Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-11-2019, 00:32   #1
MrAbyss
Registered User
 
MrAbyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 217
Rural Fibre Broadband, Really?

Why? Colossal money to spend on fiber to every rural home when 5G is around the corner.

Billions for something that will obsolete in a year or two.
MrAbyss is offline  
Advertisement
20-11-2019, 02:03   #2
OneEightSeven
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAbyss View Post
Why? Colossal money to spend on fiber to every rural home when 5G is around the corner.

Billions for something that will obsolete in a year or two.

5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.



Attached Images
File Type: jpeg tax revenue.jpeg (46.5 KB, 1421 views)
File Type: jpeg population.jpeg (46.0 KB, 1423 views)
File Type: jpeg NBP beneficiaries.jpeg (70.6 KB, 1421 views)
OneEightSeven is offline  
20-11-2019, 07:12   #3
Wildsurfer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 698
What about farms and rural buisness there Jackeen.... will we move them all up to Dublin so we can avail of all your wonderful city has to offer?
Wildsurfer is offline  
20-11-2019, 07:17   #4
Wanderer78
Registered User
 
Wanderer78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEightSeven View Post
5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.



can you make those pie charts bigger please, im struggling to see them? thanks
Wanderer78 is offline  
20-11-2019, 07:18   #5
Le shovelle
Registered User
 
Le shovelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 16
bungalow dwellers with their large gardens eh
Le shovelle is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
20-11-2019, 07:26   #6
beauf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 16,173
We already do this with other taxes as some counties don't generate enough income to be self sufficient anyway. So that's a bit of red herring.

We have huge problems with urbanisation. But I agree this scattergun development of one off isolated housing should never have been allowed unless it's working farm or business that needs to located where it is. New development should be focused on towns and villages which are in decline.
beauf is offline  
(2) thanks from:
20-11-2019, 07:28   #7
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo
Registered User
 
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,950
There needs to be a defined cut off point in place so this isn't a blank cheque. This project could double in price very easily, as we've seen over and over with these big state projects.

I think there is an economic argument to be made to bring high speed broadband to every population centre. Let's say the cut off is a rural village with at least 100 people living in it. But trying to connect every single one off house in the country is madness. Connecting up a home on the side of a mountain makes no financial sense.

There are many advantages to living on the side of a mountain compared to living in a built up urban area. Low crime, low pollution, more space, more greenery, cheaper and bigger accommodation ect. The compromise is that servives won't and can't be as good. That's the deal. There's pros and cons to both sides of it.

I'm sick of 'rural' Ireland complaining that they are not being looked after. Yet by every reasonable measure, they take a hell of a lot more than nearly any other segment of Irish society.

If you want high speed broadband while living on the side of a mountain, that's fine, but pay for it yourself.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo is offline  
20-11-2019, 07:41   #8
Eggs For Dinner
Registered User
 
Eggs For Dinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,287
Dublin is dysfunctional when it comes to infrastructure such as transport, services and housing. Anything that stems the flow of people and businesses to the capital helps the national economy
Eggs For Dinner is offline  
(2) thanks from:
20-11-2019, 08:02   #9
Plumbthedepths
Registered User
 
Plumbthedepths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 4,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEightSeven View Post
5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.



Get over yourself.
Plumbthedepths is offline  
Advertisement
20-11-2019, 08:06   #10
Plumbthedepths
Registered User
 
Plumbthedepths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 4,518
Thankfully electricity already exists in rural Ireland, imagine the whinging.
Plumbthedepths is offline  
20-11-2019, 08:08   #11
cjmc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo View Post
There needs to be a defined cut off point in place so this isn't a blank cheque. This project could double in price very easily, as we've seen over and over with these big state projects.

I think there is an economic argument to be made to bring high speed broadband to every population centre. Let's say the cut off is a rural village with at least 100 people living in it. But trying to connect every single one off house in the country is madness. Connecting up a home on the side of a mountain makes no financial sense.

There are many advantages to living on the side of a mountain compared to living in a built up urban area. Low crime, low pollution, more space, more greenery, cheaper and bigger accommodation ect. The compromise is that servives won't and can't be as good. That's the deal. There's pros and cons to both sides of it.

I'm sick of 'rural' Ireland complaining that they are not being looked after. Yet by every reasonable measure, they take a hell of a lot more than nearly any other segment of Irish society.

If you want high speed broadband while living on the side of a mountain, that's fine, but pay for it yourself.
Also pumping your own water at a significant cost. The septic tanks at a significant cost.
No waste collection .
Most one off country housing are farms. Or people who work and live In agricultural areas. Poor dubs me hole !
cjmc is offline  
Thanks from:
20-11-2019, 08:10   #12
tom1ie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumbthedepths View Post
Get over yourself.
He’s dead right though. If ya want high speed broadband, move to an urban centre.
tom1ie is offline  
(2) thanks from:
20-11-2019, 08:16   #13
McGaggs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildsurfer View Post
What about farms and rural buisness there Jackeen.... will we move them all up to Dublin so we can avail of all your wonderful city has to offer?
No, just follow sustainable development practices and build your mcmansion onto the existing towns and villages.
McGaggs is offline  
(4) thanks from:
20-11-2019, 08:19   #14
beauf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 16,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmc View Post
...
Most one off country housing are farms. Or people who work and live In agricultural areas. ...
I would doubt that's true considering the numbers that's have left farming.

But a lot of rural business like farms need broadband to compete today. A lot of it had gone high tech to stay competitive.

But seems an odd spend considering the problems with housing and health system.
beauf is offline  
Thanks from:
20-11-2019, 08:23   #15
realdanbreen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEightSeven View Post
5G is useless in rural areas and fibre will never be obsolete, it's the pinnacle of internet connectivity, but Starlink will be available next year and unlike conventional satellite, these are low-earth orbit so latency is much lower. It's around 30ms, which is comparable to Virgin Media. It a disgrace that the taxpayer should have to subsidise the broadband of those who built cheap bungalows in the backarse of nowhere, when high speed broadband is commercially viable in urban areas. This country doesn't have a broadband problem, we have a one off housing problem

We're about to waste €3bn on something that technology will solve in the near future and it will be commercially viable. The only reason why the government are doing is for votes, they don't have the testicular fortitude to explain to bungalow dwellers that us urban dwellers pay more money for our homes to get services like high speed broadband. Instead they make bogus comparisons to the electrification of Ireland to play up the importance of this project.

Another thing, it's mostly Dublin who is paying for this. County Dublin makes up 28.3% of our population, but generates 57% of our tax revenue and only 2.3% of homes in the intervention area are located in County Dublin. Basically, what the government are doing is taking urban dwellers tax money and using it to buy votes from people who built cheap bungalows and have much larger gardens than urban dwellers.




Ah come on you're not going to begrudge us broadband are you. I mean it would be different if we were already getting cheaper home insurance, car insurance, less crime, no traffic jams, less pollution, cheaper drink !
realdanbreen is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet