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

NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

1179180182184185201

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Ultimanemo wrote: »
    Doesn't he need a vacant place in the DP box ?.

    Isn’t their 8 premises that can go from the DP box??


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Marlow wrote: »
    Doesn't quite work that way. But 10m is a bit of a p*** take alright.

    The question is: where is the DP. Because if the neighbor already is stretched to the max of 4-6 spans to get it and it takes another 1 or 2 spans for this house, then that's the reason.

    /M

    You are absolutely right and in my local village the DP Box was outside his neighbors house.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    irishfeen wrote: »
    Isn’t their 8 premises that can go from the DP box??

    It varies. Majority would be 4.


  • Company Representative Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Airwire: MartinL


    irishfeen wrote: »
    You are absolutely right and in my local village the DP Box was outside his neighbors house.

    That would be an indexation issue. We have seen OpenEIR missing entire DPs in their build documentation.

    In Co. Galway alone, we have got them to add over 50 premises back in so far, that were omitted in the documentation and on fibrerollout.ie alone. Just 2 weeks ago 6 premises outside of Castleblakeney, where a DP had not been mapped.

    A lot of those issue can be fixed by proper documentation on the ground.

    But there are limits to the length of the entire cluster. 20km with a bit of safeguard. And each and every spur has to be calculated into that figure.

    So the location of the DP, in relation to the premise, is important. OpenEIR will not go beyond 150m into a property. And they will not go beyond a certain maximum of spans. Typically 4 spans, 6 or 7 on a stretch, further if a premise has been flagged as available.

    But it is quite a task and takes some convincing for them to add a premise back in. Also because they have to keep "reserves" for new premises being build within the 300k footprint. Because those will automatically become eligible, once they have an eircode. If the DP isn't booked out already, that is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭BarryM


    That would be an indexation issue. We have seen OpenEIR missing entire DPs in their build documentation.

    But there are limits to the length of the entire cluster. 20km with a bit of safeguard. And each and every spur has to be calculated into that figure.

    So the location of the DP, in relation to the premise, is important. OpenEIR will not go beyond 150m into a property. And they will not go beyond a certain maximum of spans. Typically 4 spans, 6 or 7 on a stretch, further if a premise has been flagged as available.

    But it is quite a task and takes some convincing for them to add a premise back in. Also because they have to keep "reserves" for new premises being build within the 300k footprint. Because those will automatically become eligible, once they have an eircode. If the DP isn't booked out already, that is.

    Is that for a complete FTTH solution? Are there not some technical options for 'final km' solutions?

    Just wondering and would be grateful for guidance on sites/documentation on the possibilities for technical solutions to the last km issue.

    TIA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭CptMackey


    irishfeen wrote: »
    If it’s genuinely only 10m, ring Vodafone and say you are right alongside the fibre and they will connect you up, the exact same situation occurred in my local village and Vodafone had no problem in connecting up his house while openEir would not do it under any circumstances.

    Will have to see what they say. Failing that who should i contact to see if it would be possible?
    So close and yet so far.

    Is it the black box on the pole you need to be close too?


  • Company Representative Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Airwire: MartinL


    BarryM wrote: »
    Is that for a complete FTTH solution? Are there not some technical options for 'final km' solutions?

    20km is from the exchange to the end. All spurs have to be calculated for. If you want to go further, you need to place more active gear again.

    There is no universal solution and there is no final km. It's down to network design.
    CptMackey wrote: »
    Is it the black box on the pole you need to be close too?

    Yes. It's the distance to the black box that matters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    The cost of this is definitely way too high and needs to be explained in detail. I have been looking around for similar projects and it just seems very much more expensive.

    I would like to see it benchmarked against other projects elsewhere for comparison.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Anteayer wrote: »
    The cost of this is definitely way too high and needs to be explained in detail. I have been looking around for similar projects and it just seems very much more expensive.

    I would like to see it benchmarked against other projects elsewhere for comparison.

    In what way? This cannot be compared with anything and Ireland cannot really be compared with any other country with regards the rural population.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭westyIrl


    Interview with National Broadband Ireland CEO Peter Hendrick this morning on The Business on Radio 1:

    https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21556861

    Jim


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 885 ✭✭✭celticbhoy27


    westyIrl wrote: »
    Interview with National Broadband Ireland CEO Peter Hendrick this morning on The Business on Radio 1:

    https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21556861

    Jim

    Good interview, came across well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭glucifer


    Spotted this online, thought some might have an interest in reading it.

    An Alternative National Broadband Plan
    by Jerry Sweeney of CIX

    The Irish Government wishes to implement a plan to deliver fibre to the home (FttH) for every house in Ireland. This is a laudable objective for which it is easy to make the case. But, as a Nation, we must choose between many laudable objectives. We must therefore ask several questions before proceeding.

    Should the state be involved, or to put it another way is there market failure?

    When the plan was first discussed in 2012, it was to cost €500M and serve 1M homes. 50% of Ireland’s homes were not connected to Broadband. That situation has improved to where the private sector will deliver FttH to all but 0.5M homes. Other broadband delivery solutions such as wireless have delivered to 89% of the population but the capacity is not adequate for many emerging uses. While the situation is improving, I think we can accept that there IS market failure and the Government do need to be involved. We have passed the ‘market failure’ test and so we move to the next question.

    What should the State set as a connectivity baseline for every citizen and at what price?

    Accepting that FttH is the gold standard objective, even the NBP agrees that a small number of homes should be connected wirelessly because the cost is of FttH, for them, is prohibitive. We need to adopt a baseline and FttH cannot be that baseline. In the original 2012 specification, 30Mbps was suggested and for argument sake I will accept that as a standard below which we should not drop. I will include the phrase ‘contended but not congested’ in that definition. When testing you should measure 30Mbps 95% of the time, no matter what time you choose to test. I have a 30Mbps rural wireless radio link to my home our demand rarely exceeds 10Mbps. My wife and I work a lot from home, we have three kids and the service is fantastic. I certainly will not pay more for an FttH product. If we can accept that 30Mbps is an acceptable minimum standard, we can proceed.

    If we accept that €50 plus VAT is a baseline consumer price, then the infrastructure provider might take €30 and the service provider might take €20.

    If we are still in agreement, then a baseline to every home of 30Mbps at a wholesale cost of €30 is our target. Let us proceed further.

    How should the State ensure that this minimum service is available to all?

    Rather than address the NBP in isolation, there are two other issues that should be addressed in parallel.

    1) We need fibre for the rollout of 5G mobile services and we need the rollout of fibre for critical industrial/commercial/government infrastructure also.

    2) We have agreed above that wireless operators have a place to play in any solution. There is a widely held and totally incorrect belief that wireless cannot deliver the performance we have outlined in our baseline discussion above. Wireless operators need low cost fibre backhaul. Their technical issues are with backhaul, NOT will delivery at the customer end. They are congested at the point of aggregation, not the point of delivery. Put in more aggregation points and wireless congestion decreases.

    eNet is now back in State ownership and could be used as a vehicle to install key fibre connection nodes available to all Telcos. I understand that this was part of the early NBP proposals but has been abandoned. This fibre backhaul infrastructure should include key hilltop sites as well as central duct locations. Some of this investment might connect existing MANs. Current investment in eNet managed infrastructure is around €180M creating close to 100 MANs. I will assume that a further investment of €180M would create about 200 fibre aggregation points available to all carriers including the smallest WISPs. Other State assets including ESB Telecom and Aurora should integrate into this plan also. Aggregation points should be adjacent to communications towers if possible. It is incredible how few communications towers in Ireland are not fibre connected. Many aggregation points would be built on State property, so a cost of €1M8 per site seems very achievable. This could be planned and built within a year. A critical objective would be to drive down per metre backhaul costs in Ireland. Competition between carriers will deliver these savings to the end consumer.

    Once the backhaul fibre is in place, we are ready to start the rollout. There are approximately 80 ISPs in Ireland ranging from a few multinationals to family run WISP businesses. These should be encouraged to compete. They should be certified just like RECI certifies electricians to ensure they have insurance and training etc.

    The best way to stimulate the market is to offer a voucher of say €400 to every home in the intervention area. Half would be payable to the installer on connection and verification to the baseline and the remaining would be payable after twelve months, again on verification of the baseline. Assuming 500k homes take up this offer, then the cost to the state will be €200M.

