Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Labour's Broadband plan
-
31-01-2011 2:15pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
munchkin_utd wrote: »when a private company already launched a satelite last week to provide broadband to the backwaters of ireland.
do you have a link for that missed it
as for labour please please we dont need another quango
0 -
-
do you have a link for that missed it
as for labour please please we dont need another quangoKA-SAT :: 9° EAST
Ordered by Eutelsat from EADS Astrium, KA-SAT is entirely innovative in design. The satellite will be configured with over 80 spotbeams, with a network of ten ground stations connecting to the Internet backbone.
The KA-SAT programme is to deliver efficient resources for the mass-market delivery of the Tooway™ consumer broadband service, targeted at users across Europe and the Mediterranean Basin located beyond range of ADSL networks. With a throughput of over 70 Gigabits per second, KA-SAT will be capable of serving over one million users who expect bandwidth and prices comparable to ADSL2 performance.
Eutelsat will also drive the development of satellite-based consumer broadband services with triple-play capability, by combining broadband services in the Ka-band, through KA-SAT, with the reception of TV channels in the Ku-band. In order to facilitate the availability of high-performance triple-play equipment at competitive prices, Eutelsat will deploy the KA-SAT satellite to 9° East. This deployment will simplify production of dual-feed antennas transmitting and receiving broadband services in the Ka-band from 9° East, and receiving television in the Ku-band from Eutelsat’s flagship HOT BIRD™ neighbourhood at 13° East
http://www.eutelsat.com/satellites/9e_ka-sat.html
^^^
I'm guessing the posters talking about this, the SaorSat satellite that has a very focused beam on Ireland.0 -
do you have a link for that missed it
as for labour please please we dont need another quango
Well going by the document there could potentially be no state holding in the "NetCo" company. Of course given that the state currently owns Fibre assets it makes sense for the state to be a shareholder (along with ISP's, Pension funds etc.). In sense it would probably be like the current situation with Aer Lingus where the state have a shareholding but it's not a "semi-state"0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I posted the 'structure' of a Telecoms network here some time back.
As Ireland is a small country we only need two levels, National and Access.
The National network should remain in state ownership but the access network ...ie the last mile...is way more complex. A 'buy in' based on service level quality should be permissible.
Frankly on the access level if the 'copper' owners are prepared to guarantee 100mbits then the state should not proceed with an investment in that area for now save for the national fibre ( ie national fibre to the general area) .
Each discrete area, say a business park or housing estate or apartment complex, should be treated as one access network proposition. If there is a missing premises in there then the 'incumbent' access network provider must be obliged to complete the network in that area and to a minimum of 100mbit capability.
Naturally a failure to 'buy in' at 100mbits will prove a market failure exists.
I am fully aware that copper will not get us beyond 100mbits ( no matter how short and no matter how many pairs you bond) and that fibre will ultimately become necessary but the principle is quite straightforward
Let the market prove it has failed, because generally it will
0 -
-
Indeed and even if the state owns the National network it doesn't need to be run by a Quango. It can be managed by a third party (such as E-Net with the MAN's or even Veolia and the Luas).
Correct, as long as the rules are "non discriminatory" it would be fine. A super eNet would be well able to manage such a network. The quango to manage policy should be tiny once the network is created. I would give it to Forfás myself.
During construction a strictly time limited quango should manage the job. DigCo or HorseInThereLadsCo.The important thing is that proper government policy is put in regarding the provision of Ducting. For example as part of the "Tuam big dig" (New water works in Tuam) they are going to be laying Ducting for Fiber.
You might think . They are in fact filling in a missing MAN while replacing the water. Tuam never got a MAN because a decision was made to trial BPL there instead. Don't get me started on that particular snakeoil :cool:
The other 'missing' MANs are Ennis Castlebar and Shannon.
Leaving aside the missing MAN issue for the moment the biggest problem is stranded MANs. Many if not most MANs ( numerically) are not connected to any backhaul and are therefore stranded.
