Marlow wrote: » I And all I outlined was, how detailed the submission had to be to confirm it's credibility. /M
westyIrl wrote: » I think what we're getting at Marlow is that while data has been submitted there is nothing there to verify the coverage claims so unless the DCCAE check on the ground, premises could be stated as covered by an operator where in fact they may not be covered at all.
clohamon wrote: » Are you saying that submissions on coverage were made to the department without disclosing the locations of the antennae ?
Marlow wrote: » That's often commercially sensitive data. Yes. Nor was it a requirement for the data submission. /M
“c. site coordinates and projection system”
clohamon wrote: » The “Criteria for assessment of investment plans” seem to require the following information. (page 18 - Wireless Platforms)
Nyum Nyum wrote: » This is never going to happen, is it?
The Cush wrote: » Not happening today
Gonzo wrote: » It was going to be announced at the ploughing then got moved to this week, now this week ain't happening. I doubt it will happen now before Christmas. This time around we can thank Imagine and the wisps.
Marlow wrote: » Hardly, when the state aid issue wasn't even processed through the European Commission,yet. That job hadn't been done yet .... disregardless of the last call for data ... which is part of that process. So no ... you can thank the department for not being on the ball. That's all. It was actually shovels in the ground September last year, then December, then Easter, then the ploughing and so on. This is purely the politicians announcing unreasonable and unrealistic timelines, while the department doesn't get the job done. Nothing to do with outside input. Outside input is necessary for a complete picture. /M
Gary kk wrote: » Yeah maybe we could just blame the the department. But i am pretty sure some wisp not all now just some are trying thier best to derail the project.
Gary kk wrote: » Again did you know the link shared earlier today was available.
Marlow wrote: » Even Varadkar tried to blame Imagine for the delay on this particular instance and fell pretty hefty on his nose for trying. That tells you how much the providers are at fault in this instance and how much the department and the ministers are at fault. No. That document is from 2015 on top of that and is not the document, that was used for the data submitted in this instance. Also .. the data called for was existing rollout and planned rollout. The document above is for planned rollout only. Each of them are treated differently and has to be vetted differently. The data that has put the department in trouble is the actual existing rollout, that they didn't have calculated for. /M
Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: » How are the DCCAE meant to evaluate the claims that these products meet NGA? Do they take the ISP at their word or have they some form of monitoring?
Marlow wrote: » No. That document is from 2015 on top of that and is not the document, that was used for the data submitted in this instance. Also .. the data called for was existing rollout and planned rollout. The document above is for planned rollout only. Each of them are treated differently and has to be vetted differently. The data that has put the department in trouble is the actual existing rollout, that they didn't have calculated for. /M
Marlow wrote: » I only can give insight into the portion of the data that I have seen. That portion would have been mapped using satellite data by an acknowleged consultancy, based on power levels, tech, frequency etc. and the results would have been produced in the form of premises passed based on eircodes or GPS coordinates. The same consultancy company would have produces the data for similar government calls for data in the UK and using the same principles and thus can prove a track record on it's accuracy. The data has to be accomodated by financial statements for future builds and sources of funding for such. It is afterwards up to the DCCAE to follow up on that dataset .. ... which is the current call for updates. From there on in, it is the DCCAE's responsibility to deal with the data, that they have been provided with. If they have to get an external consultant in to review the data and verify, that it is valid, then I don't see them signing the contract tomorrow. Nor do I expect them to get the EU to sign for EU aid on the project without such data. The fact is, that because of the completeness of the data, it can not be ignored. Most likely the reason for the political trying to kick the bucket on at the moment. /M
ArrBee wrote: » As others have hinted.... I still think Eir have a hand to play in this process.....
Gonzo wrote: » This may not be a popular opinion but IF OpenEir decided to just plough ahead and fill in the gaps and continue to rollout as far as they can go in rural areas, we would probably get there much quicker while the NBP continues to get kicked down the road. They have the expertise, manpower and a proven record. I doubt that will happen tho as they are now beginning their urban rollout which is a massive undertaking in itself.
user1842 wrote: » I think this currently is a very popular opinion and im no fan of Eir.
allanpkr wrote: » am i right in thinking if eir bring ftth i can then use any supplier i want for broadband?
BArra wrote: » if the NBP gets the go ahead, would Eir be allowed to suddenly decide to expand their rural rollout?
recyclebin wrote: » Why would Eir roll out further into rural parts though? They get to rent their poles for years and years under the NBP. Handy money.
ArrBee wrote: » I dont think they are mutually exclusive... If the NBP goes ahead that rental will happen regardless. If Eir then decide to expand the only loser will be NBI + Tax payer I guess.. Not Eir anyway
