bk wrote: » I'm sure they would trial it. Rumour has it they are even trailing it at the moment. However if you are paying for it yourself, expect the bill to be thousands, not hundreds!
ted1 wrote: » But really why should others subsidise the added cost if supplying connections to people who chose to live in remote areas. A block of apartments in Dublin can contain 650 people and probably involve a run if 100m where's as the one in Clare would involve running a cable several km along with the added infrastructure needed to cover this distance
irishpancake wrote: » We live in a black-spot here, as far as BB or even Mobile masts, you don't have to be in Kerry!!! There are so many places like this in Ireland, villages of 200-500, who are being told, use the NBS....what a joke.
football_lover wrote: » Ireland is a socialist country were it is expected that when people in the country side pay into the system there would be a return.
Chris The Hacker wrote: » A socialist country where the means of production are mostly owned by private owners?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Eircom, is willing to do it why not the ESB! Villages with lots of houses and small town villages i bet is what ESB will be targeting first.
MrO wrote: » Eircom is not bringing fibre to the home.
football_lover wrote: » Well that game can go two directions. Why should people in the country allow food to be sold cheap to the towns. We can always raise the price of food. But people in the country side or coast do not do this. There are many things we could do in the country side that would make life very difficult for the cities. We could also stop water being pumped from the country side to the cities and also block the power stations in the country side. Ireland is a socialist country were it is expected that when people in the country side pay into the system there would be a return. Trust me food is a lot tastier than fiber optics.
ED E wrote: » It would appear you have an axe to grind here, I wasnt moaning. Eircom Field Techs get paid crazy money too. Thats ireland for you. Simply pointing out that it makes no sense for ESB to use their own staff for a more trivial role. They're heavily trained and follow very strict procedures, rightly so, and should be left to maintaining the grid.
SpaceTime wrote: » Regardless of the internal machinations of ESB's union politics and pay rates, the fact remains it has a history of actually getting big, complicated infrastructure rolled out rather effectively and efficiently. I would have quite a bit of confidence that ESB could get this network rolled out rather effectively and rapidly once they sign off on a design. I was impressed with the speed of Eircom's FTTC rollout once they got rolling. It's the first time I've seen Eircom doing anything on that scale so quickly and effectively. The last time that they were doing something as large as that was probably as a semi-state in the 1980s when they pretty much rebuilt the voice network. Since then, most of the infrastructure just saw incremental updates.
norrie rugger wrote: » So they should not be hooked up to the water/electricity networks then either?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Not true. I just checked this last night. A town close to were i live is going live with EFibre this June. Population 1100 I live in a village close by around 8km away and Eircom has planned for my village to get Efibre by July 2016. Population of my village 676 people. I thought it was more, but i was wrong. Eircom, is willing to do it why not the ESB! Villages with lots of houses and small town villages i bet is what ESB will be targeting first.
MrO wrote: » This makes absolutely no sense...at all. People in the country *allow* food to be sold cheap? This is nonsense, food producers like any business try to get the best possible rate they can for their products - they don't allow food to be sold cheap so that the slickers can eat well. Stop water? I don't know where to start with this one. 'Block' power stations? Again...where to start, have you any idea what that would mean? Have you actually thought about it? You're certainly not speaking for rural Ireland.
SpaceTime wrote: » There really needs to be some kind of legislation put in place at EU level to prevent what happened to eircom happening to any company really. It's ridiculous to allow investors to do those kinds of 'leveraged buy outs'. Privatisation is one thing, but that kind of speculative activity isn't healthy and really needs much tighter regulation to prevent further problems in future. The financial sector really needs to be brought very firmly into line. Between this kind of thing and the bailouts of banks due to their business models etc.. It's just all gone way too far. The whole sector needs to be brought firmly back into line.
irishpancake wrote: » I worked for eircom, as a Field Force Tech, up to 4 years ago, when I retired due to ill-health. I dispute your allegation here....there was no crazy money paid to eircom staff, quite then contrary. Wages there were quite low, comparatively speaking, and there was a policy of non-payment for extra time worked, this was given as time-off in lieu, on a 50/50 basis....you only got paid for 50% of the time worked, if you worked outside normal hours. We were, as you know, the subject of a crazy privatisation policy, and were sold and re-sold again, in deals which were designed to give the maximum return to those buying the crippled company, with debt raised by the Company, leaving it totally over-burdened with debt, which was then asset stripped and left to the Vulture Capitalists, and I include the ESOP in this, who did manage to acquire a significant shareholding for the Employees, which is now gone. I sincerely hope that ESB is not being lined up to receive the eircom treatment, as in this Country, making the same mistakes over and over seems to be the norm.
norrie rugger wrote: » For the greater good of the economy country needs a rural population, it's as simple as that. To get people to live rurally and do business there then the country needs to subsidise.
football_lover wrote: » The original poster said it makes no sense to supply fiber to the rural communities because people in the urban area's are subsidizing rural systems.
irishpancake wrote: » Lovely East-German style workers and peasant dwellings, last forever they will.... just like Ballymun Towers....
bk wrote: » Yes Ireland needs a rural population. What Ireland does NOT need is a rural population living in one off houses dispersed all over the countryside. What Ireland needs is a rural population living in sustainable towns and villages. Just like is normal in most of rural Europe, where services like Broadband, Electricity, Water, Sewage, etc. can be delivered in an economically sustainable manner. Irish planning law has failed us completely. Your post was totally ridiculous. Cut off food supply and people in urban areas will simply buy it from Holland (we already are, see the 5c vegetables at Lidl/Aldi). And then when the farmers of rural Ireland are out of work, how are they going to pay their wages and rent and bills, etc.? As for power, it is almost all generated in or very near to the cities, electricity doesn't travel very well. Actually electricity generated near cities is usually then transferred to rural Ireland. Cut off the power and it is actually rural areas that would suffer brown outs. Dublin currently doesn't get it's water from the Shannon. There is a plan to do it, but at the moment Dublin gets it's water from it's own region and supplies. And if you are really going to go down this road, then it would mean Dublin would have far more tax money available to it, so it could use that money to build de-salination plants and become completely self sufficient. Strictly speaking urban Ireland doesn't actually need rural Ireland. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that we do anything like all I described above. But I'm only pointing out the economic reality of the situation. People in rural Ireland need to be realistic about the services that can be delivered economically to them.
SpaceTime wrote: » Nobody is suggesting soviet blocks. The 'village' is actually not a radically new concept. Scatter housing is! It's also contributing to extreme isolation when people become elderly. Ireland didn't have this pattern of scattered development until the 1960s either. It's not 'traditional'. The issue now is how to get broadband to ultra low density housing. As for suggesting some kind of urban vs rural mutual boycotting each other that is ridiculous. You'd end up with a very poor rural Ireland and two wealthy city states in Dublin and Cork as they're economically big enough to be self sustainable. You can't carve countries up like that. What would be next? Split Dublin into 24, tiny independent statelets
murphaph wrote: » Except in the case of the former GDR those tower blocks are still there doing what they were built to do.....and mostly all with VDSL or cable broadband Nobody is suggesting that there should be no rural dwelling, but the Irish definition of rural living invariably means one off housing, rather than small clusters of houses that can at least share a group water scheme, waste water treatment and of course utilities including broadband.
