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

Marlow

Ultimanemo wrote: »

I have a problem with that, Both Airwire and Lightnet has my house covered on their maps,

The maps may not reflect, what is covered.

Airwire for example have 2 maps: traditional and jet wireless. Only their Jet coverage is NGA compliant.

The next question then would be, if they were part of the providers, who submitted.

/M

tsue921i8wljb3

BArra wrote: »

Marlow has indicated that potentially if 2 NGA complaint WISPS are covering your area along with some further unspecified requirements that it may change the current NBP mapping areas to some degree

The issue myself and likely many others have is that they are covered by several WISPS who can offer NGA compliant speeds during the daylight hours, not so much during the twilight though and there is possible risk of being left out due to this

And there is absolutely no evidence that is going to happen. It was likely the tactic tried by the WISPs as they set fire to several thousand Euros hiring some UK consultant to tell them what they wanted to hear.

How could a fibre network be built where you would have a patchwork of premises removed as they are in WISP coverage. It doesn't make any sense.

BArra

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

With NBP fibre passing your door I doubt you could not be connected.

Marlow has indicated that potentially if 2 NGA 'compliant' (:P :P

)WISPS are covering your area along with some further unspecified requirements that it may change the current NBP mapping areas to some degree

The issue myself and likely many others have is that they are covered by several WISPS who can offer NGA compliant speeds during the daylight hours, not so much during the twilight though and there is possible risk of being left out due to this

Johnboy1951

ussjtrunks wrote: »

I'm with Nova and get like 10mb at night I hope that doesnt exclude me and those like me from the NBP that would just be stupid

With NBP fibre passing your door I doubt you could not be connected.

Ultimanemo

Marlow wrote: »

One provider covering you won't be enough. Has to be 2 indepenant ones and both at NGA speeds. There is also some additional specifications, that have to be met.

The final intervention map will tell.

/M

I have a problem with that, Both Airwire and Lightnet has my house covered on their maps, both came and failed to install, both said the signal is so poor and they can't install, still my house is covered on their maps.
Only Imagine covers my house but the speed is only good during the day, at night it is usually as below "direct cable connection and no Internet activity".

ussjtrunks

I'm with Nova and get like 10mb at night I hope that doesnt exclude me and those like me from the NBP that would just be stupid

BArra

Marlow wrote: »

One provider covering you won't be enough. Has to be 2 indepenant ones and both at NGA speeds. There is also some additional specifications, that have to be met.

The final intervention map will tell.

/M

oh dear, Imagine are also available to my home, so thats two WISPS. (With Nova) I better pray to the fiber gods that my area wont be removed from NBI

both of which through their literature say they can provide in excess of 30mbit/ or up to x Mbit/s rubbish, but in absolute reality they cannot after 7pm

Marlow

The whole VAT thing was always an excuse by politicians to play the figure down.

VAT only comes into play (effectively) when the end user is connected and is a completely different budget.

If you for example take SIROs build, VAT is not even charged/deducted when it comes to network build/installations until SIRO bills the provider for the final installation.

The reason for that, is that there is a different way of doing it in the construction industry and concessions to allow for VAT application to be postponed. But the average person would not know this.

It is most certainly a change in numbers somewhere. OpenEIR to be the contributing factor for the majority.

/M

The Cush

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Who was involved? Yates has no clue anyway.

Newstalk's tech person, Jess Kelly and Ivan's friend Paul Davis, the academic from DCU. The discusiion was on about 5:15pm

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-hard-shoulder/will-nbp-contract-signed-imminently

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

That could be it too, the impression I got from the discussion they were assuming a reduction in the number of premises. Then again they are looking at the same info as the rest of us, we should know for sure in the coming weeks.

Who was involved? Yates has no clue anyway.

The Cush

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

It could be that or it could be this:

That could be it too, the impression I got from the discussion they were assuming a reduction in the number of premises. Then again they are looking at the same info as the rest of us, we should know for sure in the coming weeks.

tsue921i8wljb3

The Cush wrote: »

Discussion on this earlier this evening on Ivan Yates's programme, it was pointed out in the discussion that the Commission has approved the plan up to €2.6bn and not the government's figure of €2.9bn.

