nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

NBP part II

oscarBravo

The old NBP thread had hit the 10,000-post threshold that makes the boards.ie hamsters cry, so here's a shiny new one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Messer1

Surely the entire Mapping Exercise is flawed and deeply anti-competitive. The information required in a submission is ridiculously detailed for any small, ambitious ISP to provide, no provision is made for possible significant new entrants, or for changes of circumstances for larger operators (take-over, new strategy etc.). It appears that the proposed contractor will be compensated for any encroachment into the final intervention area. This would dampen the market as it means that taxpayers will pay for non-service as well as service from a new encroaching entrant.

ussjtrunks

Are we still on track for an announcement at the ploughing championship?

heavydawson

ussjtrunks wrote: »

Are we still on track for an announcement at the ploughing championship?

I think the extra time allocated to allow the private sector to indicate where any future plans they have might encroach on the intervention area has pushed the final announcement into October.

dashoonage

ussjtrunks wrote: »

Are we still on track for an announcement at the ploughing championship?

Yup still on track for ploughing 2020

heavydawson

Last Friday was the original deadline for submissions to the department in the state-aid consultation process but operators were notified on Tuesday that the deadline was being extended to September 20. This means the contract is unlikely to be signed before September 30, as the map will have to be redrawn and the EU will have to approve it. The signing may not happen before the budget on October 8.

That was from a comment a few weeks ago in this thread

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

Surely the entire Mapping Exercise is flawed and deeply anti-competitive. The information required in a submission is ridiculously detailed for any small, ambitious ISP to provide, no provision is made for possible significant new entrants, or for changes of circumstances for larger operators (take-over, new strategy etc.). It appears that the proposed contractor will be compensated for any encroachment into the final intervention area. This would dampen the market as it means that taxpayers will pay for non-service as well as service from a new encroaching entrant.

OK, I'll bite.
Other than "not having an intervention", what do you see as possible solutions to that?

Messer1

My bite back. The entire NBP has become much too complicated from operational, financial and strategic perspectives. Too many players and moving parts made unnecessarily complicated by pivotal involvement of a private operator (with mere €220 mln investment). Very much favour the approach recommended by the UL professors at the Oireachtas Committee for full State ownership. This would do away with the 1,400 page contract designed to protect the State's €3 bn and make the whole roll-out process much simpler including defining, planning and managing the intervention area - specifically this could be redefined every 2-3 years in the light of progress, new developments etc.

Ultimanemo

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!

I do get 150 Mbps easily 5 am

but now

Gonzo

Ultimanemo wrote: »

I do get 150 Mbps easily 5 am

but now

a bit pointless having 150 at 5am and single digits in the evening when you need it the most. Clearly their network is grinding to a halt when everyone is online in the evenings. This is why Imagine are not fit for purpose and have no place in the NBP or any other national broadband scheme.

allanpkr

Total foolhardy. What does govn know about running fibre broadband and what com co. Would ever get involved if they could own it. Its been a long difficult process to make sure taxpayers money is safe guarded from the likes of eir and type who dropped out only cause the conditions were to strict ie 150 gb increasing to 500 etc etc . We are nearly at end of process and for the life of me do not understand people like you true motive to start process over again

[Deleted User]

Ultimanemo wrote: »

I do get 150 Mbps easily 5 am

but now

From reading the imagine thread your lucky to be getting the speed you are in the evening, some are getting less than 2 mbps

rodge123

A quick browse of Imagines open job positions tells you all you need to know about them.
A bunch of smoke and mirror cowboys!
Digital Marketing Manager, Social Media Role, Videographer, frontend Developer.

My speeds this evening with them.

Gonzo

rodge123 wrote: »

A quick browse of Imagines open job positions tells you all you need to know about them.
A bunch of smoke and mirror cowboys!
Digital Marketing Manager, Social Media Role, Videographer, frontend Developer.

My speeds this evening with them.

Imagine easily has the best marketing team of any internet service provider in Ireland. They post new videos every day, post screenshots, maps, someone has to make videos of the vans, they respond only to those who can't get the service or those who are very happy with the product, they delete comments and some screenshots from customers with poor speeds. They hand out promotional material in supermarkets and centras, they post articles on their miracle product and 5g and drum the 5g into customers till the cows come home. They run competitions to win tickets and hotel trips, they update their website frequently with statistics and lies. Eir/Vodaphone/Digiewb etc barely post a few times a week in comparison. I am not surprised they continue to expand their team of social media experts, videographers and web developers.

If only they put this much effort into the quality of service and customer support.

Ultimanemo

DubInMeath wrote: »

From reading the imagine thread your lucky to be getting the speed you are in the evening, some are getting less than 2 mbps

You only see reviews from people who have slow speeds, people who have good connection "They don't talk about it"

[Deleted User]

Ultimanemo wrote: »

You only see reviews from people who have slow speeds, people who have good connection "They don't talk about it"

Actually you will, if you read the thread, but they then turn out to have the same issues as everyone else once their area is at full capacity.

I did consider them myself but at the time two things stopped me.
1. The 20 GB download limit
2. I was told that I would have to cut down a large tree to get a proper signal.

I was told at the time (3 years back) that the limit might be increased, I understand that this has come about and some people in the thread stated that they were able to go over the original limit with out being throttled while others were.

The tree was an issue due to the cost of having it felled, as the cheapest quote was 3000 euro. I even had an inlaw who used to do this type of work have a look and they confirmed that the quotes were accurate.

However a neighbor less than 300 meters from us got their service at the same time and they have experienced the same issues with the speed dropping to nearly single digit levels as everyone else.

KOR101

Broadband roll-out contract won't be signed in time for Ploughing as was promised

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-rollout-contract-wont-be-signed-in-time-for-ploughing-as-was-promised-38483708.html

Messer1

allanpkr wrote: »

Total foolhardy. What does govn know about running fibre broadband and what com co. Would ever get involved if they could own it. Its been a long difficult process to make sure taxpayers money is safe guarded from the likes of eir and type who dropped out only cause the conditions were to strict ie 150 gb increasing to 500 etc etc . We are nearly at end of process and for the life of me do not understand people like you true motive to start process over again

The gov wouldn't run the rollout - a SPV would be established and use contractors.

ussjtrunks

It honestly feels like this will never get signed off on, they keep delaying it by finding new ways to push it back, its very frustrating as even providers that used to be good aren't able to keep up with todays internet demands and most are seeing evening speeds of 3-4mb. As a stopgap they could atleast try to bring a fibre connection to every rural tower so people wont get truly awful speeds but they can't even do that. God help us if they avoid certain areas due to imagine "serving" the area.

Pique

KOR101 wrote: »

Broadband roll-out contract won't be signed in time for Ploughing as was promised

https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/broadband-rollout-contract-wont-be-signed-in-time-for-ploughing-as-was-promised-38483708.html

Goddammit!!

allanpkr

how much would contractors charge over say 25 yrs and would they be liable for all repairs . also do you have high speed broadband or would you accept legal challenges , compensation pay out etc etc .delay of at least another 5 yrs. again i ask motivation for this .

ArrBee

Messer1 wrote: »

My bite back. The entire NBP has become much too complicated from operational, financial and strategic perspectives. Too many players and moving parts made unnecessarily complicated by pivotal involvement of a private operator (with mere €220 mln investment). Very much favour the approach recommended by the UL professors at the Oireachtas Committee for full State ownership. This would do away with the 1,400 page contract designed to protect the State's €3 bn and make the whole roll-out process much simpler including defining, planning and managing the intervention area - specifically this could be redefined every 2-3 years in the light of progress, new developments etc.

So for the state to simply build it themselves, or pay someone to build it for them via a purchase order?

I believe that the issues with that approach are that the state don't have a capability to build it themselves and that there are EU rules preventing the government from purchasing a network without tender.

We've had the tender. We can't compel a company to build a network without falling foul of the EU rules.

So unless I have the above wrong (I've been going of what others have said), it seems your solution isn't really viable.

Messer1

ArrBee wrote: »

So for the state to simply build it themselves, or pay someone to build it for them via a purchase order?

I believe that the issues with that approach are that the state don't have a capability to build it themselves and that there are EU rules preventing the government from purchasing a network without tender.

We've had the tender. We can't compel a company to build a network without falling foul of the EU rules.

So unless I have the above wrong (I've been going of what others have said), it seems your solution isn't really viable.

The tender has not yet been accepted. I take it that you haven't read the recommendations in the Oireachtas Committee's report about public ownership or the submission by the UL experts in public-private partnerships.

If you search for Oireachtas Committee on Communications you'll find the report and you can scroll to the opening statements to find the UL one. (Sorry, I cant post a link).

clohamon

Messer1 wrote: »

The tender has not yet been accepted. I take it that you haven't read the recommendations in the Oireachtas Committee's report about public ownership or the submission by the UL experts in public-private partnerships.