    This plan will trigger a land grab by the 80 ISP companies. Some like Eir will roll out fibre. The WISPs will be pushed further into rural areas but they will have the backhaul from which to build out.

    How will a backstop service be delivered?

    The world is entering a new era in Broadband communications. There are more than ten organisations implementing or planning low earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations. This is a revolutionary technology. Entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk (SpaceX) , Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin / Kuiper) and Richard Branson (One Web) are investing billions to launch satellites that will zoom over Ireland, just above the atmosphere. They are being deployed to deliver broadband to every square inch of planet Earth, including rural Ireland. Ireland should negotiate a package for say 50,000 homes to take this service allowing them to sign up for an agreed price of say €50 per month. Their voucher of €400 can be used to close the deal. This will add no cost to the taxpayer. SpaceX or Kuiper will receive a €20,000,000 payment out of the voucher fund to guarantee the provision of the baseline service to homes that fail to secure a commercial agreement. There will be 40 LEO Satellites over Ireland’s skies by the end of 2020 and 1,000 by 2030. Be clear on this; LEO Satellite Broadband will exceed the baseline specification we have set.

    In summary, the Government needs to invest approximately €400M and then stand back to allow the market perform. The plan will take one year to kick off and could be completed in two to three years. But most importantly, a plan like the one outlined above will initiate an incredible investment spree by ISPs, knowing that the market is open for them at last. In particular, it is my expectation that as Eir maintain their existing copper infrastructure, in order to keep collecting line rental, they will upgrade to FttH as quickly as possible.

    I suggest that entering into a 1,500 page contract spanning 35 years and costing €2.75B in an area of incredible technological change is extremely risky.

    Saving €2.2B on the NBP will allow us to build 10,000 affordable houses or a small Children’s hospital. We must choose wisely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    I don't know nor care who Jerry Sweeney is , but his article is nonsense.

    Satellites

    That's his plan


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    It just seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to organise. We see how complex the situation is with one bidder involved. He is talking about 80 plus companies competing against each other. How are they regulated, who monitors service levels, what recourse does someone have if they are not receiving the minimum service levels?

    Also does a country of 4.8m people need over 80 ISPs? It seems like a solution designed to preserve existing interests. We don't have 80 mobile operators. It just seems inefficient to me. I said before to some of the smaller ISPs here that they should merge and launch a national competitor to eir, Vodafone etc built on excellent customer service and value. Trying to hold onto the past isn't going to work I'm afraid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    I stopped reading after 'ftth shouldn't be our base line'

    Says who?
    Says all the snake oil salespeople coming out of the woodwork now worrying that their business plan to provide Mickey mouse internet is goosed so they must try up their codology game while they can to ride on the misinformed uproar,fake news and political opportunism


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    I stopped reading after 'ftth shouldn't be our base line'

    Says who?
    Says all the snake oil salespeople coming out of the woodwork now worrying that their business plan to provide Mickey mouse internet is goosed so they must try up their codology game while they can to ride on the misinformed uproar,fake news and political opportunism

    I also stopped reading but got as far as accepting the 30Mb/s base.

    Maybe if the country was populated solely by Sweeney Households that would be sufficient for a few years ....... thankfully the country is not.

    Why people, who get to use their own specific requirements and extrapolate them on to everyone, get space to write such stuff is beyond my understanding.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭knipex


    I also stopped reading but got as far as accepting the 30Mb/s base.

    Maybe if the country was populated solely by Sweeney Households that would be sufficient for a few years ....... thankfully the country is not.

    Why people, who get to use their own specific requirements and extrapolate them on to everyone, get space to write such stuff is beyond my understanding.

    To be fair I know of 3 business with employee headcounts of between 6 and 18 who each have 50mb connection (give or take) all use VOIP, one uses dropbox extensively for file sharing with customers and road based employees. The other 2 use central servers with remote access for similar reasons as well as normal business browsing, e-mail, video conferencing etc.

    Of the three 1 upgraged to a Fiber connection and when I spoke to their office manger last week they told me that day to day they don't notice the difference.

    The number of companies that can utilize 1gb broadband is limited, the number of houses that will do so is tiny. The vast vast majority of houses that sign up for a fiber connection will take the cheapest and slowest connection and it will still vastly exceed their requirements.

    The last billion euro is being spent to connect the last 100,000 houses, That's €10,000 that the state is paying per connection.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    irishfeen wrote: »
    In what way? This cannot be compared with anything and Ireland cannot really be compared with any other country with regards the rural population.

    Yes it can. You can find similar areas of scatter in quite a few countries and you can extrapolate up to Irish scale. We have more of it per capita but you can still figure out the costs.

    600 ish per household per year is way too much. Also if you assume an uptake of maybe 50% (optimistic) then you're looking at over a grand a year per household for broadband. That's far too much.

    Australia's NBN project also seems astronomically expensive but they've huge access issues relative to here.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    knipex wrote: »

    Of the three 1 upgraged to a Fiber connection and when I spoke to their office manger last week they told me that day to day they don't notice the difference.
    They probably weren't qualified to notice the difference but regardless, they couldn't be using it much if 10 or 12 PCs weren't having a problem
    The number of companies that can utilize 1gb broadband is limited, the number of houses that will do so is tiny. The vast vast majority of houses that sign up for a fiber connection will take the cheapest and slowest connection and it will still vastly exceed their requirements.

    The last billion euro is being spent to connect the last 100,000 houses, That's €10,000 that the state is paying per connection.

    1 gig is not the point,its an option
    Most houses would utilise the 150 though,most businesses using online ordering and selling would,A work from home conference caller would be delighted with it (versus DSL or unstable wireless)
    You won't get anything like its consistency or stable speed from either wireless or satellite
    That's the point
    It's like wearing sandals of a wet day versus Wellington boots just because the sandals are cheap
    It only does a Mickey mouse job


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭fergus1001


    glucifer wrote:
    An Alternative National Broadband Plan by Jerry Sweeney of CIX

    Jerry who ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    Anteayer wrote:
    600 ish per household per year is way too much. Also if you assume an uptake of maybe 50% (optimistic) then you're looking at over a grand a year per household for broadband. That's far too much.


    Based on 2.6bn for 550k premises over 25 years, it's 190 per year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭rodge123


    Pique wrote: »
    Based on 2.6bn for 550k premises over 25 years, it's 190 per year.

    Of which the the state will recoup a lot of via vat from extra services people will be able to avail of.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    We can't even debate this until we know what the figures are:

    I've heard everything from 2.6bn over 25 years to 3 billion over 10 years to an extreme 5 billion over 10 years which would be insane.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    knipex wrote: »
    To be fair I know of 3 business with employee headcounts of between 6 and 18 who each have 50mb connection (give or take) all use VOIP, one uses dropbox extensively for file sharing with customers and road based employees. The other 2 use central servers with remote access for similar reasons as well as normal business browsing, e-mail, video conferencing etc.

    Of the three 1 upgraged to a Fiber connection and when I spoke to their office manger last week they told me that day to day they don't notice the difference.

    The number of companies that can utilize 1gb broadband is limited, the number of houses that will do so is tiny. The vast vast majority of houses that sign up for a fiber connection will take the cheapest and slowest connection and it will still vastly exceed their requirements.

    The last billion euro is being spent to connect the last 100,000 houses, That's €10,000 that the state is paying per connection.

    So what?
    I know of businesses that have 10Mb/s download and they are quite happy with that.
    They also complain loudly about the useless upload speed they have when trying to upload info such as pics and videos.

    None will want or need 1Gb/s down now.
    All want much much better upload speed.
    They also would be comfortable <now> with about 80Mb/s down.

    Most of all they want stable and usable connections that they can rely on at any time of day or night.
    In future years they will most likely want better than 80Mb/s down speeds, as well as better upload speed.

    I managed with dial up for many years. As did most of my acquaintances.
    I then managed with ADSL for many years.

    Throughout the whole time, while using both services, I would have jumped at the chance of better speeds.

    I am now on 150Mb/s down and my use has expanded because I can now do things I was unable to do comfortably using ADSL.

    The NBP is not designed as a substitute for what peoples' usage is now on their limited connections.
    It is designed to allow them to do the things they cannot presently do, as well as continue to expand what they do online as time moves on.

    That the fibre is presently capable of 10Gb/s, or 1Gb/s or any other figure is not the point.
    The point is that it will be capable of the required speeds for decades into the future, provided the ISPs upgrade their equipment when the time comes so that the service can keep up with demand.
    The fibre cable will not be the limiting factor for a long long time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Anteayer wrote: »
    We can't even debate this until we know what the figures are:

    I've heard everything from 2.6bn over 25 years to 3 billion over 10 years to an extreme 5 billion over 10 years which would be insane.

    My understanding is
    €2.1 bn the vast bulk of it to be paid during the roll out of the fibre and when connections are made to contracted customers.

    There is also a contingency amount of about €550 m in case of unforeseen extra costs. Those costs would be shared between the two signatories.

    In addition a figure of €350 m has been added under VAT .... which is a surprise to me. As NBI pays VAT on product and services, the those receiving the payments will pay the state the VAT. *EDIT* So the state pay NBI in subsidy, an amount reckoned to be the VAT the state will receive ..... a net cost to the state of €0.00

    In the event that NBI makes a greater profit than the an agreed amount (%), then the state will get a percentage of the 'over profit' amount. 60% of the extra has been mentioned. I do not expect that to happen .... for several reasons.

    So the state is paying between €2.1 bn and €3 bn to have fibre cable laid throughout the countryside.
    The balance of the cost of the roll out and maintenance and management of the scheme falls on NBI. Probably about 50% of the estimated €5 bn.

    The result should be that all parts of the country will have access to internet connections that will not become outdated for decades at the earliest.
    That is the aim, and that is the cost of achieving it.

    Let it be done!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    Regarding the ESB,is Siro an extra cable twisted around the existing ESB lines in urban areas or does it travel in the electricity like a home plug?

    Theres BT fibre on a high voltage line on my land and if that has to be done countrywide,I saw the gear they used,its a non starter
    Too many fields they cannot access in the country, either too wet altogether or too wet 6 months of the year


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭tsue921i8wljb3


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    Regarding the ESB,is Siro an extra cable twisted around the existing ESB lines in urban areas or does it travel in the electricity like a home plug?

    Theres BT fibre on a high voltage line on my land and if that has to be done countrywide,I saw the gear they used,its a non starter
    Too many fields they cannot access in the country, either too wet altogether or too wet 6 months of the year

    It is a separate fibre cable. It is not twisted around the mains line though just strung below it usually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    It is a separate fibre cable. It is not twisted around the mains line though just strung below it usually.

    Aye Good luck with getting that into difficult fields Timmy
    A years delay at least to get contracts ironed out and several before areas easy to get to by road pole are done

    NOT thought through AT ALL


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    In addition a figure of €350 m has been added under VAT .... which is a surprise to me. I can only surmise that NBI will not have to pay VAT to that amount ..... essentially claiming back VAT the state has already received.


    Its just an accounting exercise to include VAT. Any VAT paid by anyone to someone has to be returned to the govt anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    Aye if they took off vat and tax paid by workers otherwise not working you'd get down nearer to 1.5 billion over 35 yes
    Several other things could come off too like vat paid on business used locally
    The initial 3 billion accusatory figure and the 2.2 billion are stupid and that should be pointed out
    1.5 bill over 35 years for what the country gets is a no brainer versus Mickey mouse efforts by imagine


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    Aye Good luck with getting that into difficult fields Timmy
    A years delay at least to get contracts ironed out and several before areas easy to get to by road pole are done

    NOT thought through AT ALL

    The cable that is twisted around the powerlines on high voltage lines is ESB Telecoms national infrastructure. It was rolled out without having to go into the fields as such.

    Basically a little motorized cart with a cable-drum that ran from pylon to pylon. Each pylon a linesman would have to climb it and move the cart onto the next stretch.

    SIROs fibre runs side-by-side under the ESB power lines and in the ducts in the urban areas. That is access infrastructure. The last mile to the house. Completely different scenario and would have nothing to do with fields. Even in a rural setting.

    There's a multitude of technologies, that can be applied here. But the issue is, that even if the ESB was used, it would not be a fast rollout due to safety and training of the staff that can be used. You can't just use any odd contractor there.

    Even now, Actavo engineers are not allowed to terminate overhead runs. Linesmen from ESB networks comes out and brings a spool of fibre to a ring bolt on the premise. Then Actavo completes the installation.

    /M


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    My house has power coming from the southern side. The next house on my phone line route towards the Eir blue line (1km from my house, 6-700m from my neighbour) has the power coming from the northern side. There is no power line connecting us.

    In my particular circumstance (and I presume this is replicated in multiple scenarios across the country) it would take at least 4 or 5 times the total fibre run to connect us both via power line route over that of the phone line route (which we share) . Add the increased labour of a qualified ESB engineer crew over that of a KN crew and costs must be 10x.

    Power line routes are not the panacea that Timmy thinks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Pique wrote: »
    Its just an accounting exercise to include VAT. Any VAT paid by anyone to someone has to be returned to the govt anyway.

    Can you explain the accounting practice you refer to that does not mean NBI do not pay (or reclaim) VAT to the amount mentioned?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Pique wrote: »
    Power line routes are not the panacea that Timmy thinks.

    Not for last mile distribution. For sure.

    To bring national backbone infrastructure into rural areas: absolutely.

    /M


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,664 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    westyIrl wrote: »
    Interview with National Broadband Ireland CEO Peter Hendrick this morning on The Business on Radio 1:

    https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21556861

    National Broadband Ireland CEO, Peter Hendrick, makes delivery pledge - RTÉ News
    Speaking on RTɒs The Business, Peter Hendrick said he is "very confident" the plan can be delivered and that he expects NBI will sign the contract in mid-September.

    https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1129753582834769921


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    Can you explain the accounting practice you refer to that does not mean NBI do not pay (or reclaim) VAT to the amount mentioned?


    If I pay you 113.50 euro for a service (100 + 13.5% VAT) then 13.50 euro goes to the govt.

    If someone pays 3bn for a service then the VAT due to the govt is approx 400m.

    In this case it just so happens that the govt is the one paying the 3bn including vat.

    It could just as easily be quoted as 2.6bn because the govt pay 3bn but get 400m back in VAT.

    Companies collect VAT on behalf of the govt. NBI will collect that 400m on behalf of the govt and pay it to them. The fact that the govt was the one to pay the 3bn in the first place is coincidental to this process.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Does not quite work like that. 3bn is mostly for infrastructure.

    No vat comes back from that.

    The only vat to be got would be what comes from installations and subs. So assume 20% uptake of what ? 500k+ premises.

    That is 100k x lets say 99 eur installation incl VAT.

    13.5% of 99 EUR is 11.78 EUR. So 100k by 11.78 EUR is approx 1.1 million. The VAT of subs for whatever period. But that is all the VAT that is going to be raised. It is marginal.

    /M


  • Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Gary kk


    Marlow wrote: »
    Does not quite work like that. 3bn is mostly for infrastructure.

    No vat comes back from that.

    The only vat to be got would be what comes from installations and subs. So assume 20% uptake of what ? 500k+ premises.

    That is 100k x lets say 99 eur installation incl VAT.

    13.5% of 99 EUR is 11.78 EUR. So 100k by 11.78 EUR is approx 1.1 million. The VAT of subs for whatever period. But that is all the VAT that is going to be raised. It is marginal.

    /M
    Pretty sure it's 2.1 billion with 500million set aside for a rainy day and the rest is vat


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    Marlow wrote: »
    Does not quite work like that. 3bn is mostly for infrastructure.

    No vat comes back from that.

    The only vat to be got would be what comes from installations and subs. So assume 20% uptake of what ? 500k+ premises.

    That is 100k x lets say 99 eur installation incl VAT.

    13.5% of 99 EUR is 11.78 EUR. So 100k by 11.78 EUR is approx 1.1 million. The VAT of subs for whatever period. But that is all the VAT that is going to be raised. It is marginal.

    /M
    NBI will be paying VAT on all its construction materials at 23% and at 13:5% on its sub contracts


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Who will on turn pay workers who in turn pay taxes and buy stuff in the economy.

    It's not all as black and white.

    Any infrastructure project especially scale ones have positive impacts on the economy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    listermint wrote: »
    Who will on turn pay workers who in turn pay taxes and buy stuff in the economy.

    It's not all as black and white.

    Any infrastructure project especially scale ones have positive impacts on the economy

    Exactly
    Allied to that the VAT mentioned above returning to the government is on the 5 billion figure not the 2 or 3
    The NET cost of this drilled down is way less than the 2 billion figure to the taxpayer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Pique wrote: »
    If I pay you 113.50 euro for a service (100 + 13.5% VAT) then 13.50 euro goes to the govt.

    If someone pays 3bn for a service then the VAT due to the govt is approx 400m.

    In this case it just so happens that the govt is the one paying the 3bn including vat.

    It could just as easily be quoted as 2.6bn because the govt pay 3bn but get 400m back in VAT.

    Companies collect VAT on behalf of the govt. NBI will collect that 400m on behalf of the govt and pay it to them. The fact that the govt was the one to pay the 3bn in the first place is coincidental to this process.

    Thanks for explaining.

    As I understand this, the state is not 'paying for' anything, but is essentially giving money to NBI based on performance.
    What you imply above is that NBI will issue invoices to the state, including a VAT charge, which the gov will pay in full, including the VAT element.

    If that is the case then NBI can put through the VAT element of the subsidy on their books, and the figure they return to exchequer will be the difference between VAT received from gov and VAT paid to suppliers.

    My problem is, I fail to understand how a subsidy paid by gov can have any VAT element.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    I was not totally with it when I wrote that so apologies. The others have made it clearer.

    Govt gives 3bn to NBI.
    NBI buy fibre cable and sign contracts with KN, Eir and whoever else. These invoices include vat. Someone has worked out that the vat payable back to the state is approx 350m.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,031 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Pique wrote: »
    I was not totally with it when I wrote that so apologies. The others have made it clearer.

    Govt gives 3bn to NBI.
    NBI buy fibre cable and sign contracts with KN, Eir and whoever else. These invoices include vat. Someone has worked out that the vat payable back to the state is approx 350m.

    Thanks.
    That is my understanding.

    So unless those suppliers to NBI go bust that VAT element can be ignored.

    I wonder why it was included in figures released to public?

    It might appear they want the public figure to be much higher than it should be, for some reason.

    The same really applies to the contingency amount ..... as I understand it that would not normally be included when releasing the main cost of a project.

    They could easily have released a figure of €2.1 bn referring to a capped contingency figure.

    It is puzzling to me why they did it this way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,555 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    Anteayer wrote: »
    The cost of this is definitely way too high and needs to be explained in detail. I have been looking around for similar projects and it just seems very much more expensive.

    I would like to see it benchmarked against other projects elsewhere for comparison.


    So, you have looked around and compared, and perceive it to he too expensive.

    Lets have a look at the comparisons and postings you compared ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,052 ✭✭✭Pique


    Pique wrote: »
    I was not totally with it when I wrote that so apologies. The others have made it clearer.

    Govt gives 3bn to NBI.
    NBI buy fibre cable and sign contracts with KN, Eir and whoever else. These invoices include vat. Someone has worked out that the vat payable back to the state is approx 350m.

    Thanks.
    That is my understanding.

    It is puzzling to me why they did it this way.
    Probably cos the opposition would accuse them of misleading the public blah blah blah.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Could we actually get someone to publish a proper costing for this?

    It's clearly in some political interests to inflate the costs to their maximum and others to minimise them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Anteayer wrote: »
    It's clearly in some political interests to inflate the costs to their maximum and others to minimise them.

    Of course it is. Because if things go a-wall, they can afterwards say, those were the actual figures and the extra cost is caused by the VAT :) And there has to be room for some envelopes, too.

    /M


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,851 ✭✭✭Ten Pin


    Denis Naughten on Newstalk now


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,664 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Independent TD Michael Fitzmaurice was yesterday calling for the creation of an oversight committee in the Dáil, made up of mostly rural TDs, as a safeguard to ensure the project doesn't become another fiasco.

    He wants committee now so it can sit through the summer to ensure the deal isn’t “strangled at birth by political cowards and civil service laggards.”

    He also want the government to retain a “golden share” of the new NBP company.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement