Smoke signals versus rural broadband - better bang for buck?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Nox… This is just a small sample of how dispersed housing is hard to service and police. It’s very simply explained.

A postman posts to 400 houses per day on a bicycle in an urban area.

B postman posts 40 houses per day in a van in a rural area.

The van needs to be purchased, taxed, insured, serviced, maintained, cvrt’d and filled with fuel.

The bike needs to be purchased and maintained at a fraction of the cost.

Which post service is more costly on the taxpayer? The expensive 40 house delivery or the cheaper 400 house delivery.

What sort of a waste of space postman delivers to 40 houses in a day? There are 18 houses in approx 1km on my road, takes the post man about 10 mins to cover the road. An post need vans regardless, I see delivering in the city in vans also and your argument on parcels is not applicable since they are all delivered by van even in the city.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Copy and paste Snow Garden!! Same rules apply!! Urban areas are easier and cheaper to service, if you don't think this is true you're deluded.

Its not copy and paste you are ignoring that many of the costs I listed are either completely covered by the home owner, the additional cost is covered, the cost is not related to the number of rural houses or the point is totally not applicable at all as its not something covered by the tax payer anywhere.

grahambo wrote: »

What are your requirements exactly?
XBL, PSN, Torrents?

My oul lad lives in Coolock and does and awful lot with stocks and shares online. (he's retired)
He's also a tight ar*e and didn't want to pay for BB off Eir or Virgin.
He successfully tethered off his Tesco Mobile phone for 3 years!!!! (Note: Tesco is the crappiest of services)

IPTV, torrents, multiple users online together, cloud based working (accessing files, using cloud based software, conf calls, uploading large files) etc etc. 4G is far too unreliable and simply can't handle my needs never mind the needs of the house as a whole. I have a very indepth knowledge of communications and I know the limits of non-fibre based delivery systems very well, even 5G simply will be good enough to replace having fibre systems.

grahambo wrote: »

Agree that Electricity is needed.
But that being said there is no way you can argue that it's as cost effective to run a line to a Farm miles away from anywhere when put in comparison to the cost of running a line to a housing estate.
Also, I do believe food production should be subsidised.

Its irrelevant really if it costs more or not. A significant amount of the cost is shouldered by the person getting it be it in upfront connection costs or in higher rates but the fact is the wire have to be there and if they are there then the more rural housing the more cost effective it is compared to running lines all around for a few farms.

grahambo wrote: »

Not it isn't!
No one runs server locally anymore with a big pipe out to the net, It's all done on AWS or similar

Plenty of businesses still use local servers and even if not working of the cloud needs a very good internet connection.

grahambo wrote: »

Farmers don't need fibre Broadband to run a farm, there is absolutely no way it can be argued that they need it.

Farmers need fast and very reliable internet services, the only way to do this is provide wired services and the sensible way to do this is though fibre.

grahambo wrote: »

Agreed, it depends on the office.
However 4G on a mobile network connection is more than enough for RDP sessions.

Most don't use RDP, I know I don't I work on my local machine connected to cloud services when working remotely meaning upload and download speeds are crucial.

grahambo wrote: »

2 points here:
1: Have you actually applied for planning permission yet? (This change is recent by the councils)

2: Assuming you get PP, why should you be allowed to build your own 5 bed house out in the sticks and have NBBP bring a fibre connection to your door, while I haven't a hope in hell in getting Planning permission and have copper from my house to the switch/router down the road? At this rate you'll have BB faster than me, and I live in Dublin bay North!

1. No, but as I said I will have zero issue if I would meet the requirements in multiple ways. I have friends and others I know in the area in the process and getting permission granted with far weaker cases than I would have.

2: Why shouldn't I be allowed build a house on my own land and expect to have it served by a proper internet connection. I'd be perfectly happy to have a 100Mb/s fibre to the cabinet connection similar to what most can get at a minimum in urban areas with the last run over copper but it would be a poor investment to do this in rural areas as running the fibre to the home is easy (easier than in an urban area as no digging required etc) so it makes sense to do it. My neighbour 400 metres or so away can get a 1Gb connection if willing to pay for it so you can get a faster service in the rural area that is true.

grahambo wrote: »

3 billion could be better spent elsewhere.
It was only announced yesterday that Cork city will be getting a light rail system and upgraded heavy rail system for 1 billion. This is fantastic value for money that will benefit the entire region.

I would strongly disagree, I would see getting fast and reliable fibre BB to all or the vast vast majority of homes and businesses in the country is as vital a piece of infrastructure as any. It benefits the whole country and not just Dublin or Cork. The fact is all these investments in cities do nothing for those who live rurally and only further divides country and city.

grahambo wrote: »

The NBBP will provide High speed BB for people but it's basically a state subsidy, we're never going to see a return on that 3 billion.
It's basically:
Something you're getting, and we're not

Its 2.5 billion to begin with as the number is already fudged to look worse for some reason due to VAT being included. What return will you see on a luas in cork either? That's not the point of big projects like this, it is to provide citizens with vital infrastructure. There is also a strong argument that it will have great economic benefit for for rural Ireland and with remote working, smart farming and the opportunities for internet based businesses to open up anywhere in the country along with equal treatment of rural dwellers by providing them with BB its a no brainer for me.

Ask someone in rural Ireland their opinion on the LUAS or metro north while trying to argue against providing a basic requirement such as high speed BB and you won't be long getting a strong response. Large numbers of us living in the country are paying massive amounts of tax and we deserve things like good BB just as much as any person who chooses to live in an urban area.

John_Rambo wrote: »

There hasn't been a study done per capita, you know this already cause you can't back up your point. However, it's a global problem and Ireland part of the globe.



Yeah, I know but you're wrong or you're not paying attention. Rural obesity is a big problem caused by sedentary lifestyles and particularly by carbon locked lifestyles and an over dependency on cars. I see it all the time, in fact I know a few rural eight year olds and was shocked to learn they couldn't ride a bike!!! They're taxied everywhere in the car.



I probably shouldn't have used numbers.
Here's an even simpler question regarding the rural v urban postal service and how much it costs the tax payer.

Which is more expensive?

A van?
OR
A bike?

Note! Bikes are used in urban areas. Regular ones and cargo bikes, there will be e-bikes introduced soon. Just cause you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist!!

The bike after one worker gets killed or maimed off one, that would pay for a lot of vans.

I read an article a while back that Royal Mail are on a trend of reducing post men cycling due to accidents and the inefficiently of it. Vans are a much more efficient and practical way to deliver mail. Even many that deliver on foot to do so with their van parked close by.

You also aren’t looking at the full picture. The van contributes to multiple jobs also, sales man, cvrt, petrol station, mechanic, tyre shop etc so the wider economy benefits far more along with a more efficient delivery especially with packages. A post man on a bike delivers mail and then a van has to cover his route to deliver packages so you need more post men which cost a lot more than a van.

John_Rambo wrote: »

WRONG!!! A van is in fact much more expensive to run than a bike.:)
Let that lesson sink in and apply it to other services and you can see exactly why one off rural living is hard on the tax payer and hard on the environment.

too easy mate.

Nonsense, which you can’t address (bar a post man) as you don’t have any valid arguments against the list of points I made.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

When did they stop subsidising the grants and inspections ?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/home_owners/domestic_wastewater_treatment.html

I’ve never heard of a septic tank being inspected and I know a lot of people with them nor anyone getting a grant. The tax payer will not subsidise my septic tank by a single cent while taxes I pay will go towards waste water treatment in urban areas. This is the reality not the nonsense claimed here by a few anti-rural posters.