NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

bk · 23-01-2015 6:09pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

They must be doing something very right in some Nordic countries so as a mate of mine gets approx 90Mb/s and more on 4G.

Remember "mobile broadband" is a fundamentally shared medium. You are sharing that bandwidth with everyone else connected to the same cell site.

Do a speed test for 30 seconds and sure, you might well get 30 to 90Mb/s. Now try downloading a large file consistently for 1 hour and you will see the speed very quickly drop to almost nothing!

Also remember that very people have 4G enabled phones and devices yet. So your friend may well be only person with a 4G device connected to that cell, specially in a low density nordic rural area and s/he might be getting all the available bandwidth.

As more and more people upgrade from 3G to 4G devices, that speed will quickly fall. Just as we have seen happened with 3G and we are already seeing reports of this happening with 4G even here in Dublin!

Now strictly speaking it would be possible to do 30Mb/s minimum constantly at peak times with 4G, but you would need a very dense network of cell sites to achieve that.

The point Eircom and pretty much everyone is making, is that in order to get that density and achieve that minimum spec, it would actually cost more then just running FTTH.

Remember every new cell site requires a very large antenna, planning permission, Comreg licensing and payments to the owner of the land you build new cell sites on. Never mind objections from NIMBY neighbours. If you need a very dense network of such cell sites, this could get extremely expensive, extremely quickly.

Johnboy1951 · 23-01-2015 6:32pm

bk wrote: »

Remember "mobile broadband" is a fundamentally shared medium. You are sharing that bandwidth with everyone else connected to the same cell site.

Do a speed test for 30 seconds and sure, you might well get 30 to 90Mb/s. Now try downloading a large file consistently for 1 hour and you will see the speed very quickly drop to almost nothing!

Also remember that very people have 4G enabled phones and devices yet. So your friend may well be only person with a 4G device connected to that cell, specially in a low density nordic rural area and s/he might be getting all the available bandwidth.

As more and more people upgrade from 3G to 4G devices, that speed will quickly fall. Just as we have seen happened with 3G and we are already seeing reports of this happening with 4G even here in Dublin!

Now strictly speaking it would be possible to do 30Mb/s minimum constantly at peak times with 4G, but you would need a very dense network of cell sites to achieve that.

The point Eircom and pretty much everyone is making, is that in order to get that density and achieve that minimum spec, it would actually cost more then just running FTTH.

Remember every new cell site requires a very large antenna, planning permission, Comreg licensing and payments to the owner of the land you build new cell sites on. Never mind objections from NIMBY neighbours. If you need a very dense network of such cell sites, this could get extremely expensive, extremely quickly.

It was consistent over a long period of time ...... he was downloading quite a lot of large files over a period of a couple of months that we spoke about it. Such files as Linux ISOs up to 4GB in size.
He was also using an external aerial.

I can only report what was discussed.

mass_debater · 23-01-2015 7:08pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

They must be doing something very right in some Nordic countries so as a mate of mine gets approx 90Mb/s and more on 4G.

People in Nordic countries don't use it as a fixed broadband substitute like we do here

Johnboy1951 · 23-01-2015 7:14pm

mass_debater wrote: »

People in Nordic countries don't use it as a fixed broadband substitute like we do here

It was sold as 4G broadband, and it was operated as such.

mass_debater · 23-01-2015 7:24pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It was sold as 4G broadband, and it was operated as such.

But other real broadband options are available so it's not relied upon as a fixed broadband substitute. The speeds on mobile are what everyone shares, tell your neighbour, let them get it and you've just halved it. Look at how well the mobile networks in the UK perform when they don't have fixed users relying on it.

bk · 23-01-2015 7:25pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It was consistent over a long period of time ...... he was downloading quite a lot of large files over a period of a couple of months that we spoke about it. Such files as Linux ISOs up to 4GB in size.
He was also using an external aerial.

I can only report what was discussed.

But as I pointed out, he well may be the only person using it.

As mass_debater says, most people in Nordic countries have widespread FTTH, which most people use. So the 3G and 4G networks aren't heavily used as broadband replacements as they often are here in Ireland. Instead they are mostly used for what they were designed for, mobile broadband. That means light browsing, a little bit of video streaming etc.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It was sold as 4G broadband, and it was operated as such.

Let me make it very clear, on this forum we don't consider 3G and 4G as broadband. That is why we call it midband and it is also why we have a separate sub forum for it.

The idiot marketeers can call it what ever they want, to try and trick people into buying it, but it definitely isn't anywhere close as being as good, fast or reliable as wired broadband. These marketing claims are pure marketing lies.

There is nothing magical about 4G, it is totally constrained by the laws of physics! I can point you at detailed technical documentation about the specification of 4G, the frequencies used, the amount of bandwidth available per frequency and the amount of people using each cell site. From that you can easily work out how much bandwidth is available per user and trust me it isn't pretty!

So please don't be trying to push marketing drivel on us. :mad:

lucernarian · 23-01-2015 7:33pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

http://fibrerollout.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Call-for-Input.pdf

This one? Initially, at the point in which most people would stop reading they completely ignore fixed position wireless mesh networks operating at 5ghz with modern technology. Instead only refer to LTE and its characteristics. About 50 pages in they briefly mention that 5ghz could be used for Islands and mountain regions.

There are plenty of wireless rural schemes across the world that show they are commercially viable. The issue is always the lack of a decent backhaul connection.

I can't help but feel that any private entity like Eircom would release a report without a high level of bias. Its dying and will do what it needs to again have another overtly large state subsidised network laid down in its name.

To me, specifying a minimum population density required for FFTH would have a number of benefits for us as a country.

It would provide an incentive for people to move back to the towns, stopping once off rural housing.
It would reduce the cost of the scheme.
It will speed up the rollout.

Then we can use that state sponsored backhaul to provide decent wireless services across the country. They can be run by rural schemes or enterprising individuals. Or companies like Eircom if they so desire.

It saddens me to say it in a way considering many members of my family live in one-off housing but i more or less agree with what you said. Eircom did talk about LTE as though there were no viable alternatives or an economical of microwave deployments that have the spectrum to back them up. The 3.5 GHz allocations are miserly and some of them have distance limits from a given site. It was a poor response even by 2006 standards and now they're totally unfit for purpose. 5ghz can be more useful but even then the technology will for better or worse be regarded as "unproven" or not tested enough for mass deployment and before you know it any centralised rollout of wireless access will involve another subsidy to another mobile operator like the so-called National Broadband Scheme.

Also if further planning is going to offer selective rollouts based on local electoral districts like how the census is worked out, it will be horribly inefficient and neighbours in similar housing but on either side of a boundary may get totally different subsidies or quality of connection.

For what its worth, I would tie in FTTH rollout with current and planned villages and developments or any previously identified sustainable locations for housing. Then allow a charge per km based rollout of ftth to remaining houses. Farmers specifically and others integral to agricultural and rural industry can also qualify for development subsidies for these connections or grants for higher spec microwave links provided by local wisps.

Johnboy1951 · 23-01-2015 8:17pm

bk wrote:

So please don't be trying to push marketing drivel on us.

Sheeze! What were you reading?

Certainly not what I actually posted.

:rolleyes:

Tommy Lagahan · 24-01-2015 1:27pm

mass_debater wrote: »

But other real broadband options are available so it's not relied upon as a fixed broadband substitute. The speeds on mobile are what everyone shares, tell your neighbour, let them get it and you've just halved it. Look at how well the mobile networks in the UK perform when they don't have fixed users relying on it.

Its funny because this is exactly what happened to my fixed wireless 5GHz connection. After 5-6 years of Three 3G torture I swapped to fixed wireless and it was fantastic, 9ms ping 10Mbit all of the time. So being the idiot I was I told the rest of the family stuck on 3G about it. Then they told their neighbors, and so on.

Now I get 20% packet loss most of the day and 0.4Mbit at peak times.
Contention is a horrible evil thing.

As a bitter taste of irony, all the people who switched took some of the stress off of the 3G mast, so now I swap back and forth based on the contention and pay 60 quid a month for 2 services.

mass_debater · 24-01-2015 2:11pm

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

Its funny because this is exactly what happened to my fixed wireless 5GHz connection. After 5-6 years of Three 3G torture I swapped to fixed wireless and it was fantastic, 9ms ping 10Mbit all of the time. So being the idiot I was I told the rest of the family stuck on 3G about it. Then they told their neighbors, and so on.

Now I get 20% packet loss most of the day and 0.4Mbit at peak times.
Contention is a horrible evil thing.

As a bitter taste of irony, all the people who switched took some of the stress off of the 3G mast, so now I swap back and forth based on the contention and pay 60 quid a month for 2 services.

Exactly why a fibre rollout benefits everyone, mobile and fixed wireless providers also. How far are your fixed wireless provider going to get decent backhaul?

The NBP should be a long term plan in stages. The first phase of any rural plan should be to get fibre to every town and village, then next to within a few km of everyones homes and the last and final phase directly to all homes. Fixed wireless with fibre backhaul can be a good stopgap service until the final stage is complete and should be included. Mobile has no place and needs to be omitted, this doesn't mean they won't benefit

KOR101 · 24-01-2015 3:19pm

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

Its funny because this is exactly what happened to my fixed wireless 5GHz connection. After 5-6 years of Three 3G torture I swapped to fixed wireless and it was fantastic, 9ms ping 10Mbit all of the time. So being the idiot I was I told the rest of the family stuck on 3G about it. Then they told their neighbors, and so on.

Now I get 20% packet loss most of the day and 0.4Mbit at peak times.
Contention is a horrible evil thing.

As a bitter taste of irony, all the people who switched took some of the stress off of the 3G mast, so now I swap back and forth based on the contention and pay 60 quid a month for 2 services.

Yeah. My neighbour invited me in so I could see what good internet she has from a fixed wireless provider. I ran a speed test, and she was getting about 2.5 mbits. She may as well have invited in the devil (if only she knew).

Tommy Lagahan · 24-01-2015 7:40pm

mass_debater wrote: »

How far are your fixed wireless provider going to get decent backhaul?

As the crow flies from my mast to their base station in Derry its 33.4 miles using Google earth to measure. I'm 2.7 miles from the mast.
They're a small company with crap customer support and likely wouldn't even take up a fiber connection to the mast anyway, they don't care about connections in the south because they get paid by the government to do last mile broadband in the north. Wouldn't be surprised if we get less priority so they meet their contract.

KOR101 · 01-02-2015 11:58pm

You might wonder whether, when practicality and cost are factored in, that we may end up with a NBP not so unlike out neighbour.

https://www.gov.uk/broadband-delivery-uk

The Government is investing over £1 billion in improving broadband and mobile infrastructure to:

Provide superfast broadband coverage to 90% of the UK by 2016
Provide basic broadband (2Mbps) for all by 2016
Provide superfast broadband to 95% of the UK by 2017
Explore options to get near universal superfast broadband coverage across the UK by 2018
Create 22 ‘SuperConnected Cities’ across the UK by 2015
Improve mobile coverage in remote areas by 2016

Superfast Broadband Programme

The ambition is to provide superfast broadband (speeds of 24Mbps or more) for at least 95% of UK premises and universal access to basic broadband (speeds of at least 2Mbps).
Government funding is stimulating private sector investment in broadband to ensure that the benefits are available to all.
The programme is being delivered in three phases:

Phase 1 aims to provide superfast broadband to 90% of premises in the UK
Phase 2 will seek to further extend coverage to 95% of the UK
Phase 3 will test options to rollout superfast broadband beyond 95%

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-aid-advice

Encouragingly,

BT has been accused by MPs of "vastly overestimating" the cost of providing broadband to rural areas. It follows a National Audit Office (NAO) report, which revealed that the rollout will cost at least £92m less than BT had originally said.

Bringing faster services to remote areas has proved to be highly controversial.
Questions have been raised about the time it has taken the government to start the rollout and whether the plans are ambitious enough.
Last year the Public Accounts Committee accused the government of mismanaging the project, and said BT released "wildly inaccurate" estimates of costs.
Mrs Hodge said at the time: "The taxpayer has been ripped off, with £1.2bn going to the shareholders of BT."
Ultra-fast broadband BT's status as the only operator providing rural broadband could actually be one of the reasons for costs being cut, said Andrew Ferguson, editor of the ThinkBroadband news site.
"It is interesting that a chunk of the savings are down to the fact that only one supplier won all the contracts, increasing the economies of scale, at the expense of competition," he said.
Mike Kiely, a former adviser to BDUK, has long argued that BT's estimates of the cost of distributing broadband to rural areas were far too high.
He felt vindicated by the findings, saying: "Thirty-eight per cent excess costs have been confirmed in the cost models used to calculate the milestone payments. Those monies - and there will be more - need to be used to extend the fibre rollout further."
He and others argue that BT should think about offering even faster broadband - by taking so-called "fibre-to-the-premise" technology, which offers significantly higher speeds than BT's preferred technology of "fibre-to-the-cabinet".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31043548

Johnboy1951 · 02-02-2015 12:08am

Provide superfast broadband coverage to 90% of the UK by 2016
Provide basic broadband (2Mbps) for all by 2016

Superfast is 24Mb/s ....... hehehehehehe

2Mb/s is basic broadband? ...... :mad:

This was first published in 2013 ...... quite a lot has happened since then in technology ....

dalta5billion · 02-02-2015 12:48am

I know it's been posted before, but the B4RN project in the UK is really astonishing.

Basically farmers have dug the ducts for fibre cables across their lands themselves, and they get 1Gbps symmetrical for 30£ a month. And this is none of your GPON stuff, it's PtP fibre, so upgradeable as the need arises (dedicated circuits are available for businesses). They then hire dark fibre to connect to the wider internet.

The business plan is particularly inspiring.
http://b4rn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/B4RN-Business-Plan-v5-2.pdf

Could we do this in rural Ireland? The guy behind it seems to have been particularly good at convincing locals and organising the whole project, and planning the network (lots of redundancy) . Their YouTube channel is also great, I think I've watched every video.

KOR101 · 02-02-2015 10:44am

dalta5billion wrote: »

I know it's been posted before, but the B4RN project in the UK is really astonishing.

Basically farmers have dug the ducts for fibre cables across their lands themselves, and they get 1Gbps symmetrical for 30£ a month. And this is none of your GPON stuff, it's PtP fibre, so upgradeable as the need arises (dedicated circuits are available for businesses). They then hire dark fibre to connect to the wider internet.

The business plan is particularly inspiring.
http://b4rn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/B4RN-Business-Plan-v5-2.pdf

Could we do this in rural Ireland? The guy behind it seems to have been particularly good at convincing locals and organising the whole project, and planning the network (lots of redundancy) . Their YouTube channel is also great, I think I've watched every video.

Addictive viewing.....

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_VPTlFv9kuLqI25JX4GTQ/videos

Cuddlesworth · 02-02-2015 10:48am

dalta5billion wrote: »

I know it's been posted before, but the B4RN project in the UK is really astonishing.

Basically farmers have dug the ducts for fibre cables across their lands themselves, and they get 1Gbps symmetrical for 30£ a month. And this is none of your GPON stuff, it's PtP fibre, so upgradeable as the need arises (dedicated circuits are available for businesses). They then hire dark fibre to connect to the wider internet.

The business plan is particularly inspiring.
http://b4rn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/B4RN-Business-Plan-v5-2.pdf

Could we do this in rural Ireland? The guy behind it seems to have been particularly good at convincing locals and organising the whole project, and planning the network (lots of redundancy) . Their YouTube channel is also great, I think I've watched every video.

I think the dynamics of laying cable here would be very different. Per property you would have a greater distances between hub and site due to our larger level of ribbon development. With a far far greater amount of properties to negotiate laying cable in because farms here are smaller and dispersed. But its more then possible.

I see they get a grant of 300 per connection, anything like that here?

nilhg · 05-02-2015 3:17pm

Some interesting tweets by Adrian Weckler this morning,

"Eircom CEO Moat also says that Eircom's Nat BB tender will be based on fibre to the home, not the cabinet. Even to remote rural homes."

"Nat Broadband Plan will cost "substantially" less than originally thought, says new Eircom boss. So will cost taxpayer way less than €500m"

"So it's starting to look more likely that state-subsidised rural fibre broadband to 700,000 homes/businesses will really happen. (By 2020.)"

Nolars · 05-02-2015 3:35pm

http://www.independent.ie/business/richard-moat-the-fibre-diet-will-get-eircom-moving-again-30964828.html

'Cheaper' rural broadband plan in the pipeline

Eircom is preparing to bid for the Government's upcoming National Broadband tender, a contract that could see it win hundreds of millions in public money to roll out fibre broadband to 700,000 rural homes and businesses.

"We're ready to go, we're ready to submit a proposal and we intend to win," says Eircom's chief executive Richard Moat.

The plan requires a minimum speed of 30 megabits per second (Mbs) to every premises, regardless of how remotely it is located.

But how much will it cost? The Government has previously said it would spend up to €500m subsidising the scheme. But Mr Moat says that the final overall cost might be a lot less than the €1bn on which the Government's initial €500m subsidy estimates was based.

An outlay of "€1bn would definitely be more than enough", he says. "I don't want to give away our commercial position on this, but I would say that it would be well under a billion.

"The cost of [fibre broadband] equipment is coming down. And our know-how on how to use existing assets is improving. The combination of those two means that the cost of rolling out rural fibre broadband is substantially less than either we or the market originally thought."

But would this be real fibre to the home and business or just a phone-line connected service? There is a big difference between fibre piped into someone's home and fibre that connects a local phone cabinet (which means much more limited speed, similar to Eircom's existing 'eFibre' product). Does Eircom see a rural fibre broadband plan physically delivering fibre into every single premises or simply to the local phone cabinets?

"We have a detailed plan for this and it is based on fibre to the home," says Mr Moat.

"You might think that given our huge experience bringing fibre to the cabinet that that is what we'd be recommending. But having looked at it in detail, we actually think that fibre to the home is a more sensible solution. Because we're talking about rural ribbon developments here. Putting cabinets in won't really work as it's not the same as more concentrated communities. Individual homes would be too far from the cabinet. So it's got to be fibre to the home. We've concluded that it's cheaper and easier and more logical to run fibre along the road and along the poles we already have."

If Eircom won the tender, would it want to own the state-subsidised network built or see it remain in state hands but licensed on a rolling basis?

"We would far prefer to own the asset," says Mr Moat. "And I would have thought that the Government doesn't really want to get into owning networks. Of course, they will want to know that proper regulation and competition is occurring. But I'm working on the assumption that the operator will own the assets." Eircom is confident that the National Broadband Plan will proceed - even though is yet to be financially provisioned for by the Government and which must yet overcome EU state aid rules?

"There might be some scepticism but as far as Eircom is concerned, we think it is going to happen. The Government appear to have assembled a very powerful team behind it. So we've put a big team behind it, led by Carolan Lennon, which is devoted to winning the National Broadband Plan.

"We were probably the biggest contributor to the Government's mapping exercise too, which is a building block for it to go ahead. So as far as we're concerned, it's happening."

Indo Business

bk · 05-02-2015 4:54pm

All awesome stuff coming from Eircoms CEO here!

I have to say I've been increasingly impressed with the new Eircom over the last two years and their fast and effective rollout of VDSL. From this article it really looks like Eircom have turned over a new leaf.

Of course I remain wary of Eircom! But I'm hoping they prove me wrong.

I'm delighted to see that Eircom also believes FTTH is the only solution for rural broadband and even better they think it can be done cheaper then previously thought!

I think they are correct about removing the old copper network and replacing it with Fibre. Obviously Fibre is far faster, but it is also more robust with cheaper maintenance costs. Also copper cable can be melted down and sold to the materials market, helping to pay for the new Fibre.

However I can see issues with this plan and objections to it. The other telecos operating their own LLU services over copper will likely object and it will be an issue for services that use copper (Sky Multiroom, Security Alarm monitoring, Credit/Debit card machines, fax machines, etc.).

Certainly not insurmountable issues, but they will certainly not be easy to deal with.

While I understand why Eircom would rather own this rural network. I'd much prefer to see the government own it if they are paying for half of it.

Obviously I would expect other operators to also be given access to this network. Preferably I'd like to see them use multi-wavelength fibre, where each company would be given their own optical wavelength on the fiber, so they have more control and can develop their own unique products and not be simple Eircom resellers.

Tommy Lagahan · 05-02-2015 5:00pm

Oh god please don't get me hyped like this :P

MajesticDonkey · 05-02-2015 5:10pm

This is unbelievably exciting, and I'm actually quite optimistic about it. Five years isn't long though!

MBSnr · 05-02-2015 6:23pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

This is unbelievably exciting, and I'm actually quite optimistic about it. Five years isn't long though!

Fibre to my rural house in five years... Sounds great, sounds magical, sounds like a Stalin Five Year Plan. If it doesn't happen in five years we'll make another grand five year plan....

Ohh I'm tooo sceptical...

Cuddlesworth · 05-02-2015 9:45pm

bk wrote: »

Of course I remain wary of Eircom! But I'm hoping they prove me wrong.

I'm delighted to see that Eircom also believes FTTH is the only solution for rural broadband and even better they think it can be done cheaper then previously thought!

Sounds like Eircom have been taking a leaf from Irish construction companies in regards government tenders tbh.

1 - Underbid on contract.
2 - Complete circa 25% to 50% of project.
3 - Cry pauper and put the hand out, claiming unforeseen circumstances(which other bidders foresaw)

Gonzo · 05-02-2015 10:24pm

this sounds great but with the FTTC eFibre rollout going on till at least 2016, they won't start this till at least early 2017 and aim to have everyone wired up by late 2020 and it's a 5 year plan? They will still be wiring people up in 2025

skydish79 · 05-02-2015 10:34pm

Who would you BK prefer to win the contract , Eircom or ESB?

KOR101 · 05-02-2015 10:55pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

This is unbelievably exciting, and I'm actually quite optimistic about it. Five years isn't long though!

Yes, if he's saying it's going to be cheaper than the government thought, and if the exchequer figures continue anything like the January ones, there is really no reason for a contract for this not to be signed before the election. And, Eircom HAVE delivered on FTTC.

MajesticDonkey · 05-02-2015 11:03pm

KOR101 wrote: »

And, Eircom HAVE delivered on FTTC.

And in fairness are continuing to deliver with all the eFibre rollouts they're doing.

ED E · 05-02-2015 11:49pm

Gonzo wrote: »

this sounds great but with the FTTC eFibre rollout going on till at least 2016, they won't start this till at least early 2017 and aim to have everyone wired up by late 2020 and it's a 5 year plan? They will still be wiring people up in 2025

They can run simultaneously. Like the FTTH theyve been running for 2yrs in parallel to the VDSL rollout to date. Eircoms own crews could focus on pushing out fibre runs while KNN keep doing the VDSL stuff. Or add more KNN. Plenty of jobseekers in the nation.

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

And in fairness are continuing to deliver with all the eFibre rollouts they're doing.

Im waiting for eVDSL to get the go ahead, that'll double the pace for the subsequent few quarters as its far less time consuming to do.

bk · 06-02-2015 12:09am

skydish79 wrote: »

Who would you BK prefer to win the contract , Eircom or ESB?

Oh, good question, it is a difficult one.

On the one hand I'm really impressed by the ESB. They are a profitable company that is unlike Eircom is very much focused on long term infrastructural investment. Just look at the excellent quality of their rural electricity network (and the shambles that Eircoms rural network is) and their investment in Electric car charging points.

All very positive.

I also think they have a better rural infrastructure to build on then Eircom.

The downside is that they are really new to the residential broadband market and thus unproven.

Also I'm weary of Vodafones involvement with them, I really don't like Vodafones deceptive marketing of their VDSL products as unlimited (really a 300GB cap). Vodafone really aren't doing themselves any favours in this regard.

On the other hand, I've hated Eircom as a company for a long time as I believe they completely held back the Irish broadband market for almost 15 years and milked it for everything it was worth.

Having said that, they really seem to have turned over a new leaf in the past two years. I'm very impressed with their speedy rollout of VDSL. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though still VERY weary of them returning to their old ways.

The positives for Eircom is they have lots of experience with operating and selling residential broadband and I've no doubt will be able to also operate a FTTH network well.

They also have the most extensive fiber network in Ireland, thus well placed to rollout FTTH from this network.

So as you see it is a really hard question.

My gut tells me I'd prefer the ESB, but I honestly wonder if that is just my distrust of Eircom.

Of course these aren't the only two options. Two other options are possible:

1) Both ESB and Eircom win contracts for different areas.
2) The network is owned by the government (some sort of semi state) and they contract both ESB and Eircom to build different parts of the network.

The latter option would be my preference, given that unlike urban areas where you will have the option of at least two networks (Eircom + UPC or ESB) and thus network level competition. Rural will be a natural monopoly and I'm not sure I trust any private company with such a natural monopoly.

NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

Comments