Both the FG and Labour plans intend to remedy this gross oversight.0 -
I see that IBEC has a "Telecommunications and Internet forum". They've produced a report which puts total NGA (Next-Gen Access) cost (FTTH for 90%, LTE for rest) at €2.5 billion. Interesting it would seem that we spent the equivalent of €10billion (in adjusted currency) during the 80's switching to a fully digital telecoms system -- which Fianna Fáil then privatised :rolleyes:
TIF document here:
From the report we see the following breakdown of costs for provision of both FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet -- uses copper telephone lines for "last mile") and FTTH.
As can be seen Ducting is the major issue. However once that's in place you don't have to spend money in 10years time when we all want to have 10Gbit/s to our home connection or 100Gbit/s in 20 years time -- you just switch out the networking equipment on either side of Fibre cable0 -
Advertisement
-
The implication seems to be (from what I have read above) that ducting would be needed and it would be hugely costly, especially in rural areas.
Which makes me wonder if distribution of the FTTC in rural areas over (along with) the existing ESB power lines has really been investigated and costed.
I could envision a case of FTTC on power line poles, to a transmitter for fixed wireless to serve rural areas as being quite cost effective in comparison.
Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes: 0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »The implication seems to be (from what I have read above) that ducting would be needed and it would be hugely costly, especially in rural areas.
Which makes me wonder if distribution of the FTTC in rural areas over (along with) the existing ESB power lines has really been investigated and costed.
I could envision a case of FTTC on power line poles, to a transmitter for fixed wireless to serve rural areas as being quite cost effective in comparison.
Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes:
John I would think it's the most remote rural dwellers that stuff like wireless would be aimed at. For majority of rural dwellers it wouldn't be an issue especially if FTTC was used. In such a scenario they maintain their copper Telephone line but it's set at say a max length of 1.5-2km. It and all the phones lines of surrounding houses are connected to a Cabinet which has Fibre backhaul to the rest of network. This way the end customer can get an *DSL product which quite a high speed. The real problem at moment in rural Ireland is "line quality" often due to the long distance that houses are from the local exchange.
The hybrid network that UPC is building out is basically FTTC the key difference is instead of using a phone line to connect to your house the use the pre-existing coax cable (HFC - Hybrid Fibre Coax). At the moment UPC is offering a max 100Mb/s down / 6Mb/s up on their network. Personally I have the 30Mbit/s product and it works like a charm.
Regarding power-line poles (Utility poles) in the US alot of FTTH builds are done using them instead of ducting. In Ireland the ESB has wrapped fibre around their main power lines (eg. their backhaul link between Dublin - Galway). In general I would regard ducting as considerably more durable especially given the amount of wind we get in Ireland
From a point of view of Wireless/LTE (where mobile is going) every base station needs to have a fibre link connecting it back to the core network.0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »Comment ..... while I understand the benefits of scale, and the necessity to service the majority of the population first, I was rather dismayed at the implication in some of the posts that the rural broadband would be good enough even if it was considerably slower than the urban service. Seems some think that those residing in rural Ireland do not have the same needs as those in urban centres. :rolleyes:
They may have the needs but I think it is about time that people in extreme rural areas realise that due to the location they have chosen to live in they are unable to receive the same standard of service that people in Urban areas do. You do not see people in the back arse of 'typical remote county' complaining that they do not have access to the same level of hospital care within a short distance than say their urban counterparts. So why should people complain that they do not have the same internet speeds.
If decide to live far away from urban centers then you must bare the brunt of your decision in the fact that providing the same level of service to these areas is not cost effective and it plain and simple isnt fair when the money can be spent on other projects.
Equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally.0 -
-
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »Broadband service, like electricity, water, public transport, health and other such services should be a 'public service' and available to all citizens without favour.
Not the same service in Urban and Rural areas though 0 -
-
-
Sponge Bob wrote: »Not the same service in Urban and Rural areas though
Well it would seem that the intention of the Labour document is that there should be similar services in rural areas ...... why mention Aran, which I think we can both agree is more remote than most rural Ireland, if that is not the intention?
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Let me be quite clear.There is No Way the State can justify a Universal Fibre to the Premises project.
The National Broadband scheme, inadequate crapheap that it is, covers the 10% of the population that are spread across the LEAST populated 33% of the state. The 'densest' 10% of the population occupy around 1% of the state.
The cost difference is pretty much linear. Reaching the most dispersed 10% with fibre would cost 33x reaching the least dispersed 10%.
It is imperative that we decouple the areas where this is a good investment from the areas where it is a crap idea. An urban/rural split is guaranteed. I do not rule out the possibility of rural people getting out there and installing the network themselves but the taxpayer will not do it. Maybe a smart metering 'incentive' could be introduced tied to a reduced standing charge .....country people pay for their electricity meters you see. Hoever smart metering is a standards free zone and is therefore pie in the sky right now
Neither Labour nor FG propose to go beyond around 1m premises and there are just over 2m homes and businesses in the state.
Instructively UPC cable covers around 850k premises OF WHICH 650k can get some class of Broadband and that 12 years after they started to upgrade their cable. UPC will be very slow to reach the other 200k premises they pass. They have not built any new network in years, much of Dublin City centre has no cable BB.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »
The level of service and where it is to be delivered will determine to a large extent what means/infrastructure will be required.
Very true. I will list these levels of service for ease of reference. I believe that NOBODY in the STATE should be more than 20km from an open access fibre no matter how rural. The National Fibre Backbone must be built to within that distance of every citizen.
However while that would cost in the low €100s of millions it will be a one off cost.
In the last 20km we decide on service levels and densities depending on population etc. This means we must have a menu of access network topologies for all of these areas and we must select the appropriate ones that we are to build out in those areas...or indeed go wireless.
Here is the menu, everyone lives in an area that is classifiable according to this scheme.
1. FTTP, Fibre to the premises on Exclusive fibre ( called FTP or P2P , eg for an office or workplace), National Backbone to within 2-5km of every premises serves on this topology.
2. FTTP, Fibre to the premises On Shared Fibre , ( called PON , EPON / GPON / GEPON ) . The advantage is that the shared loop can be up to 30km long with the National Backbone built to within 10km of the served premises at most. This option is the MINIMUM spec that will deliver 100mbits Symettrical. None of the following ones will.
3. FTTN, fibre to the node , high density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 1000m/ 1km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting VSDL2 at up to 40mbit speeds ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre) . These areas are also the best candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future. If you went within 500m you could maybe do 100mbits symettrical.
4. FTTN, fibre to the node , low density. This National fibre is normally brought to within 2000m/2km of a premises on fibre and then jacked out on existing copper subloops supporting ASDL2 at up to 25mbit speeds, possibly VDSL very close to the node ( the node is a street cabinet with power and fibre). These areas are outlier candidates for conversion to a PON or P2P in future, many are on URBAN fringes, eg Carnmore and Bushypark near Galway city but have insufficent populations for the high density model.
5. FTTN-SBXS*, fibre to the node somewhat rural density. This would being fibre to within 10km of every citizen in the area but would normally teminate on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter as well as to the local exchange. If a community wants to proceed from there they can dig a PON out from that mast. Population density and line quality probably does not make VDSL or ADSL worthwhile so if you start digging you might as well keep digging
6. FTTN-SBRS%, fibre to the node very rural density. This would being fibre to within 20km of every citizen on the state but would normally teminate that fibre on a mast and deliver wirelessly thereafter EVEN to the local exchange. It is unlikely that a low density community can afford a PON given the cost of digging per person shared. Furthermore there is a lot more wireless spectrum here because there are so few people. They are welcome to start digging all the same Many of these areas have a lot of holiday homes owned by affluent urbanites who may well contribute cash ...if not labour.
FTTN-SBXS* = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Xtraurban Specification
FTTN-SBRS% = Fibre to the Node - Sponge Bob Rural Specification
Short Tutorial with Colour Pictures
http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers%2FGPONvP2P.pdf0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Johnboy1951 wrote: »If we accept what I read into Labour's plan - that everyone will have access to Next Generation Broadband as they define it (100Mb/s symmetrical) it seems the above two options are the only choices.
