worded wrote: » See pic
kneemos wrote: » Will they need to dig up driveways to get it from the road to your house? Also the cost of such will I'm sure be a big disincentive.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » pOrNhuB iS a huMaN rIgHt But really, I'm from a field outside a small village, outside another village and our broadband at home is fine. I think some media and politicians think we're all still using dial-up in the sticks. We we have a choice of six providers, have no trouble streaming or accessing other content. I know there's awful coverage in some places, but those are the trade-offs we make for living in very remote places. Even where I'm based in Dublin, the broadband sometimes dips at certain times. Also, I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, but I don't trust Granahan McCourt (GMC), and neither apparently does the Department of a public Expenditure.
KikiLaRue wrote: » Made this point on another thread this morning. Our broadband at home is okay too (I’m from ten minutes outside a medium sized town) but I don’t think I could run a business with say 30-50 employees off it. If we’re ever going to get serious about investment outside of Dublin, we have to invest in infrastructure, and high speed broadband is as crucial as a motorway these days to many sectors.
Fr_Dougal wrote: » It’s a political exercise to win the rural vote, a very expensive one at that, and an utter waste or resources.
theguzman wrote: » Please explain a better use of resources? More money for the HSE perhaps, Extra funds for Universities or maybe Social Housing? Which would you prefer?
OneEightSeven wrote: » Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet. One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services.
joeguevara wrote: » This article is from 2013 which states that fiber optic will eventually be outdated by 5g which as far as I am aware is delivered by satellite. Why spend 5billion when 5g is just around the corner.https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/04/why-high-speed-broadband-fibre-is-becoming-irrelevant/amp/
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » I totally agree with all of this, but we should be focusing on high-speed broadband for the likes of Thurles and Clonmel -- medium or small towns -- not Terryglass and Cloughjordan, small hamlets where medium-sized enterprises are unlikely to want to locate anyway. It just seems like such an overreach and it's difficult to avoid the fact that there are two elections imminent, and a General Election might happen before December.
Atoms for Peace wrote: » Do we really need 1Gb fibre direct to every house in country? I have my doubts. I currently only have ~3mb 3g which is adequate for general usage including streaming video.
KikiLaRue wrote: » Sometimes the government does things that don’t make economic sense because it’s good for society. The State could NOT afford free education for all when Donagh O’Malley announced it. The two teacher schools out in the middle of nowhere are a drain on the state (tbh these should all be shut now but that’s a different rant) It didn’t make economic sense to pursue rural electrification, but ultimately electricity came to be regarded as a necessity rather than a luxury and had to be provided to everyone. I believe the same is true of broadband. Society is going to look totally different in 25 years, I don’t think it’s fair or right to leave rural Ireland behind.
OneEightSeven wrote: » Providing fibre to one-off houses isn't going to act as a counterbalance to Dublin. There's no economic benefit to providing these homes with high-speed internet. One-off houses are very heavily subsidised by urban areas as it costs more to provide their homes with services. They don't pay the full cost of providing services to their homes, such as electricity, phone and postal services. It will also encourage more people to live rurally, which will contribute to the decline of countryside towns as towns need to be of a certain population density to be sustainable, so if you actually care about creating a counterbalance to Dublin, you should oppose the NBP and encourage people to move house to an area covered by commercial high-speed internet. Eircom rolled out fibre to 350k one-off houses and the take-up rate is only 20%. There are many vacant and holiday homes in remote parts of the West, so the take-up rate for the NBP will mos likely be lower than 20%. €3 billion for <100,000 homes just so boggers can watch Netflix and porn is just ridiculous. The whole "working from homes" excuse doesn't cut it either, you can work from home in an urban area. My sister-in-law does it. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a problem with one-off housing. These types of homes aren't sustainable. Germany banned planning permission for homes more than 500 meters outside of urban areas because they had the common sense to foresee these issues down the road - Ireland didn't. Germany's rural population is only 20%, Ireland's is 37% and we still allow people to build one-off houses under "locals only" clauses and corrupt councilors doing their constituents a few favours for votes. Eventually, another essential technology will come along and we're stuck with the same problem.
is_that_so wrote: » I don't think there is much disagreement about the need for it but what is under question is how the process was run and whether it will actually be the most efficient use of funds.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
