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

wexfordman2

Marlow wrote: »

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

With regards the unlicensed spectrum and registration, i should have elaborated, it had specific criteria which would exclude consumer type devices, I am sure you are aware of this stuff Marlow.

https://www.comreg.ie/industry/licensing/5-8-ghz-registration/

With regards a process, it's there, its success or otherwise, I have no clue, I am simply outlining what I know of with regard to registration of "masts" and the regulators awareness of them, so to clarify.

1) comreg are provided with all details of commercial sites with equipment using licensed spectrum, be it mobile or fixed wireless.
2) There is a process and a requirement for submission of non licenced sites which are used for commercial networks

Based on both of the above, there is pretty much a fairly solid database within comreg of all "masts", and most mobile operators have fairly conclusive lists of not just their own, but their competitors sites.

This info is easily available to those in the industry, although no doubt there are a number of wisp sites that are not registered, either with comreg or indeed planning authorities, few and far between I would suggest.

9726_9726

Marlow wrote: »

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

They should be called ComRev, in truth!

ArrBee

Marlow wrote: »

Does not work that way. It would mean that Comreg actually would have to do some work that does not necessarily return revenue.

They have no interest in that.

Comreg does not exist to regulate. They exist to get additional revenue into the exchequer.

/M

I fecking knew it!!!

Regulation of communications really does seem to be in name only.

Marlow

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Un licenced equipment (eg 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz) as far as I am aware is "supposed" to be registered with comreg detailing site location and equipment type, but not sure how well this is enforced.

No. 5.8 GHz PtP links are supposed to be detailed to Comreg, but this is not enforced.

There is no process for other license free infrastructure like 2.4 GHz and 5.1 GHz to 5.7 GHz to be registered nor is there a requirement. If there was such a process, every wireless router, bluetooth device, baby monitor, video sender, cattle cam and alarm system would have to registered with them. They have no interest in regulating license free areas. It does not generate revenue.

The extend of the registration of a provider operating in these is, that Comreg are told what counties the operator is active in and what bands.

/M

wexfordman2

Pique wrote: »

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

Well, from the perspective of licenced commercial services yes comreg know via several means.

1) licenced point to point links identify both end points.
2) All mobile operators submit detailed network information to comreg on a regular basis including site location and design information (bands, technologies, antenna types,.heights azimiths etc).

Mobile operators do share a huge amount of information between each other also, in some cases.pretty.much their entire access network information to facilitate sharing.

Un licenced equipment (eg 2.4ghz and 5.8ghz) as far as I am aware is "supposed" to be registered with comreg detailing site location and equipment type, but not sure how well this is enforced.

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I never admitted anything ...... I made statements of my opinion.
I made statements of facts.
Trying to colour things by the inappropriate words you use is more silliness.

I stated it CAN be done technically.
I stated an opinion it would not be done due to commercial concerns.

You need to learn more about the true meaning of the words you read.

As regards your silly questioning about 'pedantic' ....... maybe you are unaware you are in a technical forum and details matter ....... matter a lot.
actually

This is not facebook!

But really this all started with your completely erroneous statement about the tender

I am finished with your silliness.

this is a technical forum . i beg your pardon, when did you choose it to be so. this is a forum for anyone interested in the progress and tech of nbp or anything else about nbp. you just showed in that last comment you position yourself on high. try some commonsense in their with that attitude.

sctually i finjished with your total attitude that you feel you have to be right. even when your not .you kept saying they vcan pure nonsense they dont therefore they cant get off yor highhorse and relax. technolgy means nothing if they cant , whatever reason yes you was pandantic . get over yourself .end of discussion .

The Cush

Minister for Communications up for priority PQs in the Dáil at 1030 this morning, a few questions on the paper relating to the NBP.

The Cush

In the Dáil on Tuesday

Deputy Micheál Martin: My question relates to the national broadband plan. Imagine has said that it can service up to 45% of the national broadband map. The Taoiseach stated last week that Imagine was causing a delay or that its challenge to the Government's map had caused a delay in respect of the plans relating to broadband. He also stated that objections or observations had been lodged with the commission in respect of state aid issues. I am curious as to the timeline of the roll-out of broadband. Can the Taoiseach indicate, in terms of the delay that he has indicated is there, what is the likely timeline for Europe to rule on or resolve these issues?

Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Deputy Richard Bruton): The position is that as part of the process we reopened the map to allow people to make submissions, as we are required to do under state aid procedures. When we opened the map there was a request by several bodies to extend the time. We extended the time by five weeks to 30 September. We are now in the process of examining the submissions that have been made. The next step will be to complete the due diligence that covers legal and contractual matters and so on and to ensure that we are good to go ahead with the process and complete state aid as well. That mapping exercise will be a part of the procedure relating to state aid. We are continuing to push on and we are seeking to complete this as quickly as possible. As the Taoiseach stated, the intention is to have this completed before Christmas.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-10-15/speech/40/

Marlow

Oh .. and here is the even funnier thing:

Comreg only does not know about a site, if it is purely utilizing license free spectrum or cabled connectivity for backhaul and then license free spectrum for distribution.

So if a site is fed with a licensed PtP link they know about it.

But this data does not get consolidated and published. They just ignore it. All they care about is the money they make of these links.

So they could... if they wanted .. actually map a lot of these sites. But they don't want to do it, because it does not generate more revenue for them. So the data is not available.

/M

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

That's nucking futs. COMREG, the REGulator, doesn't require registration of the COMmunication transmitters? Insane.

Comreg wouldn't have to 'build up a relationship' with anyone if it were made law, which it should be already, and I'm amazed it's not.

Does not work that way. It would mean that Comreg actually would have to do some work that does not necessarily return revenue.

They have no interest in that.

Comreg does not exist to regulate. They exist to get additional revenue into the exchequer.

/M

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Wait the location or the number of mast is commercially sensitive? Or both?

You be amazed what sort of data is considered commercially sensitive by some operators. Some won't even show a coverage map on their website. I have even seen providers that require you to ring them to get complete pricing .... oh wait .. Sky won't give you the full picture unless you ring and ask.

/M

Pique

Commercially sensitive is a bit of a lame excuse. It could be gotten by crowd-sourcing (hundreds of people across the country asking for wireless internet access and asking where the transmitter is in relation to their house, like I know where 2 masts for 2 WISPS are from talking to their CS people).

Regardless, the thing I was getting at was it is no problem for a WISP to install a transmitter, be it on a mast or a high building, without seeking permission, approval or even registration of the mast with ComReg.

That's nucking futs. COMREG, the REGulator, doesn't require registration of the COMmunication transmitters? Insane.

Comreg wouldn't have to 'build up a relationship' with anyone if it were made law, which it should be already, and I'm amazed it's not.

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

No. That data is commercially sensitive and not shared by providers. The only data that was made mandatory to feed back was masts with mobile / cell infrastructure, which is why the map of those masts exists.

Comreg and the Department would literally have to engage and build up a relation with the providers to get to a point to get that data. Something that is never going to happen, as long as they keep buttering them under.

/M

Wait the location or the number of mast is commercially sensitive? Or both?

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

No. That data is commercially sensitive and not shared by providers. The only data that was made mandatory to feed back was masts with mobile / cell infrastructure, which is why the map of those masts exists.

Comreg and the Department would literally have to engage and build up a relation with the providers to get to a point to get that data. Something that is never going to happen, as long as they keep buttering them under.

/M

Pique

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Comreg dont regulate mast sharing

That's what surprised me. Does anyone know exactly where and how many masts/transmitters exist in Ireland for commercial usage (ie, not private P2P links)?

wexfordman2

Marlow wrote: »

No. The only ones mandatory for them to keep records of are the masts used by mobile operators. And that's just for the purpose of regulating mast sharing.

/M

Comreg dont regulate mast sharing

ArrBee

Marlow wrote: »

There is matter of fact 1.7M on VDSL also, which are excluded from the NBP and may not have other options. OpenEIR is replacing approx of 1.3M of those with FTTH in the next few years, but that wasn't on the cards beforehand and only came to light very recently. (1.4M in the IFN, but of those 80+k are NBP premises)

Those also have to considered in the bigger picture. So there are plenty of households, who won't see the 1 Gbit/s threshould any time soon. Hemce why the 1 Gbit/s threshould is more a nice to have opposed to a must.

/M

I don't agree on both counts.

1. houses that were always outside the intervention area are governed by the market with the assumption that even though they only have decent internet today the expectation is that it will be viable to upgrade over time (as it was viable to supply in the 1st instance)
Also, it may be found that in 10years if there is an unwillingness to connect the .4million homes "left out" by your calculation above then there could be some leveraging of the NBP Network in the future. they wont be left behind.

2. For the NBP area I see a 1Gb threshold as more than a nice to have. We dont need it today, but it wont be long before we do. It needs to be built with this in mind.
To build an infrastructure that is not capable of upgrading to 1Gb in the near future will mean we will be back here for NBP2 far too soon to for the original investment to represent value.

I do get that if there was better core infrastructure or pricing models in place, WISPs might have filled the void to an acceptable level by todays standards and there wouldn't need to be an intervention.
I also get that the problem of todays internet needs can be solved using wireless technology.
But for the life of me, I can't see how that would scale up without becoming more costly and risky than building a fibre network.

ArrBee

clohamon wrote: »

Not exclusively fibre - sadly.

Some of Eircom's 300K is delivered with eVDSL, ie all copper. IIRC there was no cap on the percentage of eVDSL - though it was low, c.3k premises.

Wow, that is interesting!
And I can see why it could complicate things...

Marlow

clohamon wrote: »

Some of Eircom's 300K is delivered with eVDSL, ie all copper. IIRC there was no cap on the percentage of eVDSL - though it was low, c.3k premises.

There is matter of fact 1.7M on VDSL also, which are excluded from the NBP and may not have other options. OpenEIR is replacing approx of 1.3M of those with FTTH in the next few years, but that wasn't on the cards beforehand and only came to light very recently. (1.4M in the IFN, but of those 80+k are NBP premises)

Those also have to considered in the bigger picture. So there are plenty of households, who won't see the 1 Gbit/s threshould any time soon. Hemce why the 1 Gbit/s threshould is more a nice to have opposed to a must.

/M

clohamon

ArrBee wrote: »

Wasn't the requirement to change the map in 2015 essentially a commitment by Eir to run fibre (which has a 1Gb option) to each of the homes within a certain time frame?

Not exclusively fibre - sadly.

Some of Eircom's 300K is delivered with eVDSL, ie all copper. IIRC there was no cap on the percentage of eVDSL - though it was low, c.3k premises.

The NBP was/is technologically neutral. It was only because the sole wireless applicant, Imagine, failed the pre-qualification questionnaire on financial grounds* that there were only fibre bidders remaining.

*There were rumours that Imagine couldn't meet the reliability criteria also, particularly on the uplink.

ArrBee

clohamon wrote: »

There's ambiguity concerning the requirements to change the map in 2015, vs. the requirements for the State intervention in 2019.

It's possible that the WISPS have received legal advice that they still only need to be capable of delivering 30Mb/s-down, 6Mb/s-up (and 50ms latency) to force the map to be changed. That seemed to be Marcus Matthew's view at the Comms Committee.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

The bigger issue might be whether a service on unlicensed spectrum qualifies to change the map, and if not, whether WISPS are/were entitled to special treatment from ComReg (i.e. reserved spectrum)

Wasn't the requirement to change the map in 2015 essentially a commitment by Eir to run fibre (which has a 1Gb option) to each of the homes within a certain time frame?

clohamon

ArrBee wrote: »

Not only that, but it was put forward in this thread that there is a requirement (perhaps it is an EU requirement rather than a documented requirement in the tender docs??) that by 2025 the network can provide 150Mb/s but upgradable to 1Gb/s
Everyone keeps talking about the 150Mb by 2025 while ignoring the harder to reach requirement that it be upgradable to 1Gb.

To deliver 1Gb wirelessly would mean even greater infrastructure costs.

There's ambiguity concerning the requirements to change the map in 2015, vs. the requirements for the State intervention in 2019.

It's possible that the WISPS have received legal advice that they still only need to be capable of delivering 30Mb/s-down, 6Mb/s-up (and 50ms latency) to force the map to be changed. That seemed to be Marcus Matthew's view at the Comms Committee.

RISPA Opening Statement
RISPA has serious concerns about the NBP. Regarding the accuracy of the intervention area, a recurring issue throughout the NBP's procurement process has been the mapping of premises that do not have access to a minimum 30 Mbps broadband service.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

Mr. Marcus Matthews: The crux of it is that it [the technology] already meets the quality of service criteria specification.
Senator Joe O'Reilly: In that technical sense, in that instance.
Mr. Marcus Matthews: But that is what matters here.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_communications_climate_action_and_environment/2019-07-16/2/

The bigger issue might be whether a service on unlicensed spectrum qualifies to change the map, and if not, whether WISPS are/were entitled to special treatment from ComReg (i.e. reserved spectrum)

Johnboy1951

allanpkr wrote: »

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited ,humans race can do almost anything if cost wasnt an issue. but cost has to be an issue in everything . life is all about balance. now before all the cronies lol jump out the woodwork, iv already stated in a very early post i think 2.6 billion is good value for whole of ireland to be ftth and its future income for revenue.
again i say, if you say 150mb/s is obtainable by wisps at peak . Then why are customers not getting what they pay for?
no good just keep saying they can. they cant cause they would need 100,s of more masts which i said originally.
just accept your point was pandantic, in every possible way that word means.
did you look it up.??

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited

I never admitted anything ...... I made statements of my opinion.
I made statements of facts.
Trying to colour things by the inappropriate words you use is more silliness.

I stated it CAN be done technically.
I stated an opinion it would not be done due to commercial concerns.

You need to learn more about the true meaning of the words you read.

As regards your silly questioning about 'pedantic' ....... maybe you are unaware you are in a technical forum and details matter ....... matter a lot.

This is not facebook!

But really this all started with your completely erroneous statement about the tender

It specifies requirements that can only be delivered by FTTH.

I am finished with your silliness.

The high horse brigade

allanpkr wrote: »

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

No they didn't, they changed you over to 5Ghz, not 5G.

tsue921i8wljb3

allanpkr wrote: »

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

They were probably switching you to 5GHz from 2.4GHz which are both frequencies that many WISPs use to deliver their service. In fact they are the same frequencies used by WiFi. It has nothing to do with 5G which is a technology, not a frequency.

allanpkr

tototoe wrote: »

How many masts are required for fixed wireless? Considering its completely different to 5g and can work on much longer distances, and the needs loads of masts thing is related to 5G more than fixed wireless?

could you explain to me something?, about a yr ago maybe more. westnet came to my house saying they were changing over to 5g, they proceeded to take down old receiver and put up different one.i am far from mast and my signal dropped to a very poor level,. engineers said tree was in way .i complained to westnet about signal and they must have boosted it to my receiver. no complaints about westnet at all.
lol finally my question..on here people are talking as if 5g isnt here yet. so im confused. what am i not understanding.

allanpkr

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

None of the present behaviour of the wisps is technically relevant, because the NBP tender is about what can be done, is proposed to be done, and not what is being done.

You did not say they couldn't? Maybe you forgot you posted this ...

Just accept the correction and move on.

you admitted they cant by saying cost would be prohibited ,humans race can do almost anything if cost wasnt an issue. but cost has to be an issue in everything . life is all about balance. now before all the cronies lol jump out the woodwork, iv already stated in a very early post i think 2.6 billion is good value for whole of ireland to be ftth and its future income for revenue.
again i say, if you say 150mb/s is obtainable by wisps at peak . Then why are customers not getting what they pay for?
no good just keep saying they can. they cant cause they would need 100,s of more masts which i said originally.
just accept your point was pandantic, in every possible way that word means.
did you look it up.??

Marlow

Pique wrote: »

Good job ComReg. Isn't that one of the things they 'should' have a record of? I thought every commercial mast/transmitter would have to be registered with them.

No. The only ones mandatory for them to keep records of are the masts used by mobile operators. And that's just for the purpose of regulating mast sharing.

/M

Johnboy1951

purpleisafruit wrote: »

The other issue wireless will have is the anti-5G brigade with their nonsensical conspiracy theories affecting public policy in some cases
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/councillors-vote-to-oppose-5g-38575062.html

For me the main point of that was

therefore it opposes the roll-out of unregulated 5G in the County

Other than that it read like the usual nonsense one expects from such bodies

The high horse brigade

Pique wrote: »

Good job ComReg. Isn't that one of the things they 'should' have a record of? I thought every commercial mast/transmitter would have to be registered with them.

What? You think Comreg should focus on regulating and not on making money?