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

Smoke signals versus rural broadband - better bang for buck?

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,411 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    wexfordman2 wrote: »
    I completely agree with your last sentence, and I understand why you can't see it. You havnt an iota of what you are talking about.

    No.sattelite system will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of home/business broadband services.

    Wireless backhaul for 5g, wifi on esb poles.....you are utterly clueless.


    They haven't trialed the low earth satellite system yet,so nobody knows if will work.


  • Options
    #123
    worded
    Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭worded


    Anyone give this a read and have a comment?

    Some good points here from Mac Williams on Rural Broadband

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/rural-broadband-plan-is-a-gift-of-billions-to-private-firm/


  • Options
    #124
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    IPTV, torrents, multiple users online together, cloud based working (accessing files, using cloud based software, conf calls, uploading large files) etc etc. 4G is far too unreliable and simply can't handle my needs never mind the needs of the house as a whole. I have a very indepth knowledge of communications and I know the limits of non-fibre based delivery systems very well, even 5G simply will be good enough to replace having fibre systems.

    Agree with you that 4G will never be as good as fibre, but the other stuff there sounds like you're running a business from your home instead of using AWS
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Its irrelevant really if it costs more or not. A significant amount of the cost is shouldered by the person getting it be it in upfront connection costs or in higher rates but the fact is the wire have to be there and if they are there then the more rural housing the more cost effective it is compared to running lines all around for a few farms.

    It actually is relevant, the people shouldering most of the cost (The Tax payer) will see no benefit at all.
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Plenty of businesses still use local servers and even if not working of the cloud needs a very good internet connection.

    Not in rural areas, for small operations its more cost effective to use AWS, everyone knows this.
    If you had a big company you might have a case, but if you have a big company you need employees which means you need to be central (IE in a town or city, not 10 miles away from the nearest village)
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Farmers need fast and very reliable internet services, the only way to do this is provide wired services and the sensible way to do this is though fibre.

    For what though? Why do you need a fibre link to run a farm?
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Most don't use RDP, I know I don't I work on my local machine connected to cloud services when working remotely meaning upload and download speeds are crucial.

    This is a very old way of working, most companies now use virtual desktops.
    Even in the office.
    I don't have a PC, I have a "work station"
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    I would strongly disagree, I would see getting fast and reliable fibre BB to all or the vast vast majority of homes and businesses in the country is as vital a piece of infrastructure as any. It benefits the whole country and not just Dublin or Cork. The fact is all these investments in cities do nothing for those who live rurally and only further divides country and city.

    Cork growing does benefit Dublin.
    Anyone that lives in the capital knows that Dublin growing way to fast.
    We need some of these large multi nationals setting up shop elsewhere in the country.
    You can't even get staff in Dublin the problem is so bad.
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Its 2.5 billion to begin with as the number is already fudged to look worse for some reason due to VAT being included. What return will you see on a luas in cork either? That's not the point of big projects like this, it is to provide citizens with vital infrastructure. There is also a strong argument that it will have great economic benefit for for rural Ireland and with remote working, smart farming and the opportunities for internet based businesses to open up anywhere in the country along with equal treatment of rural dwellers by providing them with BB its a no brainer for me.

    There is no way it will have an economic benefit.
    This is something that, without state aid, would never get built as it is not financially viable and we'll never see a return on it.
    Hallie Noisy Geology wrote: »
    Ask someone in rural Ireland their opinion on the LUAS or metro north while trying to argue against providing a basic requirement such as high speed BB and you won't be long getting a strong response. Large numbers of us living in the country are paying massive amounts of tax and we deserve things like good BB just as much as any person who chooses to live in an urban area.

    First off fibre Broadband is not a basic requirement.
    There are lots of places even in capital cities that do not have it.
    It's complicated and it's expensive.

    Cities generate the most amount of revenue in the country.
    therefore they should get the most investment.

    3 Billion would be better spent on
    High Speed Rail between our big cities
    More Light Rail in all our cities
    Electrifying existing rail lines
    Better Roads
    New Prisons <======= Badly Needed
    Etc

    Rather than bringing 130MB BB to farmers.

    The Broadband Plan will is just to expensive, it's that simple.
    FG are already on their 2nd strike (Serious Garda corruption issues, and the p***take that is the NCH), and then you have to add brexit into the mix. One more strike and they're out.
    Make no mistake, this is about votes, FG reckon that this NBP will get them re-elected this year (I'm certain there will be a general election this year)


  • Options
    #125
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    grahambo wrote: »
    blah, blah, blah

    I'm alright Jack!....

    Let's hear how you would do it better and cheaper?


  • Options
    #126
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,542 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    I'm alright Jack!....

    Let's hear how you would do it better and cheaper?

