Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

National Broadband Plan - necessary/wasted investment?

  • 08-05-2019 3:37pm
    #1
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭


    Ehhh, there are benefits to rural broadband in terms of social mobility, aspiration/opportunity, and education that make it worthwhile imo. I'm sure the government is fücking up every detail of the implementation, but that doesn't mean that the end goal isn't correct.

    Mod: New thread of NBP as the thread [Global cities reducing car access] is not the place for it.

    Original thread here.


«13

Comments

  • #2
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Ehhh, there are benefits to rural broadband in terms of social mobility, aspiration/opportunity, and education that make it worthwhile imo. I'm sure the government is fücking up every detail of the implementation, but that doesn't mean that the end goal isn't correct.

    It's just a crazy amount of money. If you want to live at the side of a mountain, pay for it yourself. And yes I know they'll pay a 100e connection fee but that wont cover much.
    I mean this is going to make the e-voting fiasco look like that time you lost 10 euro in the pub.


  • #3
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Ehhh, there are benefits to rural broadband in terms of social mobility, aspiration/opportunity, and education that make it worthwhile imo. I'm sure the government is fücking up every detail of the implementation, but that doesn't mean that the end goal isn't correct.

    It's another subsidy for unsustainable rural one off housing. It will encourage more one off housing and our natural environment will degrade further.


  • #4
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    But again, that's a dispute over the implementation, not the objective. And I would argue that €3bn spent on a well-functioning, permanent piece of infrastructure is far from a crazy amount of money - maybe to this infrastructure-phobic government, but it's a drop in the ocean, long-term, otherwise.


  • #5
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    cgcsb wrote: »
    It's another subsidy for unsustainable rural one off housing. It will encourage more one off housing and our natural environment will degrade further.

    This seems really heavily overstated to me, but it's way off topic and I don't really have an interest in researching it myself!


  • #6
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    MJohnston wrote: »
    But again, that's a dispute over the implementation, not the objective. And I would argue that €3bn spent on a well-functioning, permanent piece of infrastructure is far from a crazy amount of money - maybe to this infrastructure-phobic government, but it's a drop in the ocean, long-term, otherwise.

    It is a crazy amount of expenditure and it's not even the final amount. After it's finished people will build new houses in rural areas and write to TDs about their lack of internet conectivity. It will be an ongoing expense.

    We're the first country in the world to do this, with the exception of micro states. The rest of the world thinks it's bonkers for attempting such an endless project.

    It will only support existing unsustainable development and support more of the same in the future.

    Ireland and Portugal are the most ruralised societies in Europe, with almost 40% of people living in rural areas, this is fundamentally unsustainable.

    This trend was slowly improving and Ireland was urbanising along global trends, but this project will stall progress in that regard for some years. There will be no incentive to move to towns after this is done, or rather what's left of our towns after the one-off housing plague destroyed them.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    As I said:
    MJohnston wrote: »
    This seems really heavily overstated to me, but it's way off topic and I don't really have an interest in researching it myself!

    Either way, it seems like an irrelevant comparison as it isn't the national government funding Parnell Square.


  • #8
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    MJohnston wrote: »
    But again, that's a dispute over the implementation, not the objective. And I would argue that €3bn spent on a well-functioning, permanent piece of infrastructure is far from a crazy amount of money - maybe to this infrastructure-phobic government, but it's a drop in the ocean, long-term, otherwise.

    It might be out of date in 10 years time.


  • #9
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    It might be out of date in 10 years time.

    Yes but more likely we'll have a much easier applicable solution that doesn't need cables!


  • #10
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Yes but more likely we'll have a much easier applicable solution that doesn't need cables!

    And as such we'll have wasted 3 billion .


  • #11
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    And as such we'll have wasted 3 billion .

    I don't know whether the NBP is a good idea, but the practical data capacity of fibre is unlimited, it won't be out-of-date in 10 years (only the headend equipment needs to be upgraded to increase capacity). It may degrade over time but we're talking decades for that to happen. .

    Wireless tech rarely lives up to the hype, AFAIK 5G is not particularly well suited to dispersed rural deployment anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    It might be out of date in 10 years time.

    The glass doesn't go out of date and the cost to replace the networking kit side when it does keeps falling

    Still think the tender is questionable at the very least however. Other countries have done rural FTTH for a fraction


  • #13
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    One point about the broadband project that is being forgotten is the fact that it is the first part in the replacement of copper phone lines to the house.
    High speed internet or not the old phone wires needed replacing.


  • #14
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I don't know whether the NBP is a good idea, but the practical data capacity of fibre is unlimited, it won't be out-of-date in 10 years (only the headend equipment needs to be upgraded to increase capacity). It may degrade over time but we're talking decades for that to happen. .

    Wireless tech rarely lives up to the hype, AFAIK 5G is not particularly well suited to dispersed rural deployment anyway.

    As far as I am aware, the 5G proposal is not 5G mobile, but point to point radio using 5G technology. I may be wrong, but if the last 5% or so is done wirelessly, then the project cost reduces significantly.


  • #15
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    L1011 wrote: »
    The glass doesn't go out of date and the cost to replace the networking kit side when it does keeps falling

    Still think the tender is questionable at the very least however. Other countries have done rural FTTH for a fraction

    Good point. I always did hate networking in college


  • #16
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    cgcsb wrote: »
    It's another subsidy for unsustainable rural one off housing. It will encourage more one off housing and our natural environment will degrade further.

    It will mainly be servicing existing houses. To build a one off house now is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain planning and a lot more expensive. For example for a heating system you are looking at a minimum of about 35k, for a septic tank system could be anywhere up to 60k. That is before you look at the house itself. It is not for the light hearted. People already living in the countryside that have obtained the required planning at the time, requiredl services and broadband at this stage is an essential service.


  • #17
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: There is also a discussion on NBP on the networks forum here.


  • #18
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    zapitastas wrote: »
    It will mainly be servicing existing houses. To build a one off house now is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain planning and a lot more expensive. For example for a heating system you are looking at a minimum of about 35k, for a septic tank system could be anywhere up to 60k. That is before you look at the house itself. It is not for the light hearted. People already living in the countryside that have obtained the required planning at the time, requiredl services and broadband at this stage is an essential service.

    I don't accept that, there is still uncontrolled building across the country and every new dwelling will want a free connection, it's a never ending story. This project shouldn't have even reached this stage, the civil service is against it as is


  • #19
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    zapitastas wrote: »
    It will mainly be servicing existing houses. To build a one off house now is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain planning and a lot more expensive. For example for a heating system you are looking at a minimum of about 35k, for a septic tank system could be anywhere up to 60k. That is before you look at the house itself. It is not for the light hearted. People already living in the countryside that have obtained the required planning at the time, requiredl services and broadband at this stage is an essential service.

    Call me strange, but as a person living in the depths of the country (my own choice) my priority would be to have a decent mains water supply instead of having the cost and inconvenience of running and maintaining my own well which almost went dry last summer.

    It beggars belief that the morons in Leinster House regard giving me access to high speed porn and netflix at the taxpayers' expense as more important than giving me a potable water supply.


  • #20
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    It's encouraging one off housing which isn't really sustainable. We already have the most road per capita in the EU because of how dispersed our population is, so this is just going to be another ridiculously costly exercise to satisfy poor planning.
    Irish people are so adamant to live in one offs though and politicians want to enable them so we just have to accept that they are part of Ireland is, but it's held us back a lot and will continue to do so in so many ways.


  • #21
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I have a feeling the project will be binned. The government has been advised against this by all and sundry in the consulting world and within the various departments involved. The big telecoms companies, Vodafone etc. can't seem to get their heads around it, wouldn't take any of the risk on board themselves.

    I just don't see how the government can ignore expert opinion and plough on with a contract that will assign all the risk to the state and hand the physical infrastructure to the private investor. Some investors are just lucky I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I have a feeling the project will be binned. The government has been advised against this by all and sundry in the consulting world and within the various departments involved. The big telecoms companies, Vodafone etc. can't seem to get their heads around it, wouldn't take any of the risk on board themselves.

    I just don't see how the government can ignore expert opinion and plough on with a contract that will assign all the risk to the state and hand the physical infrastructure to the private investor. Some investors are just lucky I guess.

    The fact that the ones pushing for it are saying it's a leap of faith and have a hope for the best attitude towards it is f*cking hilarious.


  • #23
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Indeed the Taoiseach said it was a 'leap of faith', i.e. not a hope am I getting this cluster fck pinned on me.


  • #24
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,533 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Indeed the Taoiseach said it was a 'leap of faith', i.e. not a hope am I getting this cluster fck pinned on me.

    It's an outrageous statement for him to make when it's such substantial amounts of taxpayer money on the line. We need more than a "leap of faith" to justify this.


  • #25
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Amirani wrote: »
    It's an outrageous statement for him to make when it's such substantial amounts of taxpayer money on the line. We need more than a "leap of faith" to justify this.

    based on this wording I would say it'll be canned come June. There'll be a report released slating the scheme.


  • #26
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Are they not about to sign something that will set it in stone? I find the subject so infuriating I have to turn off the radio or tele when they bring it up


  • #27
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,533 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Are they not about to sign something that will set it in stone? I find the subject so infuriating I have to turn off the radio or tele when they bring it up

    Think they mentioned contract signing would be a number of months down the line. Presume nothing is set in stone until then.


  • #28
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    John Fitzgerald, economist, was on radio this morning suggesting they have it skewed with the wrong goals. FTTH is not the goal, it should be performance related.

    My take on his view - This is like the goals set by Soviet central planning in the 1950s and 1960s, setting the goal for sewer pipe at so many thousand tons, which favoured concrete pipes over cheaper and more effective plastic pipes. By setting the goals wrong, we will be installing FTTH when that will be old hat, and the cheaper version will pass us by. The time for fixed wired phones (POTS) has passed. Let us hope the FTTH is still worthwhile when we connect the last home.

    There appears to be little concern for the level of take up by those homes passed for which it will be available. Rates of 15% are quoted, making the most expensive connections actually taken up at €80,000. Surely, there has to be some consumer contract before such amounts are committed?


  • #29
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I don't accept that, there is still uncontrolled building across the country and every new dwelling will want a free connection, it's a never ending story. This project shouldn't have even reached this stage, the civil service is against it as is

    Can you name one county where there is uncontrolled building ?


  • #30
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Ah feck, I hate it when you become the creator of a thread about a tangent you didn't even start :D


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    zapitastas wrote: »
    Can you name one county where there is uncontrolled building ?

    It's believed that countries would be better managed if most people lived in towns, cities and clustered developments where resources are easier to share and people are less reliant on cars etc. You can have better public transport, broadband, centralised medical facilities, and thriving small towns and villages.
    Every county in Ireland has a lot of one off housing that makes it harder to run the country, hence why providing things such as broadband is so difficult.
    Ireland is a never ending sprawl of houses. If you compare it to the UK for e.g. these places would never get planning permission. I think it's because our laws allow family to build on land regardless. Take a drive through Donegal and it's particularly noticeable. The ribbon development outside of Galway seems to go on for 100s of km lol.
    It makes everything harder to administrate but it seems that's how Ireland and its politicians wants to stay.


  • #32
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    It's believed that countries would be better managed if most people lived in towns, cities and clustered developments where resources are easier to share and people are less reliant on cars etc. You can have better public transport, broadband, centralised medical facilities, and thriving small towns and villages.
    Every county in Ireland has a lot of one off housing that makes it harder to run the country, hence why providing things such as broadband is so difficult.
    Ireland is a never ending sprawl of houses. If you compare it to the UK for e.g. these places would never get planning permission. I think it's because our laws allow family to build on land regardless. Take a drive through Donegal and it's particularly noticeable. The ribbon development outside of Galway seems to go on for 100s of km lol.
    It makes everything harder to administrate but it seems that's how Ireland and its politicians wants to stay.

    That is the situation now. To make claims like a poster did that uncontrolled building of one off houses is a current practice is completely misleading. Donegal is an interesting case in that a sizeable bulk of the one off houses belong to those in Dublin and Belfast. Are a compete eye sore and have wrecked large areas of the most scenic parts of the county. Locals were priced out of buying sites or houses a long time ago


  • #33
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    John Fitzgerald, economist, was on radio this morning suggesting they have it skewed with the wrong goals. FTTH is not the goal, it should be performance related.

    My take on his view - This is like the goals set by Soviet central planning in the 1950s and 1960s, setting the goal for sewer pipe at so many thousand tons, which favoured concrete pipes over cheaper and more effective plastic pipes. By setting the goals wrong, we will be installing FTTH when that will be old hat, and the cheaper version will pass us by. The time for fixed wired phones (POTS) has passed. Let us hope the FTTH is still worthwhile when we connect the last home.

    There appears to be little concern for the level of take up by those homes passed for which it will be available. Rates of 15% are quoted, making the most expensive connections actually taken up at €80,000. Surely, there has to be some consumer contract before such amounts are committed?

    FTTH does not become old hat. It is literally the only possible way to roll out high speed guaranteed internet that does not become old hat.

    The networking equipment aside from the fibres can be replaced as new technology becomes available (and would have to be anyway with any equivalent wireless technology - which is also more frequent).


  • #34
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    marno21 wrote: »
    FTTH does not become old hat. It is literally the only possible way to roll out high speed guaranteed internet that does not become old hat.

    The networking equipment aside from the fibres can be replaced as new technology becomes available (and would have to be anyway with any equivalent wireless technology - which is also more frequent).

    In 1965, the Post Office Tower (now called the BT Tower) opened as the key of a microwave network providing state of the art telecomunications. It was a state secret even though it was 190 m high and pretty obvious to all. Micowaves were the gold standard for telecoms at the time. Who uses that now?

    The fibre network will rely on timber poles put up by the vikngs. [Well not literally, but old technology]. Storms will fell those timber poles and then where will the fibres be?


  • #35
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    In 1965, the Post Office Tower (now called the BT Tower) opened as the key of a microwave network providing state of the art telecomunications. It was a state secret even though it was 190 m high and pretty obvious to all. Micowaves were the gold standard for telecoms at the time. Who uses that now?

    The fibre network will rely on timber poles put up by the vikngs. [Well not literally, but old technology]. Storms will fell those timber poles and then where will the fibres be?

    Microwaves are still widely used in telecommunications. It's not comparable to compare telecom backhaul with delivering internet access to widely dispersed houses.

    Storms have just as much chance of knocking out wirelsss masts. During Storm Darwin in 2014 I never lost my landline access but had no mobile phone or fixed wireless internet for several days


  • #36
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    zapitastas wrote: »
    Can you name one county where there is uncontrolled building ?

    I can name 32.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I can name 32.

    Any chance of an example or two from specific county councils where the planning requirements on one off housing are lax and should be tightened up? Or are you just going with a feeling


  • #38
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    zapitastas wrote: »
    Any chance of an example or two from specific county councils where the planning requirements on one off housing are lax and should be tightened up? Or are you just going with a feeling

    wherever the f*ck this is

    bb.jpg


  • #39
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    zapitastas wrote: »
    Any chance of an example or two from specific county councils where the planning requirements on one off housing are lax and should be tightened up? Or are you just going with a feeling

    :pac: There's houses being built on lanes all over the midlands and west, I drive past them all the time. If you claim to be from a place you can build as you see fit in this country. There is no real restrictions.


  • #40
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    cgcsb wrote: »
    :pac: There's houses being built on lanes all over the midlands and west, I drive past them all the time. If you claim to be from a place you can build as you see fit in this country. There is no real restrictions.

    That is patently not true. The days of getting planning and throwing up a house are long gone. The planning restrictions and conditions are pretty onerous. I don't know any county council that would allow unrestricted building. If you take country Leitrim for example, the septic tank requirements can be around 60k. Building one off houses in the countryside has become unattainable to a lot of people


  • #41
    zapitastas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 498 ✭✭zapitastas


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    wherever the f*ck this is

    bb.jpg

    And how many of the houses in that picture have been built in the last two or three years , or even in the last decade.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    zapitastas wrote: »
    And how many of the houses in that picture have been built in the last two or three years , or even in the last decade.

    No idea. Have the rules changed or something recently?


  • #43
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    You know, I just read a great article (found it through Reddit) on the stats surrounding one-off housing in Ireland, found it incredibly interesting, and sadly grim.

    Some relevant paragraphs:
    There is a widespread misperception that current planning policy makes it difficult to get planning permission for a one-off dwelling. This is usually based on anecdotal evidence from individual hard cases. However, in reality between 2000- 2017, according to the Central Statistics Office, the Irish planning system permitted almost 190,000 new detached one-off dwellings. Nationally, this accounts for 24% of all houses granted planning permission during this period.

    There are strong geographical variations with Galway (52%), Mayo (45.9%), Donegal (41.3%) and Kerry (40%) having the highest share of one-off permissions. The breakdown of the regions with the highest share of one-off permissions was in the West (42%) followed by the Border (31.7%), Mid-West (31%) and South-West (29%) with the Midland (24%) and Mid-East (17.6%) having the lowest share.

    Galway being the worse is no surprise, and no surprise that the city is struggling with traffic problems either.

    Anyway, the article is here. Great to see some facts and figures on it.


  • #44
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    So there we go, one offs thriving in Ireland still. But again, if ever this discussion comes up, half want to live in a one off and the others are against the impact they have. So they're not going anywhere, they seem to be part of Irish culture.


  • #45
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,548 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    So there we go, one offs thriving in Ireland still. But again, if ever this discussion comes up, half want to live in a one off and the others are against the impact they have. So they're not going anywhere, they seem to be part of Irish culture.

    I can get a one off planning permission for a house on in an area consisting of a number of serviced sites within a city boundary - not all one off houses are isolated buildings out in the sticks.

    What is the split of those one off houses between those in or adjacent to an existing population centre and those out on their own?


  • #46
    OneEightSeven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven


    The government banned one-off housing when Eir dropped out of the NBP last year, but they still have a local-only clause, which is illegal under EU law. They know full-well this country has a serious problem with one-off housing, but when you see half-hearted attempts to address the issue, it makes me want to emigrate in disappointment and assimilate into another ethnicity/nationality.


  • #47
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    OneEightSeven wrote: »
    The government banned one-off housing when Eir dropped out of the NBP last year, but they still have a local-only clause, which is illegal under EU law. They know full-well this country has a serious problem with one-off housing, but when you see half-hearted attempts to address the issue, it makes me want to emigrate in disappointment and assimilate into another ethnicity/nationality.

    I'm not familiar with the ban, how did they ban it?


  • #48
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    zapitastas wrote: »
    That is patently not true. The days of getting planning and throwing up a house are long gone. The planning restrictions and conditions are pretty onerous. I don't know any county council that would allow unrestricted building. If you take country Leitrim for example, the septic tank requirements can be around 60k. Building one off houses in the countryside has become unattainable to a lot of people


    Meath is one county anyway.

    Drive 2km out each road in my town and you'll get maybe 20+ one off houses being currently constructed and a few more recently cleared sites/removed hedges that are almost certainly for more one off housing. There's also 4 pages every week of planning applications in the Meath chronicle, at a rough guess, 2 thirds of them are applications for a "new dwelling" on whatever site.

    Maybe other counties have introduced restrictions or tightened them up, but Meath county council certainly havent.


  • #49
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,213 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    I hoped this government might have learned something from the Children`s Hospital fiasco, but apparently not. They are now giving a contract to a sole bidder for an amount that is many multiples of the original estimate, that we will not even own on completion, not knowing how much this bidder is contributing and without a clue how many will connection to this system or how much it will cost to do so.
    All this against the advice of this government`s own Office of Public Expenditure.

    This whole thing comes across as nothing more than a very expensive spend in an effort to buy votes in the upcoming local elections and the soon to be GE. If they were honest and admit it, that at least would be something rather than hiding behind a report they themselves commissioned. In fact in light of their own Office of Public Expenditure advice that report looks nothing more than a further waste of public money too rubber stamp a decision already taken.


  • #50
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    I've mixed feelings about this situation. I think it's a stupid amount of money to spend on the national broadband plan. It's been poorly handled from almost the beginning. What more can we expect from our politicians. The childrens hospital is another fine example.

    I was in my uncles house in rural Co. Monaghan yesterday and incredibly it's 2019 and they have still no broadband. No ftth, no vdsl, no adsl2+, not even adsl1. No dial up... Nothing. They have a telephone line miraculously.

    Honestly I think the one off housing people probably should have to heavily subsidise their connections. They already have the advantage of almost always having smaller mortgages compared to town / city dwellers. They have chosen to live in rural areas they should have to pay a rural tax to get a good service.


  • #51
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,169 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    As far as I am aware, the 5G proposal is not 5G mobile, but point to point radio using 5G technology. I may be wrong, but if the last 5% or so is done wirelessly, then the project cost reduces significantly.

    5G using the spectrum we've just liberalised is not a replacement for the 4G on your phone. When you walk into a shop you don't lose all 4G service, you likely would with 5G at 3600Mhz. Good for use where you have line of sight to the serving cell or only obstructed by foliage or glass.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement