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

tsue921i8wljb3

Statement by Minister Bruton. Doesn't sound like there are any changes to intervention area going by the figures in it.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/Statement-by-Minister-Bruton.aspx

celticbhoy27

Emmanuel Lemon Louse wrote: »

Statement by Minister Bruton. Doesn't sound like there are any changes to intervention area going by the figures in it.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/Statement-by-Minister-Bruton.aspx

Article on the journal about the eu verdict. The comments section is awash with the I'm alright jack brigade. Get it up yuz

Orebro

celticbhoy27 wrote: »

Article on the journal about the eu verdict. The comments section is awash with the I'm alright jack brigade. Get it up yuz

Most of them think nobody lives outside of the M50. Sure what would they need broadband for "down the country".

tsue921i8wljb3

heavydawson wrote: »

Can anyone clarify if there's an appeals process to this decision? I can't believe this day has come. Is there a cabinet meeting next Tuesday?

Complaints about state aid 15 To which national bodies should competitors address complaints about state aid? Do these bodies have enforcement powers, and do they cooperate with authorities in other member states?

Typically, complainants address their concerns directly to the European Commission rather than addressing the issue domestically, as there is no national body (other than the courts) that is empowered to hear complaints about state aid and, even then, the role of national courts is limited in regard to EU state aid law. The Irish courts (normally, the Irish High Court) may hear complaints about allegedly illegal state aid (eg, Dellway Investments Limited and others v National Asset Management Agency, Ireland and the Attorney General [2011] IESC 4 and Pierce trading as Swords Memorial & another v Dublin Cemeteries Committee & others [2009] IESC 47). The Irish courts are likely to be influenced heavily by the approach taken by the European Commission (eg, Pierce trading as Swords Memorial & another v Dublin Cemeteries Committee & others [2009] IESC 47). The Irish courts are mindful of article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which provides: ‘[p]ursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full and mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties’ (cited in, for example, Dellway Investments Limited and others v National Asset Management Agency, Ireland and the Attorney General [2011] IESC 4).

Ireland’s CCPC does not have the legal power to address state aid issues. However, consideration should be given to the possibility of a complaint to the CCPC in case there is another competition law issue involved that could interest the CCPC. It is possible to complain to central government if alleged unlawful aid was provided (particularly if the aid was provided by local government), but one would typically make the complaint directly to the European Commission after putting the central government on notice of one’s concerns and giving central government a reasonable time to comply. In terms of bodies with powers, the most powerful one is undoubtedly the European Commission so complainants would be well placed to complain first and foremost to it before others.

I don't know about the cabinet meeting.

allanpkr

on the one hand you got marlow stating its not 150mbps, which we know, but it also shows wisps seem scared that 150mbps is unobtainable by them, otherwise i cant see any reason to keep mentioning its not 150mbps. then you got the urbanites with the ..we have ftth so leave it be. either way its sad that both types seem to want to hold progress for ireland back. sad sad people.

Gary kk

allanpkr wrote: »

on the one hand you got marlow stating its not 150mbps, which we know, but it also shows wisps seem scared that 150mbps is unobtainable by them, otherwise i cant see any reason to keep mentioning its not 150mbps. then you got the urbanites with the ..we have ftth so leave it be. either way its sad that both types seem to want to hold progress for ireland back. sad sad people.

Well it does say at least 150mbps down and 30mbps up

Marlow

Gary kk wrote: »

Well it does say at least 150mbps down and 30mbps up

Yes. But that is the maximum speed the circuit is capable of. Not the minimum speed the provider actually has to provide all the time.

Uncontended bandwidth costs (in a data centre in Dublin for example) a lot more than a residential user is willing to pay. Nevermind taking that and bringing it outside of Dublin.

So when somebody comes and says: "That's the minimum speed the providers have to provide", then that person is ... quite frankly off their rocker and has no common sense, nor have they actually checked into it. Or read the fine print for that sake.

No provider .. disregardless of tech .. will be operating at a loss that is not recoverable. It is bad business.

/M

Pique

Marlow wrote: »

Yes. But that is the maximum speed the circuit is capable of. Not the minimum speed the provider actually has to provide all the time.

Uncontended bandwidth costs (in a data centre in Dublin for example) a lot more than a residential user is willing to pay. Nevermind taking that and bringing it outside of Dublin.

So when somebody comes and says: "That's the minimum speed the providers have to provide", then that person is ... quite frankly off their rocker and has no common sense, nor have they actually checked into it. Or read the fine print for that sake.

No provider .. disregardless of tech .. will be operating at a loss that is not recoverable. It is bad business.

/M

Nobody is expecting uncontended networks, but your first point (bolded) is incorrect according to NBI themselves.

NBI’s network will use the latest evolution of Fibre-to-the-Home technology to guarantee minimum speeds of 150Mbps, with customers able to choose packages of up to 1Gbps (1,000 Mbps) from day one.

From https://www.nationalbroadbandireland.ie/

I think anyone with a 150mbps line who gets 100mbps consistently will be very satisfied.

The issue of contention is way more noticeable on a wisp connection when the backhaul isn't there to support the connections but are sold to customers nonetheless.

allanpkr

never mind taking that bandwith out of dublin. ??? steam engines arent even around in rural ireland now marlow.
still panicking about 150 mbps i see ,seems your showing what wisps are scared of , a lousy 150mbps.
saying to people your being friendly and in same sentence saying they are off their rocker is still an insult. lets not be abusive.
hope we can bring all the people trying to hold ireland back , into the 21st century and beyond. lets grow strong together.

Johnboy1951

Great to see EU approval!

######

Think on this a moment ....... IF the WISPS got their way and a number of premises were excluded from the NBP.

The fibre would still have to be brought to those unable to receive service from the Wisps.
This would most likely mean the fibre, passing those 'wisp serviced' houses, on telephone poles.

If I lived in one of those houses I would most definitely want fibre in place of (even good) wireless broadband.

What would you think would be done then?
Charge those people the equivalent of the state aid provided for their next door neighbour's connection?

To me it is unworkable no matter what way you look at giving Wisps any part of the NBP area.

Orebro

Marlow wrote: »

Yes. But that is the maximum speed the circuit is capable of. Not the minimum speed the provider actually has to provide all the time.

Uncontended bandwidth costs (in a data centre in Dublin for example) a lot more than a residential user is willing to pay. Nevermind taking that and bringing it outside of Dublin.

So when somebody comes and says: "That's the minimum speed the providers have to provide", then that person is ... quite frankly off their rocker and has no common sense, nor have they actually checked into it. Or read the fine print for that sake.

No provider .. disregardless of tech .. will be operating at a loss that is not recoverable. It is bad business.

/M

There is a concept that perfect is the enemy of good enough. The country is going to run with the best tech it has to hand right now, and its a best effort to make sure we are future proofed for years to come.

If we adopted the attitude that there are some technical limitations that very few if none at all will ever encounter, then we wouldn't get a stroke done in this country.

I'm also certain that anyone stuck on a terrible WISP/wireless service couldn't care less about some technical limitations if it meant getting FTTH.

dashoonage

Orebro wrote: »

There is a concept that perfect is the enemy of good enough. The country is going to run with the best tech it has to hand right now, and its a best effort to make sure we are future proofed for years to come.

If we adopted the attitude that there are some technical limitations that very few if none at all will ever encounter, then we wouldn't get a stroke done in this country.

I'm also certain that anyone stuck on a terrible WISP/wireless service couldn't care less about some technical limitations if it meant getting FTTH.

No ****s to give. as long as its better than my 3mbs contended

Marlow

Orebro wrote: »

There is a concept that perfect is the enemy of good enough. The country is going to run with the best tech it has to hand right now, and its a best effort to make sure we are future proofed for years to come.

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

Gary kk

So yeah 150mbs down and 30mbps down is what I hear.

Gary kk

I am sorry I had just had to put that one upðŸ€£

Orebro

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

We get your point, but it's not relevant in reality. No normal internet user is ever going to encounter the limitations you mention. No normal home internet user requires true uncontended network access like a business or data centre.

It's like saying the motorway between Dublin and Waterford can take X amount of cars at capacity, but X is never an issue for users on any given normal day because the number is rarely/never met. Nobody actually needs their own private motorway lane as there is plenty of capacity for ordinary users.

And it certainly isn't a reason for not going ahead with the NBP! Imagine not doing it because technically speaking not everyone can get 150Mbps all at the same time, so let them with their terrible WISPs.

Marlow

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.

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

Orebro wrote: »

No normal home internet user requires true uncontended network access like a business or data centre.

Correct. But if you don't set the expectations correctly then you create the wrong perspective. And there is literally people, who will cancel their 1000 Mbit/s FTTH connection and go to another provider .. and to another again ... because their PC isn't capable of achieving the 1000 Mbit/s on a webbased speedtest and/or using wifi in their premise.

This is not the exception. This is something that happens quite regulary. Just have a read through the FTTH threads here on boards.

So the point is: any connection provided under the state aid funding has to be able to achieve 150M/30M, but that is not uncontended. Because the design of FTTH fundamentally is contended to begin with.

Also .. just because the contract under which state aid is provided requires, that the lines at the very least should be specified as 150M/30M, that does not mean, that the provider can not offer you slower packages at lets say a reduced price point.

The contract details also have no impact on anything outside of the NBP intervention area. Just because the specification for the NBP contract is 150M/30M, that will not bring people on VDSL up to those speeds.

So ... just to refresh your memory, of what I was referring to:

user1842 wrote: »

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

So there is at least one person, that doesn't get it.

/M

user1842

Marlow wrote: »

So ... just to refresh your memory, of what I was referring to:

So there is at least one person, that doesn't get it.

/M

Well that's totally unfair and I immediately corrected my post with the below:

user1842 wrote: »

You are nit picking now and I think you know I meant a connection capable of the speeds outlined by the NBP.

In fact I seem to be one a very few number of posters on this forum you do get your view.

Marlow

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.