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

Gonzo

BArra wrote: »

if the NBP gets the go ahead, would Eir be allowed to suddenly decide to expand their rural rollout?

They are a commercial company and nobody can really stop them putting fibre on their own poles wherever they want.

irishfeen

Imagine if Eir decided to increase their FTTH network by another 2km in from point they stopped .. how many of the houses would they take out the NBP? Would surely be very significant

tsue921i8wljb3

Not wishing to re-start any arguments but last night I implied Marlow was involved in the claim by ISPs of premises in the intervention area. Marlow assures me this is not the case so I, unreservedly, apologise for my comments and withdraw them.

ctlsleh

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Not wishing to re-start any arguments but last night I implied Marlow was involved in the claim by ISPs of premises in the intervention area. Marlow assures me this is not the case so I, unreservedly, apologise for my comments and withdraw them.

Fair play......in my opinion Marlow provides really good insight on this forum and has always been considered, reasonable, fair and on the side of the subscriber throughout

user1842

ctlsleh wrote: »

Fair play......in my opinion Marlow provides really good insight on this forum and has always been considered, reasonable, fair and on the side of the subscriber throughout

I have been part of this thread from the start and fully agree with this comment.

KOR101

At the time the pole rental was set at €20 it was never envisaged that there would be wholesale use of the poles. Comreg will have to revisit this if the contract is signed and commission a new economic analysis.

The Cush

KOR101 wrote: »

At the time the pole rental was set at €20 it was never envisaged that there would be wholesale use of the poles. Comreg will have to revisit this if the contract is signed and commission a new economic analysis.

Why would they have to, GMC would have submitted their bid based on the current shared regulated access price to poles, ducts etc.?

user1842

So if the contract is signed will the GMC have to wait until EIR replace all the ageing/broken telephone poles in the country?

Im sure EIR will not be in any hurry to do this and thus the roll-out will take a lot longer.

The Cush

user1842 wrote: »

So if the contract is signed will the GMC have to wait until EIR replace all the ageing/broken telephone poles in the country?

Im sure EIR will not be in any hurry to do this and thus the roll-out will take a lot longer.

All defective poles in my area were replaced a few years ago, including those beyond eir's 300k rollout, most were replaced before fibre was rolled out but a good number of old ivy clad poles had fibre strung along them before replacement.

Grab All Association

There’s a pole outside Borrisoleigh that split in two at the start of the year. Despite reporting it to them a number of times, still not replaced. The fibre is keeping it hitting the ground. Old telegraph pole. None of the poles were replaced.

ArrBee

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

It would cut into the rental as it is calculated on the amount of cables per pole. However I think we have seen from their intervention where they claimed that they could complete the project for less than NBI, that the rental money is not that important to them. I'm not even sure that they make that much on it.

How do you mean per cable, and what constitutes a cable in this case?
Like per strand or outer cable?

My point was that if the NBP goes ahead, I am guessing the map will be locked in and be built towards.
An operator (such as Eir) coming in and increase their network inside of the intervention area would not change the build plan hence the NBI cable will still run everywhere it was destined to at the start and the rental will be the same.
Sure, there will be these "compensation payments" what are in the contract for having another provider poaching houses during the build, but I don't see how the build project can be so dynamic that it changes the rental on poles based on competitor build outs.

If I have the above correct, then I'd also be interested to know if NBI will be allowed to compete in areas that are intervention areas at the start of the build but become serviced commercially before NBI get there.???

Hopefully for the sake of the "process" once the IA is locked down and contracts are signed, the NBP can not shrink.

Marlow

Grab All Association wrote: »

There’s a pole outside Borrisoleigh that split in two at the start of the year. Despite reporting it to them a number of times, still not replaced. The fibre is keeping it hitting the ground. Old telegraph pole. None of the poles were replaced.

Did you report that to Eir Dangerous Plant at 1850 245 424 ?

Anyone can do that and it's the only way it might get fixed.

/M

KOR101

The Cush wrote: »

Why would they have to, GMC would have submitted their bid based on the current shared regulated access price to poles, ducts etc.?

I wonder whether the contract allows for changes in that. I can see why GMC might not care, but the taxpayer does care.

Pique

A pole fell on my road a couple of years back and I rang my phone company (Digiweb at the time) who contacted Eir and it was replaced in a couple of weeks. The line was intact and the neighbour pushed the pole into the ditch off the road using his tractor.

tsue921i8wljb3

ArrBee wrote: »

How do you mean per cable, and what constitutes a cable in this case?
Like per strand or outer cable?

My point was that if the NBP goes ahead, I am guessing the map will be locked in and be built towards.
An operator (such as Eir) coming in and increase their network inside of the intervention area would not change the build plan hence the NBI cable will still run everywhere it was destined to at the start and the rental will be the same.
Sure, there will be these "compensation payments" what are in the contract for having another provider poaching houses during the build, but I don't see how the build project can be so dynamic that it changes the rental on poles based on competitor build outs.

If I have the above correct, then I'd also be interested to know if NBI will be allowed to compete in areas that are intervention areas at the start of the build but become serviced commercially before NBI get there.???

Hopefully for the sake of the "process" once the IA is locked down and contracts are signed, the NBP can not shrink.

The outer cable. So if there is an NBI fibre cable on the pole plus an open eir copper cable the pole rental cost is 50% each. If open eir then add their fibre cable they pay 66% of rental etc. Any savings made by NBI in build costs will be subject to claw back mechanisms for the Government.

As to your second point I assume once the intervention area is locked down, which this recent mapping consultation was meant to achieve, NBI would intend passing all of those premises no matter what. I don't believe the IA can shrink. Obviously open eir could still build in some of those areas but there has been no indication that they will.

tsue921i8wljb3

KOR101 wrote: »

I wonder whether the contract allows for changes in that. I can see why GMC might not care, but the taxpayer does care.

They have already received a "substantial" discount on the 1.2m poles according to DCCAE officials. As above any savings brought about over the life of the contract will be subject to strict claw back mechanisms. So, in the event that Comreg slash the pole access price the taxpayer would save.

ArrBee

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

The outer cable. So if there is an NBI fibre cable on the pole plus an open eir copper cable the pole rental cost is 50% each. If open eir then add their fibre cable they pay 66% of rental etc. Any savings made by NBI in build costs will be subject to claw back mechanisms for the Government.

As to your second point I assume once the intervention area is locked down, which this recent mapping consultation was meant to achieve, NBI would intend passing all of those premises no matter what. I don't believe the IA can shrink. Obviously open eir could still build in some of those areas but there has been no indication that they will.

OK, I get you now.
They would have to weigh up the loss in pole rental vs the lose of revenue from connection fees they would be allowed to charge every time a customer changes provider.

I wonder if Eir will offer services on NBI infrastructure....?

tsue921i8wljb3

ArrBee wrote: »

OK, I get you now.
They would have to weigh up the loss in pole rental vs the lose of revenue from connection fees they would be allowed to charge every time a customer changes provider.

I wonder if Eir will offer services on NBI infrastructure....?

If they don't extend their own build I believe they definitely will. They could hardly ignore 540000 potential customers.

ArrBee

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

If they don't extend their own build I believe they definitely will. They could hardly ignore 540000 potential customers.

LOL.... Some would say they are already ignoring their existing customers... :P

allanpkr

if i do get fibre outside my house , id laugh out loud if eir came touting as it was them that stopped at one end of my road and also stopped at other end , leaving 5 homes without fibre.

KOR101

Dáil debates
Tuesday, 12 November 2019

Brendan Howlin

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Bruton, has been forced yet again to deny that there has been another delay to the national broadband plan. Last week, I reminded the House that a private operator, Imagine, had warned as early as February, before the Government signed off on the plan, that this could lead to difficulties with EU state aid approval. It has now emerged that the Regional Internet Service Providers Association, the industry body which represents smaller rural wireless operators, is also considering taking a legal challenge to the plan on state aid grounds. There is real uncertainty now at the 11th hour.

Can the Taoiseach clarify if the current delay is due to the objection to the Government's application of EU state aid rules and, if so, what is the potential cost to the taxpayer if this challenge is successful? Can the preferred bidder, Granahan McCourt, apply for additional compensation from Government for encroachment by other operators of high-speed broadband before deployment of the plan?

Leo Varadkar

This matter is with the European Commission at the moment. The Commission is assessing our submission in favour of state aid being granted for this project and any other observations that are made by any third parties on whose behalf I cannot speak. That is being assessed by the European Commission as we speak and we will, hopefully, have a positive announcement with regard to state aid clearance in the next couple of weeks.

It is, of course, open to anyone to take a legal challenge and that is why I counsel people who think that an alternative to the national broadband plan could be done less expensively and more quickly. This process has taken a long time. It was a detailed procurement process that was open to challenge all the way. We should not be under any illusions that if we do not go ahead with the national broadband plan, it will mean going back to square one, which will delay this project by three to five years.

allanpkr

KOR101 wrote: »

Dáil debates
Tuesday, 12 November 2019

Brendan Howlin

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Bruton, has been forced yet again to deny that there has been another delay to the national broadband plan. Last week, I reminded the House that a private operator, Imagine, had warned as early as February, before the Government signed off on the plan, that this could lead to difficulties with EU state aid approval. It has now emerged that the Regional Internet Service Providers Association, the industry body which represents smaller rural wireless operators, is also considering taking a legal challenge to the plan on state aid grounds. There is real uncertainty now at the 11th hour.

Can the Taoiseach clarify if the current delay is due to the objection to the Government's application of EU state aid rules and, if so, what is the potential cost to the taxpayer if this challenge is successful? Can the preferred bidder, Granahan McCourt, apply for additional compensation from Government for encroachment by other operators of high-speed broadband before deployment of the plan?

Leo Varadkar

This matter is with the European Commission at the moment. The Commission is assessing our submission in favour of state aid being granted for this project and any other observations that are made by any third parties on whose behalf I cannot speak. That is being assessed by the European Commission as we speak and we will, hopefully, have a positive announcement with regard to state aid clearance in the next couple of weeks.

It is, of course, open to anyone to take a legal challenge and that is why I counsel people who think that an alternative to the national broadband plan could be done less expensively and more quickly. This process has taken a long time. It was a detailed procurement process that was open to challenge all the way. We should not be under any illusions that if we do not go ahead with the national broadband plan, it will mean going back to square one, which will delay this project by three to five years.

in my opinion this is good, let the process be above board and clear. if after all due diligence the eu pass state aid, i dont see any legal process that rispa and imagine would consider anything but a costly waste of money.

clohamon

allanpkr wrote: »

in my opinion this is good, let the process be above board and clear. if after all due diligence the eu pass state aid, i dont see any legal process that rispa and imagine would consider anything but a costly waste of money.

As I understand it, the challenge is in the nature of a submission to the European Commission.

More than likely that the Commission will try and deal with the submission before approving the NBP, as the Department will have agreed not to proceed without approval.

If the NBP is approved, the challenger could still try to raise a formal complaint with the Commission, which is unlikely to be opened as the facts would already have been considered in the earlier submission.

If the challenger is still unhappy, then it's off to the CJEU to challenge the Commission's approval decision.

user1842

clohamon wrote: »

If the challenger is still unhappy, then it's off to the CJEU to challenge the Commission's approval decision.

And by the time that happens, the network will have been built

Gary kk

user1842 wrote: »

And by the time that happens, the network will have been built

Which network?

tsue921i8wljb3

I think I've found the company that the WISPs have contracted to map their so-called coverage. Leeds based Wireless Coverage Ltd.

In order to demonstrate the current state of play, and provide evidence of the private investment already made, 28 Irish WISPs joined together to undertake a detailed analysis of their current broadband coverage. For this purpose, mast data, including location, height and current capability and operating frequency details (i.e. NGA-capable or planned for upgrade to NGA capability) for 1,700 tower sites was supplied to Leeds based Wireless Coverage Ltd.

Following the analysis by Wireless Coverage it was determined that there are currently around 1.5 million properties that could be served by existing operators to a basic level i.e. either NGA or non-NGA compliant. Of these residential and business locations, nearly 690,000 are already NGA-compliant (i.e. 30 Mbps or higher) and around 84,000 premises are currently connected with service from one of the 28 contributing WISPs.

David Burns, founder of Wireless Coverage, Chairman of the UK Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (UKWISPA)

So the Irish WISP association has contracted the UK WISP association to kill the NBP. I can only hope that the DCCAE and EU make a mockery of their two second mapping.

Traditional wireless planning systems take around 15 minutes to perform the calculations needed to produce a single viewshed, so for this particular project, that would equate nearly 150 hours once the data had been sourced and prepared,” says Burns, who adds, “Using WISDM all 1,700 viewsheds were completed in less than two seconds.

https://www.geoconnexion.com/publications/geo-uk/issue/november-december-2019-uk-issue/article/modelling-irish-broadband

user1842

Gary kk wrote: »

Which network?

The GMC NBP network. The Government can go ahead if the Commission approve. A legal challenge can operate in parallel but would not stop the build.

By the time the ECJ decide years would have passed and then its about compensation (if the challenge was successful) and not stopping the build.

tsue921i8wljb3

clohamon wrote: »

Interesting link to the propagation modelling carried out by the WISP consortium. Apparently already submitted to the Department.

Claiming 28 WISPs in the consortium, 1700 sites, and 84,000 NGA compliant wireless customers (existing).

https://twitter.com/gloverstweets/status/1194914249224704000

Two posts above. Someone is feeding him information. He's a mouthpiece for Imagine as well.

clohamon

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

So the Irish WISP association has contracted the UK WISP association to kill the NBP. I can only hope that the DCCAE and EU make a mockery of their two second mapping.

...and a few more issues besides

contention
backhaul
unlicensed spectrum
informal site agreements
failure to provide requested information
4½ year delay in submission
inability to meet EU common objectives.

Marlow

clohamon wrote: »

...and a few more issues besides
contention

backhaul

unlicensed spectrum

informal site agreements

I won't go into your other points.

But those 4 are for each provider to determine based on their network infrastructure and then filter their submission, before submitting data to the department.

Just because 1700 mast sites have been mapped and the resulting data from that, does not mean, that that is the data that has been submitted to the department.

What has been submitted to the department is what would be interesting and that is down to each individual provider, that actually submitted the data and what they filtered out.

The only way, we will find out about that, is when the department finally discloses said data and becomes transparent about the process. Or at least the overall figures.

/M