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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

National Broadband Plan - necessary/wasted investment?

  • 08-05-2019 3:37pm
    #1
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,495 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


«134

Comments

  • #2
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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: 10,495 ✭✭✭✭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: 10,495 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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: 10,495 ✭✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 14,716 ✭✭✭✭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
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭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: 0 ✭[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: 19,340 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 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: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


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


  • #18
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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: 12,521 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 Posts: 9,266 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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: 12,521 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: 19,340 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: 10,495 ✭✭✭✭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 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement