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.
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.
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
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
wexfordman2 wrote: » Comreg dont regulate mast sharing
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)?
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
Gary kk wrote: » Wait the location or the number of mast is commercially sensitive? Or both?
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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
recyclebin wrote: » I know it's not directly related the the NBP but Sky have settled there case with Comreg and Eir over the 170 euro connection fee. Anyone know what the outcome was? Comreg will release details soon either way.
wexfordman2 wrote: » 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.
2.b Wireless platforms: 1. Please provide the following data in a spreadsheet on a per sector basis: a. sector ID b. site IDc. site coordinates and projection systemd. sector azimuth . . j. tower or structure height (above ground level) k. transmit antenna height (reference base of antenna) . . t. spectrum licence conditions including ComReg licence reference number
Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) I thank the Minister for outlining the nature and extent of that consultation. It is well recognised from different media reports that Imagine intends to cover approximately 234,000 premises in the intervention area. I understand Eir has already announced its intention to cover in the region of 80,000 homes in the intervention area. The Minister indicated that there have been 180 responses, but taking those two alone, we can estimate that of the order of 214,000 homes, farms and businesses will now be covered by commercial operators. The assumption must be that they would have to be excluded from the 540,000 premises already mapped. As a result of state aid rules, the Government will not be in a position to support the provision of broadband to those premises. That leaves 214,000 or so. If one divides that number into the €3 billion cost of the provision of the service, one arrives at a figure of approximately €13,000 per home. Will the Minister comment on that?Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) I will not comment on a hypothetical situation of the sort the Deputy outlined. As stated, any submission by any company - and I will not name companies - will be thoroughly evaluated. Companies will be evaluated against the criteria set out, including the need to hit the 30 Mb threshold, that they themselves are future-proofed and that they can guarantee to deliver to all those within the areas to which they lay claim high-speed broadband that is future-proofed and that will not be subject to diminution. They must also show that they have financial plans which show they are capable of delivering. Those are the criteria. I will not comment on individual applications and how they will be evaluated. That must be done properly. It will be done by the Department but the process is not yet complete.
Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: » When they ignore Imagine and the WISPs it will come down to whether either of them have the balls for legal action.
westyIrl wrote: » Or have the pockets. It would be a financial decision more than anything else and it would be just Imagine delaying the inevitable in any case. i.e. where it would cost more in legal action than profits from retained customers, they'll fold.
