Rural broadband users face price hike over claims of 'urban subsidy'

We pay an extra €40 - €50 per year for electricity in rural areas so it seems that there is a template out there already, although it should be noted that we get the exact same electrical service all over the country rural or urban. Cannot say this about broadband thou.

Big Lar wrote: »

We pay an extra €40 - €50 per year for electricity in rural areas so it seems that there is a template out there already, although it should be noted that we get the exact same electrical service all over the country rural or urban. Cannot say this about broadband thou.

It costs on average significantly more than 50 quid extra to maintain overhead rural supplies of course. In urban areas it's mostly ducted safe away from the elements.

The Commission for Communications Regulation (Comreg) has found that urban broadband customers are subsidising rural users..............Eircom may be allowed to charge correspondingly higher prices outside (urban areas) subject to the proposed notification and approval procedures.

Interestingly, there is no mention that Eircom would be required to charge correspondingly lower prices inside (urban areas) if this goes ahead!

BeerWolf wrote: »

Regardless of where people live they pay the same amount of taxes as you, by accordance of their income and such.

Yes but if I choose to live on top of a remote mountain and still pay tax, do you think a subsidised FTTH or whatever connection should be run to my self imposed exile?

Most people don't live on the top of a mountain but the point stands: Running FTTH etc. to one off housing is painfully expensive and when it's installed it's much more expensive to maintain because it's so windy in Ireland and wide scale downing of cables is pretty common place in winter.

In an urban location it costs about a grand to run FTTH so there's a return to be had inside a couple of years for a business that decides to run it. In the case of one off development it costs ten times as much so the return just isn't there.

You are then asking your fellow citizens to pay for your connection. In reality, the vast majority of those living in one off development do not need to live where they do. They want the extra space etc. that comes with such living....but such living also comes at a price that shouldn't be picked up by the rest of society!

I would go so far as to provide grants to rural folks who can prove a NEED to live outside an urban area (urban area doesn't mean metropolis, it means anything from a village to a large city, clustered development basically, whether rural or urban). Livestock farmers could argue that they NEED to be near their cattle and so on. The man who makes gates or sheds for the farmer or who does his accounts or sells him feed or provides medical care to his animals however does NOT need to live in a one off property! That's 90% of people living in one off development that could just as easily live in a clustered development (hamlet, village, town or city) that could be serviced with broadband and everything else much more efficiently.

One off development IS NOT even native to Ireland. It started in the 1960's. It's a myth that it has always been this way. Planning controls failed to prevent the one off development as it did in GB (NI also failed as they had bigger problems to worry about) but that doesn't mean we should all pay a financial price for that failure.

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Broadband should be priced on speed, i shouldnt be paying more for 2.5mb than others who are getting 120mb

we rural folk already pay more

The fact is it is cheaper for UPC to run a coax cable and provide 120Mb in Dublin or Limerick or Cork than it is for eircom to run a 4Km POTS line to provide you 2Mb. The only reason you have any connection is because they are the USO. The rate of faults, callouts and maintenance is huge on rural lines. They lose money hand over fist on some of the longer ones.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

You're a business, that's your service, don't treat me like **** because I don't live in Dublin. People in rural areas are crying out to THROW money at anyone who can provide internet. If they can't figure out a way to make profit on that there's something very wrong.

Eircom were asset stripped twice. They dont have the cash to do €1mil+ upgrades on small 400 line rural exchanges. An upgrade like that will take 20years + to pay itself back, a full VDSL cab will pay for itself in 5.


Maybe if eircom stop losing money on rural DSL you all might see some upgrades. Could end up being a good thing.

ED E wrote: »

The fact is it is cheaper for UPC to run a coax cable and provide 120Mb in Dublin or Limerick or Cork than it is for eircom to run a 4Km POTS line to provide you 2Mb. The only reason you have any connection is because they are the USO. The rate of faults, callouts and maintenance is huge on rural lines. They lose money hand over fist on some of the longer ones.



Eircom were asset stripped twice. They dont have the cash to do €1mil+ upgrades on small 400 line rural exchanges. An upgrade like that will take 20years + to pay itself back, a full VDSL cab will pay for itself in 5.


Maybe if eircom stop losing money on rural DSL you all might see some upgrades. Could end up being a good thing.

the 400 line rural exchanges are even more worthless to them when they've driven half the population of the area onto 3g dongles because of the bad service. Making the price higher again won't do anything to get them more customers and will just piss off those that they have.

It's all well and good saying that it costs tonnes to provide it to rual areas, but so what? Are these areas just never going to get proper internet? If it will take 20 years to pay off then why don't they start now? Why haven't I been asked if I was willing to pay 1000/500/whatever euro for a fibre connection to my home? I live in a tiny place but there's still a row of 100 houses, each side. Do like google fibre and charge an installation fee, offer a free service and a paid service. Everyone would pay the 500 installation fee/ whatever it would be if it meant they didn't have to use 3g dongles anymore, even if a low tier was only free for 1 -2 years, that's still cheaper than the dongle. Then they'd have access to all of those people to charge them 50 80 100 200 a month whether they want 10mb up to 1gig connection for the case of businesses, or whatever the cost would be. I'm obviously making it overly simplistic, but the fact is these homes will eventually need to have fibre, people are willing to pay, and every month it's not here, people are giving their money to competitors.


*obviously not every home would pay a large installation fee, but realistically a ****load of people would obviously want a proper internet connection that would serve their home for the next X amount of years. You would see the cost of the connection be added to the value of your home instantly anyway.

500 quid wouldn't come anywhere near close enough to providing FTTH to a one off property. Sure they're looking at a grand in urban areas. Multiply your 500 by 20 to get actual cost.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the 400 line rural exchanges are even more worthless to them when they've driven half the population of the area onto 3g dongles because of the bad service. Making the price higher again won't do anything to get them more customers and will just piss off those that they have.

It's all well and good saying that it costs tonnes to provide it to rual areas, but so what? Are these areas just never going to get proper internet? If it will take 20 years to pay off then why don't they start now? Why haven't I been asked if I was willing to pay 1000/500/whatever euro for a fibre connection to my home? I live in a tiny place but there's still a row of 100 houses, each side. Do like google fibre and charge an installation fee, offer a free service and a paid service. Everyone would pay the 500 installation fee/ whatever it would be if it meant they didn't have to use 3g dongles anymore, even if a low tier was only free for 1 -2 years, that's still cheaper than the dongle. Then they'd have access to all of those people to charge them 50 80 100 200 a month whether they want 10mb up to 1gig connection for the case of businesses, or whatever the cost would be. I'm obviously making it overly simplistic, but the fact is these homes will eventually need to have fibre, people are willing to pay, and every month it's not here, people are giving their money to competitors.


*obviously not every home would pay a large installation fee, but realistically a ****load of people would obviously want a proper internet connection that would serve their home for the next X amount of years. You would see the cost of the connection be added to the value of your home instantly anyway.

If making the price higher drives them off that might be a net gain! If that exchange is costing as much to run as it makes then it shutting down (or as good as) is no biggie. 3G is a better solution rurally. Meteor will still get paid.

The reason not to start now is, as Ive already said, they do not have the cash. Eircom have gone all in on VDSL. Until that proverbial hand finishes they dont have the cash to consider offering rural upgrades, even with the inhabitants willing to pay it back. Im sure you wont get homeowners to front €10k each. And thats for good DSL/VDSL. FTTH is only in trials in urban areas. You wont get it for a decade, simple as.

same ol sh1te wrote: »

Ffs people, there are people living on boats with fibre in Holland.

These boats be in cities, or in the countryside? Context matters.