Would it be safe to assume that this is due to a reduction in the number of premises in the intervention area, such as eir's urban rollout and the 30k-40k over the original rural 300k?

It could be that or it could be this:

The overall capped subsidy is €2.9 billion which includes VAT of €355 million. In net terms, the maximum cost that could go to third party operators and the bidder is in the order of €2.6 billion. The €355 million in VAT would not leave the Department but would go straight to the Revenue Commissioners; therefore, the amount of the subsidy paid outside the Department is up to €2.6 billion.

I'm not sure how State Aid works in this instance.

The Cush

Discussion on this earlier this evening on Ivan Yates's programme, it was pointed out in the discussion that the Commission has approved the plan up to €2.6bn and not the government's figure of €2.9bn.

Would it be safe to assume that this is due to a reduction in the number of premises in the intervention area, such as eir's urban rollout and the 30k-40k over the original rural 300k?

tsue921i8wljb3

BArra wrote: »

this has me worried, i am in a NBI area but serviced by a WISP who can provide usually 25-30Mbit/s during the daytime, but 7pm on the button then its down to 10Mbit/s, another few hours and its unable to stream 720p, always less than 5Mbit/s.

how can it be possible that they may remove premises on the NBI who like above can get the min req 30Mbit/s some of the time, but during the evening cannot?

It's unlikely that any premises will be removed bar ones that eir may cover in urban areas as part of their build. Anything else is unfeasible really.

Marlow

BArra wrote: »

this has me worried, i am in a NBI area but serviced by a WISP who can provide usually 25-30Mbit/s during the daytime, but 7pm on the button then its down to 10Mbit/s, another few hours and its unable to stream 720p, always less than 5Mbit/s.

how can it be possible that they may remove premises on the NBI who like above can get the min req 30Mbit/s some of the time, but during the evening cannot?

One provider covering you won't be enough. Has to be 2 indepenant ones and both at NGA speeds. There is also some additional specifications, that have to be met.

The final intervention map will tell.

/M

BArra

Marlow wrote: »

That's going to be a big question, I'm afraid. Because currently the NGA speeds required is 30 Mbit/s. If a premise gets removed, then it is because it already is serviced under those terms.

The 150M/30M specification (or more) is what has to be delivered when a premise is qualified for state aid under the NBP contract. But state aid can not be paid out for a premise, that already is covered within NGA requirements. It is against state aid rules.

As I stated. It's nothing against you. It's the principle of that such a statement is plain wrong and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. Even if you clarify yourself afterwards .. somebody may not read those clarifications.

Accuracy is important, when defining specifications.

/M

this has me worried, i am in a NBI area but serviced by a WISP who can provide usually 25-30Mbit/s during the daytime, but 7pm on the button then its down to 10Mbit/s, another few hours and its unable to stream 720p, always less than 5Mbit/s.

how can it be possible that they may remove premises on the NBI who like above can get the min req 30Mbit/s some of the time, but during the evening cannot?

[Deleted User]

Now we wait for Fine Gael to pick something else that's causing the delay in signing.

tsue921i8wljb3

irishfeen wrote: »

Do we know how they actually intend in rolling out the network? As in will they try piggybacking on eir’s existing FTTH network, if they extended the eir’s network by even 2km they would catch a big proportion of premises.

They intend building from scratch from MANs and some eir exchanges. No reuse of existing eir 300k fibre.

westyIrl

irishfeen wrote: »

Do we know how they actually intend in rolling out the network? As in will they try piggybacking on eir’s existing FTTH network, if they extended the eir’s network by even 2km they would catch a big proportion of premises.

I believe it will be a parallel build in most if not nearly all cases. One would imagine what you are saying would make more sense, especially in cases where only a few premises are encircled by Eir Rural FTTH. It will be after signing that information with regards to rollout timeline will be made available by NBI/Dept.

irishfeen

Gary kk wrote: »

2021 at a guess

Do we know how they actually intend in rolling out the network? As in will they try piggybacking on eir’s existing FTTH network, if they extended the eir’s network by even 2km they would catch a big proportion of premises.

allanpkr

Marlow wrote: »

That's not the point I am making here. Everyone here immediately jumps at my throat without reading, what I am ACTUALLY stating.

It is a matter of perception. And coming on here and saying, that all providers now have to provide X minimum speed is the biggest uneducated nonsense, that somebody could state.

So I have explained ... by reality, logic and economics ... why that is not possible. Nothing more. However you and others instantly see something more sinister. Will you give it a rest.

/M

well if we take what your saying at face value after reading your nonsense, no figure should be ever given by a internet provider about what they can achieve by reality your logic is flawed.

Gary kk

irishfeen wrote: »

So realistically guys and gals, if they sign this contract next week when should we see the first fibre to a domestic house being run?

2021 at a guess

irishfeen

So realistically guys and gals, if they sign this contract next week when should we see the first fibre to a domestic house being run?

Gary kk

Marlow wrote: »

Accuracy is important, when defining specifications.

/M

Lol you should explain that to some of the wisp I have dealt with.

Marlow

user1842 wrote: »

2. If a premises gets removed from the NBP area, the will only be removed if they have or will have a line capable of the minimum speeds NBP speeds (if any premises gets removed).

That's going to be a big question, I'm afraid. Because currently the NGA speeds required is 30 Mbit/s. If a premise gets removed, then it is because it already is serviced under those terms.

The 150M/30M specification (or more) is what has to be delivered when a premise is qualified for state aid under the NBP contract. But state aid can not be paid out for a premise, that already is covered within NGA requirements. It is against state aid rules.

user1842 wrote: »

This is what I meant, im sorry if I caused confusion

As I stated. It's nothing against you. It's the principle of that such a statement is plain wrong and leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. Even if you clarify yourself afterwards .. somebody may not read those clarifications.

Accuracy is important, when defining specifications.

/M

user1842

Even if the map changes it does not matter. The providers have to give the minimum speeds now to everybody.

As it appears even after I clarified my post, it is still being used to prove some sort of point. I will clarify again:

1. I meant a premises in the NBP area will have to have a line capable of the minimum NBP speeds.

2. If premises gets removed from the NBP area, they will only be removed if they have or will have a line capable of the minimum speeds NBP speeds (if any premises gets removed).

This is what I meant, im sorry if I caused confusion but I do not appreciate my post being used in the wrong context, when I clarified what I meant.

Marlow

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So what?
That is above the present and immediate future requirement.
All it takes is for the exchanges to be upgraded with a known proven upgrade path.

It has no effect whatsoever on the viability of the fibre roll out.

Now if you were to show how the cable being used is below the standard required for present and future, that would be a different matter.

Let me refresh you on that statement that was made again

user1842 wrote: »

Even if the map changes it does not matter. The providers have to give the minimum speeds now to everybody.

Now tell me, how are you bringing sub-standard, but NGA compliant VDSL up to that standard, which said statement would imply, that it needs to be.

"The providers" is not limited to the NBP intervention area.

Nevermind, that no internet provider will guarantee you a minimum speed, that is the same as the maximum speed delivered for a residential connection. Not in the intervention area either.

/M

Johnboy1951

Orebro wrote:

We get your point, but it's not relevant in reality. No normal internet user is ever going to encounter the limitations you mention.

Marlow wrote: »

Erhh .. yes, they are. Some of OpenEIRs network already sees contention for 300 and 1000 Mbit/s circuits on some exchanges.

So what?
That is above the present and immediate future requirement.
All it takes is for the exchanges to be upgraded with a known proven upgrade path.

It has no effect whatsoever on the viability of the fibre roll out.

Now if you were to show how the cable being used is below the standard required for present and future, that would be a different matter.

Marlow

user1842 wrote: »

I am happy to delete the post, even after I clarified it.

Also that doesn't matter.

The issue here is, that I took your post, explained why it was wrong and the result is, that people go after me and start wisp bashing again. Something that has nothing to do with your post nor with my response to it.

When all I did was clarify, why that technically is not possible. Something that had nothing to do with whatever technology broadband is delivered on.

/M

user1842

Marlow wrote: »

What you meant, doesn't matter. Somebody that doesn't know any better reads your post and takes it for gospel.

That's how it starts.

/M

I am happy to delete the post, even after I clarified it. Can you please delete your references to it.
We dont want people to get the wrong idea.