. they will have to find money somewhere, but could put the process into action in the soonest time possible.
If they jump to 2. they have two 'ready made' candidates to front the roll out ..... ESB network and Enet, both of which are (near enough) state bodies.

Given the political preferences of those in charge I do not expect them to jump to 2.

m99T

3 Years into the process with nothing to show for it except a bid that is now worthless.

Marlow wrote: »

No. That's the reality across Ireland.

10 Mbit/s uncontended 5-8k
100 Mbit/s uncontended 15-20k
1 Gbit/s uncontended 28-35k
10 Gbit/s uncontended 40k-60k

pretty much normal pricing. If you buy smart, you can get it for half that. But that requires volume. Term of contract also makes a difference to pricing. All pricing annual. eNet nearly always at the top end of the spectrum.

/M

And that's just for national backhaul. Then you need an access network to get it from the POP to the customers, be it using wireless or fibre.

Say you then use Enet to bring it from the POP to an enterprise customer on another street, in the same MAN town:

100Mbps ethernet on MAN = €1250 installation and €6,000 per year (for carriage from point A to point B in the same town, assuming point A is already connected - the POP site)

That doesn't include internet - just 100Mbps ethernet circuit from Dublin to a MAN town POP @ say €15K per annum, then from the POP to a customer at a further €6K per annum. On top of that, you need to feed the thing at the top end in Dublin with "IP Transit" or internet bandwidth. Although this is cheap, say €200/m for 1Gbps from Cogent.

So to get 1Gbps to a town and serve say 6x enterprise customers and 4x wireless POPs with 100Mbps each

€28,000 national backhaul
€60,000 10x MAN drops
€2,400 IP Transit (no diversity)

€90,400

PER ANNUM. Before site rental, colo, equipment, staff.

So you can see - this bandwidth game ain't cheap when buying off Enet. Who are using taxpayer funded fibre.

9726_9726 wrote: »

And that's just for national backhaul. Then you need an access network to get it from the POP to the customers, be in using wireless or fibre.

Say you then use Enet to bring it from the POP to an enterprise customer on another street, in the same MAN town:

100Mbps = €1250 installation and €6,000 per year (for carriage from point A to point B in the same town, assuming point A is already connected)

And your internet feed. But that's the cheapest part. And a rack in Dublin or 2 at 20k/year cost.

/M

Oh .. and no decent provider just buys one circuit. 2 circuits from different carriers on 2 physical independent paths.

So all pricing is at the very minimum x 2.

/M

m99T wrote: »

3 Years into the process with nothing to show for it except a bid that is now worthless.

The thing was announced in 2012.

I fear that the bid hasn't become worthless, but always was.

Enet passed the pre-qual (5 becomes 3, bye bye Imagine and Frenchies). But the entity finally submitting the same bid was a different company, GMC. If I were SIRO or Eir (Or Imagine or the Frenchies) I'd see that alone that as grounds for a law suit.

Time for Plan B. I have no doubt that there is public/political support for radical spend on this - BUT - the taxpayers (especially those who are broadband "haves") will want it in state ownership, not given away, and rightly so.

(Acutally, remember Naughten referred to a mysterious "Plan B"?)

If I were a benevolent dictator, I'd remove all barriers for smaller commercial rollouts outside the master plan (lack of spectrum, red tape) and let them fill some gaps in the short term. At the same time, build a carrier-neutral state network, like the MANs. One that is forbidden to retail (or buy a retailer, like Airspeed, just to circumvent the rules), and can only sell to retail ISPs on regulated terms, and makes a return to the exchequer in time.

kazoo106

I'm glad these costs are getting discussed, the common conception from the general public is that this is free ! Although if you think this is expensive you should see the transit pricing from BT Openreach.

9726_9726 wrote: »

(or buy a retailer, like Airspeed, just to circumvent the rules)

This very particular case is another reason that both McCourt and eNet are hot potatos. The track record is nowhere near glorious. The renewal of the MAN contracts should have been impossible because of this. Nevermind doing it without a tender.

And the department had been made aware. On numerous occasions.

/M

Marlow wrote: »

This very particular case is another reason that both McCourt and eNet are hot potatos. The track record is nowhere near glorious. The renewal of the MAN contracts should have been impossible because of this. Nevermind doing it without a tender.

And the department had been made aware. On numerous occasions.

/M

I would hope that now, the shady MAN dealings might be (a) understood by and (b) tackled by some competent journalist shortly. Maybe hoping too much.

This thing is hot at the moment - the MAN thing could deliver for a journalist.

I think Naughten was very careless and cavalier in his behaviour. I have no doubt though, that there is more to it than carelessness, not saying with Naughten, but somewhere in gov.ie.

Marlow wrote: »

This very particular case is another reason that both McCourt and eNet are hot potatos. The track record is nowhere near glorious. The renewal of the MAN contracts should have been impossible because of this. Nevermind doing it without a tender.

And the department had been made aware. On numerous occasions.

/M

And who was responsible for the renewal (without any tendering)?

tsue921i8wljb3

9726_9726 wrote: »

I would hope that now, the shady MAN dealings might be (a) understood by and (b) tackled by some competent journalist shortly. Maybe hoping too much.

This thing is hot at the moment - the MAN thing could deliver for a journalist.

I think Naughten was very careless and cavalier in his behaviour. I have no doubt though, that there is more to it than carelessness, not saying with Naughten, but somewhere in gov.ie.

I don't think that is very fair on Gavin Sheridan who has been pursuing this matter long before people even heard of David McCourt here. He's been trying to get FOIs pertaining to this and has a case due in February I believe in the Court of Appeal.

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog

Siena Gigantic Backyard wrote: »

I don't think that is very fair on Gavin Sheridan who has been pursuing this matter long before people even heard of David McCourt here. He's been trying to get FOIs pertaining to this and has a case due in February I believe in the Court of Appeal.

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog

Is he the guy did all that other FOI stuff that made interesting reading about enet

tsue921i8wljb3

fritzelly wrote: »

Is he the guy did all that other FOI stuff that made interesting reading about enet

That's him.

fritzelly wrote: »

And who was responsible for the renewal (without any tendering)?

Naughten.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-s-extension-of-enet-fibre-optic-contracts-highly-irregular-xftjhkrcz

And thanks to Gavin Sheridan .. a lot of this stuff came to light .. fairly documented. That blog makes for shattering reading. This whole process should have come apart years ago.

/M

Marlow wrote: »

Naughten.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/state-s-extension-of-enet-fibre-optic-contracts-highly-irregular-xftjhkrcz

And thanks to Gavin Sheridan .. a lot of this stuff came to light .. fairly documented.

/M

Rhetorical question...

fritzelly wrote: »

Rhetorical question...

I know. I just like to make it very very clear and point out the elephant in the room. I'm not precisely known for being politically correct

Like the tweet there
"May be easier at this stage if Denis Naughten just highlights the dates when he wasn't having dinner with David McCourt"

fritzelly wrote: »

Like the tweet there
"May be easier at this stage if Denis Naughten just highlights the dates when he wasn't having dinner with David McCourt"

Muhahhahahaha

/M