Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: » Shots fired! "234,092 amber premises covered" apparently.https://www.imagine.ie
We had extensive discussions with Eir on its commitment to do so and with the European Commission on the latitude available to the Government not to accept the 300,000 households as part of a separate deployment measure. The clear response we received from the European Commission was that under state aid rules, where there was a commitment agreement in place, with clear targets and deliverable outcomes and so on, the option was not available to the State to decline it.
As a preliminary comment, I would like to clarify that under the State aid investigations, the European Commission does not assess private investment plans that do not receive State aid (such as Eircom's private investments registered in an agreement between Ireland and Eircom you referred to), but the interventions of the Member States relying on State aid. The European Commission is not aware of any State support provided to Eircom in the context of the agreement you referred to. The European Commission has not taken any official decision to approve Eircom's private investment you referred to.
clohamon wrote: » 1. Secretary General of DCCAE before the Dáil. (6th Dec 2018)https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/committee_of_public_accounts/2018-12-06/debate/mul@/main.pdf 2. European Commission in a decision on a document request seeking Eircom's submission to the EC concerning the 300K plan.* *letter of refusal available (on request) herehttps://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&n=10&adv=0&coteId=3&year=2019&number=6466&dateFrom=&dateTo=&serviceId=&documentType=&title=&titleLanguage=&titleSearch=EXACT&sortBy=NUMBER&sortOrder=DESC
heavydawson wrote: » I'm not sure I see where they diverge? The first quote in essence says that the EC is effectively forbidding the state to intervene in areas where private operators are offering a service The second quote says the EC don't examine such private intervention as no state aid is involved in it. Perhaps you're trying to make the point that the EC should (but don't) verify that the private operator is indeed serving the market such that intervention is absolutely still not necessary in that specific area?
The European Commission has not taken any official decision to approve Eircom's private investment.
heavydawson wrote: » I'm not sure I see where they diverge? The first quote in essence says that the EC is effectively forbidding the state to intervene in areas where private operators are offering a service The second quote says the EC don't examine such private intervention as no state aid is involved in it.
westyIrl wrote: » I'd have thought that the EU would have no issue to answer in relation to Eir completing the 300k. Where they would have had to act would have been if and when the state aided NBP would be encroaching on that area and Eir had previously clearly signalled to the Govt/DCCAE that they were completing it on a commercial basis.
westyIrl wrote: » It was never a question of the state, as is often stated by the misinformed, somehow 'allowing' Eir to cherry pick the 300k. It was in fact the case that there was nothing the state could do to stop them and any clarification from the EU would have been to the effect that having the same 300k still part of the NBP would amount to illegal state aid.
westyIrl wrote: » In that regard, I'm sure the EU commission would have informed the DCCAE of this view if the DCCAE had indeed requested it, either officially or not.
clohamon wrote: » IMO the EU made a significant interpretation of EU law - the SAG (and I'm not a lawyer) by saying an individual premises is an "area". Albeit there were 300,575 of them, they still don't amount to an area. The purpose of the SAG is to promote the public interest in broadband by moderating the basic prohibition on state aid. If the 300K reduces competition in the bidding, makes the intervention logistically incoherent and increases aid to the cost of the taxpayer, it can't be in the public interest. If a there's a question of interpretation, and weighing of the public interest, it's hard to say it's "illegal" in a definitive sense. Granted Eircom could have gone ahead without the agreement but it's perverse that guidelines set up to promote the public interest should be allowed to do the opposite. It seems the Commission never asked themselves that question. DCCAE had refused the plan for good public interest reasons. Eircom then made a submission direct to the the Commission (Nov 2016) and the decision to accept it was made by DCCAE at the same time (see Smyth report) seemingly at under threat from the Commission. The Commission are now claiming they had nothing to do with it the decision.
plodder wrote: » What is SAG referred to above? Fwiw, I don't see the issue with those statements either. It's hardly the job of the EU to evaluate Eir's commercial plans. The concession agreement is not state aid and it's not a 25 year non-compete agreement either. There's nothing stopping anyone from competing with Eir. They just can't use state aid to do it.
clohamon wrote: » I agree it's not the job of the EU to evaluate Eircom's plans, but that's what they seem to have done - and then denied it.
KOR101 wrote: » It would be the job of the EU to evaluate EIR's plan but only in the context of an evaluation of an intervention map that included those premises. Sensible business to be open for discussions beforehand to avoid failed proposals.
clohamon wrote: » I don't agree that individual premises are "areas". That was the problem with the 300K. It atomised the intervention area and we all know the consequences. If Imagine are now allowed to do the same thing with their 800K "cover" then it's all over for the NBP.
KOR101 wrote: “ This includes 234,000 homes and businesses which faced a wait of five to seven years to be connected and where Imagine is now the only provider in the area,†he said. The current EU state aid rules restrict governments from funding services where they are offered commercially by private operators. It is not clear if Imagine’s incursion into the NBP intervention area will affect the plan.
KOR101 wrote: » Imagine says it can deliver high-speed broadband to 800,000 rural homes “ This includes 234,000 homes and businesses which faced a wait of five to seven years to be connected and where Imagine is now the only provider in the area,” he said. The current EU state aid rules restrict governments from funding services where they are offered commercially by private operators. It is not clear if Imagine’s incursion into the NBP intervention area will affect the plan.https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/imagine-says-it-can-deliver-high-speed-broadband-to-800-000-rural-homes-1.4009250https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/imagine-says-its-connecting-rural-ireland-to-5g-broadband-38472184.html
Mortelaro wrote: » Mugabe's communications dept and Imagine have a lot in common so it probably made no difference
KOR101 wrote: » Water under the bridge on EIR anyway, and Imagine can hardly meet the technical requirements to succeed with a Committment Agreement proposal. There might be a business case for them to try to delay it, pushing it into a FF administration, for example. NBP is still much more likely than not at this stage IMO.
The Department of Communications has claimed it is unable to determine if existing broadband services could create state aid issues for the National Broadband Plan, as it does not have enough information to hand. Fixed wireless broadband provider Imagine last week said it had delivered reliable, 150Mbps broadband to 800,000 homes and businesses across the country. This figure included 234,000 of the 540,000 rural premises earmarked for intervention by the state through the multibillion-euro NBP. The government is restricted from using state aid, such as through the NBP, to address a market failure in areas where private operators have delivered broadband already or have plans to do so soon. When asked if Imagine's 5G broadband satisfied the commercial investment criteria set down by the department, a spokeswoman said the department did not know. "The department engages with fixed wireless operators through correspondence and meetings and has requested the necessary technical, financial and commercial information from those operators which would allow the department to assess whether their networks should be considered as high-speed broadband and excluded from the [NBP] intervention area," the spokeswoman said.
The spokeswoman said no submission had been received to date from a fixed operator that would "justify a change to the intervention area". "Following the consultation, the department will conclude and confirm the scope of the intervention area prior to deployment of the NBP state intervention. The department will carefully consider all responses and the outcome of its assessment, along with non-confidential copies of the submissions, will be published prior to contract award," she added.
Headshot wrote: » So does that mean NBP wont beable to go to those 800,000 even through Imagine 5G is bs Good old Imagine, such a shame excuse for "broadband".
allanpkr wrote: » 5G is the biggest con for rural broadband. If you struggle to get 4g on your mobile 5g will be worse. 5g is mainly a city broadband with many areials needed ,
Pique wrote: » As wireless was ruled out as being suitable for the terms of the NBP on the basis of speed and consistency etc (other than in edge cases), does that mean that wireless availability by commercial operators in the intervention area is ignored by the govt and the NBP will still be applied to those areas? I would've thought so tbh. Seems like imagine just rattling the can.
celticbhoy27 wrote: » Haven't the government, rightly, came out already and said wireless isn't an option. The difference between the nbp and what imagine can offer is night and day. Speeds up to 150 my eye!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3836672d35409cd329aa2df895b70fb0.svg)