If you brought the fibre to within 200m of every premises in my Access Topology Case 3 then you could supply 100mbits symmetrical over VDSL2 "Profile 30a". However this profile intended for the basement of a tower block with 100 apartments stacked above....and as an alternative to fibring the block. Unsurprisingly this ultra short and ultra fast for of DSL is clled Fibre to the basement or FTTB. For practical purposes we should consider a 1km loop and who would benefit.
In most cases where VDSL2 could be deployed at Profile 8 or 12 speeds the customer is maybe 5000m plus from an ADSL or possibly ADSL2 exchange on the edge of an Enfield or Athenry or Mountrath or Loughrea or Tuam and with the single local exchange in the centre of town.
At 5000m plus it does not matter what they do to your exchange because you are too far away to see any improvement. In the case of both Access Topology Case 3 and Access Topology Case 4 the exchange is deliberately brought closer to the end user.
However eircom will never own these new exchanges, not after the last fiasco they caused 0 -
-
Who will pay? According to the document the cash will come from private business: But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?
Depending on what is done exactly a network can be rapidly cash generating, DSL Cabinets in particular.
Another function for a national fibre network is mobile mast backhaul. A spectrum licencing round can take that into account.Where is the justification that a single private broadband provider would work better than multiple competing broadband providers? Right now I have a choice of BB from 24Mbit dsl to 100Mbit Cable or 10Mbit WiMax all at no cost to the state.
Such a choice is only available to around 500,000 people in the state, mainly in selected suburbs of major towns. What about the other 4m people ? Cable BB is in critically short supply in Central Business Districts of major cities where most SME activity occurs and is simply not available in Business Parks.
Sink the Bananas kindly posted a pair of useful diagrams in another thread, they illustrate some of the technicalities discussed earlier in this thread.
1. Fibre to the (whatever ) or FTTx Options. Illustrated.
AND
2. Cable Broadband Topology. Modern optical nodes ( post 2005) serve fewer premises in my opinion.
0 -
This plan does not propose fibre for all (some get satellite / wireless:
No, but it does say that everyone, apparently without exception, will have 100Mb/s (symmetrical) connection available to them.The network would be primarily based on fibre, and would be supplemented by next generation wireless and satellite technology where required. The vast majority of homes would be directly connected utilising Fibre to the Home - FTTH2, with a wireless solution only being offered in remote areas. It would replace the aging copper network that is currently in existence.
... and yes ...... who will pay? Those who sign up for the service I would guess, but maybe it is time Labour politicians were asked that question.But that begs the question: if theplan is worth doing with private money then why has it not been done already?
I expect the answer would be along the lines of 'it is too much risk to expect any one company to take on their own, but the Labour party in gov will facilitate the sharing of the risk amongst interested parties' ..... and the provision of the ducting etc etc for the fibre most likely.
All guesswork of course, but the document is very sparse on details 0 -
-
-
-
Well I think that's a question we'll need to put to Labour when they come knocking on the door . Personally I believe the actual infrastructure should be state owned (like the electricity distribution system -- Eirgrid).
Given the cost it could be a case of doing a portion of the buildout as a PPP, personally though I think we should use some of money leftover in the Pensions fund. The scheme would easy pay itself back as well as make a profit for the NPF (national pension fund), especially as it would mean nearly all internet connections would be using it (eg. all the isp's would be paying rental for each line etc -- maintenance is considerably lower then existing copper network)0 -
Nice Diagram Below of the different FTT(whatever) Topologies that are possible. It is from Xyxel who are trying to sell product but it is still rathe rnice. Yes that is a Broadband Enabled Exchange hanging on a pole in the middle of it
If anybody is confused here is the simple explanation.
The fastest and ONLY futureproof way to BB enable the country is fibre everywhere. This would cost a fortune so fibre is used up to 'a point' and then we REUSE existing phone or tv cable to do the last bit to your house. The last bit would be a mile or two at most not the 5 miles that a telephone line could reach nowadays. The new fibre is called FTTx ...because the x could be inside yoru home or up to a mile or two away.
Sourced From http://www.zyxel.fr/publications/f/GUIDE%20FTTX%202010.pdf
0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement