NBP part II

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

I completely disagree. It's a state project, not comparable with the privately funded 300k and the schools are State entities. Do you honestly believe they are going to spend billions and leave schools on satellite broadband?

The 300k, while being a private investment, still had to get the approval of the Department of Communications at the end of the day. If they had been keen to solve these issues, then we would not have ended up with situations like this:

That's not a once off. This particular school is Killnadeema National School just outside of Loughrea. Satellite fed .. even today.

listermint wrote: »

You opened with this bit, but then quickly realised that under the NBP their budget wouldnt come into play for the connections. So added in heanet.

Your attempts of trying to misrepresent me are getting boring. I did not add Heanet. I explained, what Schools Broadband means for a better understanding of the why the NBP does not have any direct impact on the schools getting better connectivity.

There is no state entity, that is going to provide broadband on the NBP infrastructure. Heanet is not an internet provider. The Department of Education sources internet connections through the Schools Broadband Tender for educational instances. These are then managed by Heanet both budget wise, maintenance wise and firewall/IT management wise.

If a school decides to take a connection outside of that framework, they are on their own for that connection ... entirely .. budget, firewalls, equipment. And it's an issue for them.

/M

listermint

Marlow wrote: »

The 300k, while being a private investment, still had to get the approval of the Department of Communications at the end of the day. If they had been keen to solve these issues, then we would not have ended up with situations like this:

That's not a once off. This particular school is Killnadeema National School just outside of Loughrea. Satellite fed .. even today.

Your attempts of trying to misrepresent me are getting boring. I did not add Heanet. I explained, what Schools Broadband means for a better understanding of the why the NBP does not have any direct impact on the schools getting better connectivity.

There is no state entity, that is going to provide broadband on the NBP infrastructure. Heanet is not an internet provider. The Department of Education sources internet connections through the Schools Broadband Tender for educational instances. These are then managed by Heanet both budget wise, maintenance wise and firewall/IT management wise.

So yes .. under the NBP their budget VERY MUCH comes into play. Because they would have to buy the connection of a private operator, that offers service on the NBP platform. The NBP platform won't give you internet. It's a last mile network. Heanet could in theory become an operator on the NBP platform. But they have not done this on the OpenEIR nor SIRO platform either. So it is unlikely. Because the Schools Broadband Plan needs tendering.

If a school decides to take a connection outside of that framework, they are on their own for that connection ... entirely .. budget, firewalls, equipment. And it's an issue for them.

/M

Given pricing of NBP versus their current broadband connection. Which praytell would you assume is more expensive.

All things considered.

Answers on a postcard.

I didnt misrepresent. You did, under the guise that a connection to NBP would be more expensive. its simply not really feasible is it.

The Government could not mandate what premises open eir were to cover. You are conflating a commercial operation by a private entity with a State funded network build and proposing that the exact same conditions will apply. How could you possibly know what plans the Department of Education or Communications have in relation to school broadband.

listermint wrote: »

I didnt misrepresent. You did, under the guise that a connection to NBP would be more expensive. its simply not really feasible is it.

Can you point out, where I stated, that a connection under the NBP would be more expensive ?

I said, that a connection bought outside of the framework of the Schools Broadband Plan is a burden to said school. Because it is money they have to spend additionally, which they can not use state funds for. Any connection.

So, yes, a connection using the NBP bought outside of the framework of the schools broadband plan is going to be more expensive. But I didn't write that. So yes, you're trying to misrepresent me here.

I also said, that the NBP rollout won't give schools faster connections. Which is true in the sense, that they won't get these automatically. There are quite a few more political and administrative tasks to be sorted, before that happens.

And that has taken more than 3 years for some of the 300k covered schools so far, because it's awaiting a re-tender of the schools broadband plan. Which only is done every few years and then the contract is locked in again for a few years period.

/M

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

The Government could not mandate what premises open eir were to cover. You are conflating a commercial operation by a private entity with a State funded network build and proposing that the exact same conditions will apply. How could you possibly know what plans the Department of Education or Communications have in relation to school broadband.

I can't.

But I have had my dealings with the Schools Broadband Plan and I've seen the contracts made in the last round. And they can not just simply break the contract with a provider once the connection has been awarded to said provider. Not without penalties anyhow.

Goes the same for the provider. If they have downtime, they get penalties for that.

Changing provider for a school requires a re-tender. Fact. And then it's locked in again for years.

The schools broadband plan requires a completely different SLA to a residential connection.

/M

Marlow wrote: »

I can't.

But I have had my dealings with the Schools Broadband Plan and I've seen the contracts made in the last round. And they can not just simply break the contract with a provider once the connection has been awarded to said provider. Not without penalties anyhow.

Goes the same for the provider. If they have downtime, they get penalties for that.

Changing provider for a school requires a re-tender. Fact. And then it's locked in again for years.

The schools broadband plan requires a completely different SLA to a residential connection.

/M

Who are the larger providers of school broadband in rural areas?

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Who are the larger providers of school broadband in rural areas?

Last Mile had a large chunk of them. That's now Ripplecom.

Digiweb may have been who originally were providing the satellite ones, but it could have been a different entity in the group, so might not qualify for a change of media.

Eir retail would be providing a lot of NGN circuits for schools in rural areas. But it's unlikely they're going to sell on the NBP platform. They're not selling on the SIRO platform either.

Airspeed would have provided a lot of fixed wireless connections to rural schools. They are an OpenEIR wholesale partner, but they're not a SIRO wholesale partner. They may (or may not) be providing on the NBP platform later.

Just a few of the top of my head.

So you can see, that it can quickly become difficult there, unless the whole tender is revised and redone.

/M

listermint

Marlow wrote: »

Last Mile had a large chunk of them. That's now Ripplecom. And I believe Ripplecom also had a lot themselves on the other parts of their network.

Digiweb may have been who originally were providing the satellite ones, but it could have been a different entity in the group, so might not qualify for a change of media.

Eir retail would be providing a lot of NGN circuits for schools in rural areas. But it's unlikely they're going to sell on the NBP platform. They're not selling on the SIRO platform either.

Airspeed would have provided a lot of fixed wireless connections to rural schools. They are an OpenEIR wholesale partner, but they're not a SIRO wholesale partner. They may (or may not) be providing on the NBP platform later.

Just a few of the top of my head. A few regional providers would also have been awarded schools.

So you can see, that it can quickly become difficult there, unless the whole tender is revised and redone.

/M

Which we can agree would be done under NBP. The level playing field would be there as such the options available to the department would be less crowded.

One would assume the department would only love to have all schools under NBP because we can both agree the cost would be cheaper and the average speed would blatantly be much higher for all of these locations.

Therefore as i suspect budget would not be a stumbling block.

listermint wrote: »

Which we can agree would be done under NBP. The level playing field would be there as such the options available to the department would be less crowded.

No it won't. The schools broadband plan has nothing to do the with NBP. The build of the NBP does not trigger a re-tender. It is not even coordinated.

The schools broadband plan gets re-tendered with whatever is available at the time of the tender and then the schools are stuck with that for 5+ years.

- If the tender gets renegotiated too early, the schools will miss out on the NBP.
- If it gets renegotiated after the NBP is on the way, it'll be another 3-5 years before these schools get these upgrades.

And all of above also depends on the level of detail and timelines the department of communications is requiring NBI to give the providers on it's network.

Here's the culprit: if NBI gives a provider a timeline and it gets dragged out by 6-12 months like what OpenEIR did with some of the 300k rollout, but the provider has now committed to deliver said connection using the NBP within those 6-12 months of NBI not delivering, then the provider is penalized with fines. To the point, that it becomes unviable for them to provide the connection in the first place or worse.

So any provider, who partakes in the tender for the schools broadband, will only offer what is available to them at the time of the tender. End off. And that is what said school will be provided with for 3 or 5 years plus depending on the tender requirement.

So the benefit of the NBP being build will not be available to schools for at least another 5-10 years at least. Realistically. It may take 2 schools broadband tenders, before it makes an impact.

listermint wrote: »

Therefore as i suspect budget would not be a stumbling block.

Suspicions and assumptions are no good, when it comes to government tenders. Because once the contract is signed, there is no renegotiation for the duration of the contract. Same applies to the NBP.

/M

listermint wrote: »

One would assume the department would only love to have all schools under NBP because we can both agree the cost would be cheaper and the average speed would blatantly be much higher for all of these locations.

If life was that simple, the NBP would have been signed off in 2014. It is not.

The Schools Broadband Contract is not only about speed. It is also about uptime (providers are fined for each day of off time). And a lot of other requirements.

And it also makes massive requirements to the providers who tender for this. A provider can for example only tender for this, if they can produce 3 years of financial records submitted to the CRO. So a provider in operation less than 3 years can not partake, unless they have a partner, who is.

Because of the above, the price for a schools broadband connection is also not gauged by retail market pricing.

/M

BandMember

Marlow wrote: »

Last Mile had a large chunk of them. That's now Ripplecom. And I believe Ripplecom also had a lot themselves on the other parts of their network.

Digiweb may have been who originally were providing the satellite ones, but it could have been a different entity in the group, so might not qualify for a change of media.

Eir retail would be providing a lot of NGN circuits for schools in rural areas. But it's unlikely they're going to sell on the NBP platform. They're not selling on the SIRO platform either.

Airspeed would have provided a lot of fixed wireless connections to rural schools. They are an OpenEIR wholesale partner, but they're not a SIRO wholesale partner. They may (or may not) be providing on the NBP platform later.

Just a few of the top of my head. A few regional providers would also have been awarded schools.

So you can see, that it can quickly become difficult there, unless the whole tender is revised and redone.

/M

So, the process is a mess for schools yet you would have no problem with the NBP going down the same route (as you have been constantly posting about)? That's not the first time lately that you've had hypocritical standards or changed the goalposts when it suited you or you were called out on something.....

BarryM

Boring.....,

When will some sort of contract for some sort of data networking be signed by the Gov., and when will some sort of service start and for whom?

That is the ONLY question worth discussing.

listermint

Marlow wrote: »

If life was that simple, the NBP would have been signed off in 2014. It is not.

The Schools Broadband Contract is not only about speed. It is also about uptime (providers are fined for each day of off time). And a lot of other requirements.

And it also makes massive requirements to the providers who tender for this. A provider can for example only tender for this, if they can produce 3 years of financial records submitted to the CRO. So a provider in operation less than 3 years can not partake, unless they have a partner, who is.

Because of the above, the price for a schools broadband connection is also not gauged by retail market pricing.

/M

Contracts are bought out and let run to their fullness all the time where the government are concerned.

I dont see schools waiting 10 years on a 30mb connection where a +300 connection is made availalbe. this wouldnt really fly politically.

Do you concur ? or are you stuck on this locked in contract scenario. Im fully versed in RFPs for government contracts, thanks though.

Fact
The cisco routers in Primary schools peak out at around 25Mb/s - no matter what is going in
They are slowly replacing these with Junipers which can deal with speeds above this - but this is an "ask and you may receive" case by case situation.
I am aware of FTTH schools on the operneir system, with 150 going in and 25 out because of this cisco router situation.

The data for the individual schools have been released. Marlow's example above is on 12/10 Mb/s. Not the worst by a long way.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7VtVp/1/

Map:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UosmE/1/

This data is inaccurate - it is based on the original tender - not actual speeds

As an example - I know for a FACT that the school below has 150Mb/s FTTH with a 50Mb/s FWA backup

Cnoc An Teampaill Knocktemple, Virginia Cavan

Yet, this table says it has 9 Meg !!

kazoo106 wrote: »

This data is inaccurate - it is based on the original tender - not actual speeds

As an example - I know for a FACT that the school below has 150Mb/s FTTH with a 50Mb/s FWA backup

Cnoc An Teampaill Knocktemple, Virginia Cavan

Yet, this table says it has 9 Meg !!

Take it up with the Department and the journalist who released it.

https://www.twitter.com/seanmccarthaigh

kazoo106 wrote: »

This data is inaccurate - it is based on the original tender - not actual speeds

As an example - I know for a FACT that the school below has 150Mb/s FTTH with a 50Mb/s FWA backup

Cnoc An Teampaill Knocktemple, Virginia Cavan

Yet, this table says it has 9 Meg !!

How did that school get a FTTH connection when it appears some others that are passed cannot?

clohamon

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

How did that school get a FTTH connection when it appears some others that are passed cannot?

Munterconnaught won the FTTH competition. Seems Knocktemple were driving it.

https://fibrerollout.ie/eir-announces-fibre-home-ftth-broadband-competition-winner/

clohamon wrote: »

Munterconnaught won the FTTH competition. Seems Knocktemple were driving it.

https://fibrerollout.ie/eir-announces-fibre-home-ftth-broadband-competition-winner/

But what about all these contractual issues that Marlow talks about?

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

But what about all these contractual issues that Marlow talks about?

They may still be paying for the original schools broadband connection. Penalties go both ways.

On the other hand if the original contract also was with Eir, then it would have been possible to fix this. Maybe. As i pointed out previously .. it really depends on who was awarded the contract.

/M

The data is out of date
This school was issed a new router from department (juniper)
I know -- I connected it up ! - and dont work for eir !

Marlow wrote: »

They may still be paying for the original schools broadband connection. Penalties go both ways.

On the other hand if the original contract also was with Eir, then it would have been possible to fix this. Maybe. As i pointed out previously .. it really depends on who was awarded the contract.

/M

Highly unlikely the previous contract was with eir. I suspect kazoo knows the answer.

kazoo106 wrote: »

The data is out of date
This school was issed a new router from department and all
I know -- I connected it up !

Who was previously supplying the connection before fibre was installed?

I'm not going to reveal that in a public forum apart from saying its the same ISP, my only beef is that this data is out of date and seems to refer to the original contract, probably going back to 2013 or 2014.
A lot has changed since then, speedwise

kazoo106 wrote: »

I'm not going to reveal that in a public forum apart from saying its the same ISP, my only beef is that this data is out of date and seems to refer to the original contract, probably going back to 2013 or 2014.
A lot has changed since then, speedwise

It seems the journalist had a huge battle to get the data in the first place but I'm surprised they released data that paints the situation in an even worse light than reality.

clohamon

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

But what about all these contractual issues that Marlow talks about?

Previous framework contract includes those below but has a contract end of 08/08/2017. As I understand it, low speed installations only receive one year contract extensions.

Adelphi Net 1 Ltd
Airspeed Ltd
DigitalForge Ltd
EOBO Limited t/a BBnet
Ivertec Ltd
Lighthouse Networks Ltd
Magnet Ltd
Openeir Ltd
PermaNet Ltd
Regional Telecom Ltd
Ripplecom Ltd
Viatel Ltd
Virgin Media Ireland LTd
WestNet Ltd
https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/194953

clohamon wrote: »

Previous framework contract includes those below but has a contract end of 08/08/2017. As I understand it, low speed installations only receive one year contract extensions.

Adelphi Net 1 Ltd
Airspeed Ltd
DigitalForge Ltd
EOBO Limited t/a BBnet
Ivertec Ltd
Lighthouse Networks Ltd
Magnet Ltd
Openeir Ltd
PermaNet Ltd
Regional Telecom Ltd
Ripplecom Ltd
Viatel Ltd
Virgin Media Ireland LTd
WestNet Ltd
https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/194953

Thanks. I was looking for that earlier and could not find it!