If you search for Oireachtas Committee on Communications you'll find the report and you can scroll to the opening statements to find the UL one. (Sorry, I cant post a link).

The U/L profs didn’t propose any solution to the Committee other than that public ownership would be preferable, and possibly favoured a budget-led DPER approach (which was illegal and impractical for other reasons)

Professor Eoin Reeves: On whether my colleague or I have specific plans or proposals, I cannot come up with something better than the Department. Dr. Palcic might like to contribute.
Dr. Dónal Palcic: Short of there being a retendering and a more public auction, there is not really any other alternative and going back to the market and so on would come at a time cost. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s proposal seems to be the more realistic and would allow for the time to retender a more State-led approach.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-06-19/

They had seemingly forgotten about their plan (Oct ’18) to mandate semi-state companies (eg ESB) to simply build a network.

One could speculate that between October 2018 and June 2019 they had actually read the rules and realised that their original plan was illegal.

allanpkr

Messer1 wrote: »

The tender has not yet been accepted. I take it that you haven't read the recommendations in the Oireachtas Committee's report about public ownership or the submission by the UL experts in public-private partnerships.

If you search for Oireachtas Committee on Communications you'll find the report and you can scroll to the opening statements to find the UL one. (Sorry, I cant post a link).

Again please state what type of broadband you have. Thank you

Messer1

allanpkr wrote: »

Again please state what type of broadband you have. Thank you

FTTC.

Messer1

clohamon wrote: »

The U/L profs didn’t propose any solution to the Committee other than that public ownership would be preferable, and possibly favoured a budget-led DPER approach (which was illegal and impractical for other reasons)

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-06-19/

They had seemingly forgotten about their plan (Oct ’18) to mandate semi-state companies (eg ESB) to simply build a network.

One could speculate that between October 2018 and June 2019 they had actually read the rules and realised that their original plan was illegal.

Prof Reeves also said: "Overall, the governance problems that have arisen are such that the procurement lacks the required level of legitimacy, thereby eroding public confidence in the process. There are legitimate concerns about the overall justification for the project, the chosen procurement model, and the potential cost of the project and knock-on effects for other investment priorities. It is our considered view that the
current procurement should be terminated and more affordable alternatives explored."
Neither of the UL people were happy NBP campers.

clohamon

Messer1 wrote: »

Prof Reeves also said: "Overall, the governance problems that have arisen are such that the procurement lacks the required level of legitimacy, thereby eroding public confidence in the process. There are legitimate concerns about the overall justification for the project, the chosen procurement model, and the potential cost of the project and knock-on effects for other investment priorities. It is our considered view that the
current procurement should be terminated and more affordable alternatives explored."
Neither of the UL people were happy NBP campers.

Yes, but being an unhappy camper doesn't help deliver a policy objective.

They acknowledged (subsequent to your quotation) they didn't have a better alternative to the Department.

ussjtrunks

What do we think are the odds of the Contract getting done by the end of the year?

KOR101

ussjtrunks wrote: »

What do we think are the odds of the Contract getting done by the end of the year?

Imagine can either try for a Committment contract, or just blankly state that they have those premises covered, like EIR tried in the first instance before. Assuming it is a Committment contract attempt, then the Department will have to thread carefully as Imagine may be planning a legal challenge to any negative decision. So, it goes back to their advisors who must review the submission and decide. That shouldn't take longer than a month in my opinion and it will certainly be a negative decision.

Presumably Imagine are playing for more than just one month's delay, so a legal process should ensue. Irish courts first, then an EU challenge maybe but God knows.

The hope would be that Imagine are not playing this for real. But, set the legal costs against say the business benefit of maybe a year's delay, you would have to think that stalling tactics make business sense.

ussjtrunks

The problem is all rural fixed wireless ISPs are getting oversubscribed now due to people needing better speeds than what eircoms dsl can deliver and people are lucky to get around 5mb at night and thats going to get even worse. Imagine are actually the worst around my area from what I've been told and Nova are getting worse by the week as they install more users. A year of this would prob put nightime speeds at around 1mb then what are rural users meant to do just twiddle their thumbs for years or will we have to actually move to get decent broadband. Only way I can see to help in the short term is to connect fibre to each tower being used it might take a long time but itd be the short term fix thats needed desperately especially if we are going to faff around with the broadband plan for another 5 years.

Hopefully we do get it signed by the end of the year and actually get it started.