NBP part II

tsue921i8wljb3 · 03-09-2019 09:57PM

Shots fired!

"234,092 amber premises covered" apparently.

https://www.imagine.ie

rodge123 · 03-09-2019 10:14PM

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Shots fired!

"234,092 amber premises covered" apparently.

https://www.imagine.ie

Yeah they have me well covered with their Fibre Speeds currently!

kenny111 · 03-09-2019 10:56PM

are these claimed speeds are for both upload and download?

SkepticQuark · 04-09-2019 10:30AM

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Shots fired!

"234,092 amber premises covered" apparently.

https://www.imagine.ie

Ah yes I'm totally covered. They can't even offer me 2mbps up so they've already failed.

clohamon · 05-09-2019 12:01PM

1. Secretary General of DCCAE before the Dáil. (6th Dec 2018)

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.

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.*

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.

*letter of refusal available (on request) here
https://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 · 05-09-2019 02:13PM

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) here
https://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

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?

clohamon · 05-09-2019 03:13PM

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?

It seems to me the Department implied that they were instructed by the Commission to accept the Eircom 300K intervention - in particular. It's unlikely that the Commission could have done that unless they had assessed the plan in some way, maybe only in outline. But the Commission deny that they assessed it at all.

There is however a weasel word which might be the key.

The European Commission has not taken any official decision to approve Eircom's private investment.

It seems disingenuous of the Commission to imply/state that assessment of planned investments is a purely national competence unconnected to the Commission's approval of the overall plan. That seems to be what Mark Griffin was saying to the PAC.

On the separate question of whether the Concession Agreement is State Aid, I'd say it must confer some advantage otherwise there would be no point in Eircom seeking it. In effect it's a 25 year non-compete agreement.

westyIrl · 05-09-2019 05:55PM

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.

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.

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.

I wouldn't see how the Concession Agreement would be in any form state aid as it was open to any other capable entity to do the exact same as Eir and there is nothing stopping competition in the 300k as long as it is on a commercial basis. Interesting topic!

KOR101 · 05-09-2019 06:06PM

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.

Good summation. And then, the discussions were simply scoping out the likely EU response to an intervention map that included the committed premises.

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.

clohamon · 05-09-2019 07:30PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 · 05-09-2019 09:40PM

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.

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.

KOR101 · 06-09-2019 07:55AM

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-1.4009250

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/imagine-says-its-connecting-rural-ireland-to-5g-broadband-38472184.html

clohamon · 06-09-2019 08:10AM

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.

The SAG are the State Aid Guidelines administered by the European Commission

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.

By "non-compete" I meant that the Concession Agreement protects Eircom from competition from the the State.

KOR101 · 06-09-2019 08:15AM

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.

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 · 06-09-2019 08:19AM

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.

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 · 06-09-2019 08:29AM

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.

https://twitter.com/adrianweckler/status/1169594772698411008

Pique · 06-09-2019 10:48AM

KOR101 wrote:

â€œ 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,â€ 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 Imagineâ€™s incursion into the NBP intervention area will affect the plan.

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.

Mortelaro · 06-09-2019 10:52AM

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-1.4009250

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/imagine-says-its-connecting-rural-ireland-to-5g-broadband-38472184.html

Mercifully,
The death announcement of Robert Mugabe this morning prevented a piece on this being discussed on morning Ireland
Mugabe's communications dept and Imagine have a lot in common so it probably made no difference

Orebro · 06-09-2019 11:11AM

Mortelaro wrote: »

Mugabe's communications dept and Imagine have a lot in common so it probably made no difference

BandMember · 06-09-2019 12:07PM

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.

Imagine are such a horrific sh*tshow that even Timmy the Tool knows better than to suggest or promote them as an option.

Given his track record, that says everything.

Ultimanemo · 06-09-2019 10:37PM

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-1.4009250

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/news/imagine-says-its-connecting-rural-ireland-to-5g-broadband-38472184.html

They say: Capable of delivering broadband speeds of up to 150 megabits per second.
I have Imagine and I do get 150 Mbps or even higher but that is only around 5 am , in the evenings it is 20 to 30 Mbps on an average day and much slower sometimes

The Cush · 09-09-2019 12:16AM

Peter O'Dwyer piece in the SBP - Government unsure if state aid issues could arise over broadband plan for "serviced" areas

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 · 09-09-2019 12:34AM

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".

KOR101 · 09-09-2019 08:07AM

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".

No, all it means is that Imagine is entitled to apply to enter a Commitment contract. We will know by September 20th if they are going to do that. It will certainly fail for not meeting the technical requirements, but it could delay things. And, they could challenge any negative decision in the courts, where it will also probably fail, but again delay things further.

allanpkr · 09-09-2019 08:51AM

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 , far more than you would be allowed in rural ireland imagine needs to stop conning the people on broadband.

The Cush · 09-09-2019 09:33AM

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 ,

Correct for the current 3.6 GHz band but the mobile operators will be looking at the more rural friendly 700 MHz 5G band which is due to be auctioned next year, Imagine most likely will not be bidding for any of it due to price.

ednwireland · 09-09-2019 09:38AM

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.

i would hope so, its up to wireless operators toup their game and keep htheir customers - although the only one i have experience of you would only use if you have no alternative.

KOR101 · 09-09-2019 10:20AM

"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 precision of the number (234,092) of claimed amber premises covered, must mean Imagine is going to do something.

celticbhoy27 · 09-09-2019 12:08PM

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!

heavydawson · 09-09-2019 12:23PM

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!

#5GMeHole

NBP part II

Comments