    I wouldn't do it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    grahambo wrote: »
    I wouldn't do it!

    So you're alright then so, exactly what I expected


  • Options
    #128
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,838 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    wexfordman2 wrote: »
    I completely agree with your last sentence, and I understand why you can't see it. You havnt an iota of what you are talking about.

    No.sattelite system will provide sufficient capacity to meet the demands of home/business broadband services.

    Wireless backhaul for 5g, wifi on esb poles.....you are utterly clueless.
    I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

    12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
    https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

    And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

    Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.


  • Options
    #129
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

    12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
    https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

    And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

    Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.

    How many do you think Ireland would need? And at what cost? How many have they deployed so far? What kind of performance are they delivering? .....

    You do realise a satellite has less backhaul than a small rural exchange?

    Fibre is the only sane way of delivering rural broadband. It's a plan that actually works. Fibre already does 10G is completely in its infancy. In years to come you can just change the optics either end for faster speeds.


  • Options
    #130
    wexfordman2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    I am not talking about the current GEO ones with high latency and transponders covering all of Europe. Not even the Ka ones with the local spot beams.

    12,000 satellites. 12,000 times the bandwidth of one.
    https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/17/spacex-postpones-starlink-launch-to-update-satellite-software/

    And besides it's just to fill in the gaps that are truly uneconomic.

    Fibre to the home just doesn't make sense when they are talking about infrastructure that's only going to last 25 years with a low update.

    I know you are talking about LEO, but it will still never come near the requirments of the NBP

    1) Speeds and througputs will not meet the requirements (in principle and in spirit) the NBP has set.
    2) LAG will remain a problem, it will not match those of fibre.
    3) It is in no way futureproof in comparison to a fibre solution.
    4) The state would have little to no legal or regulatory input into the system
    5) It leaves a large section of the coutnry at the behest of a single private commercial entity WITH NO ASSETS in the country whatsoever.
    6) It is a national security lapse to do so.


  • Options
    #131
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    People can run a business from home if they have broadband, and work from home,theres 1000,s of empty houses in rural area,s ,
    some people might move and work in rural area,s if theres broadband .
    They are installing fibre ,it can be upgraded as tech and networks get faster.
    I think its a good investment.
    By the way running fibre to rural area ,s will be cheaper than installing 5g networks.
    5g will need a cell tower every mile, it does not have the range of 3g,
    it be very expensive to build a 5g network and it will take 5 years at least to do so.
    The thing i find strange is company x is getting paid billions to build the network
    and they will own it 100 per cent.
    In some countrys they put down pipes 1ft wide,
    any company can put fibre in those ducts if the y provide broadband to the houses they pass by, so it encourages competition .
    In the usa if fibre pass,es through a town maybe one in 4 potential customers will
    pay for broadband .
    Not everyone wants it or will pay for it.
    Once a duct piple is put in the ground it requires very little maintenance ,
    it ,ll be there for 100 years.
    i know someone living in a 5 bed house, near longford they were told they could not recieve satellite broadband or it will be
    no better than using a 3g dongle they have now.
    Countrys like south korea have very fast broadband everywhere ,over 100meg per second, it has proven to be a very good investment in terms of economic investment .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,838 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    How many do you think Ireland would need? And at what cost? How many have they deployed so far? What kind of performance are they delivering? .....

    You do realise a satellite has less backhaul than a small rural exchange?

    Fibre is the only sane way of delivering rural broadband. It's a plan that actually works. Fibre already does 10G is completely in its infancy. In years to come you can just change the optics either end for faster speeds.
    Oh dear.

    I posted a link to the rocket with 60 already on board, so soon..

    LEO so they whizz around. This also means we are the only people who can use them while they are over a good chunk of the Atlantic so more uncontended bandwidth.


    Back in the day BT used to have to offer satellite BB to anyone up north who was too far away to get DSL. This is the same idea. It's not ideal but when the cost of providing ONE building, that may or may not subscribe, is the same as delivering it to a small village


    Fibre to the home is nice. But it isn't cheap. Look at how many companies have walked away from the task. That alone makes me suspicious that a new entrant can do what established network companies that have existing infrastructure can't. And you need to be within about 500m of a distribution point. The last mile is still the issue.

    5G ?
    Stick up a mast at a crossroads that has 12 houses and a pub and move on.

    A tiny company gets to decide how to spend billions ? when it would be cheaper to just buy it with a fraction of the cash and then govt gets compete control.


    Overall this smacks of Dustin's campaign to bring the Dart to Dingle.


  • Options
    #133
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Oh dear.

    I posted a link to the rocket with 60 already on board, so soon..

    LEO so they whizz around. This also means we are the only people who can use them while they are over a good chunk of the Atlantic so more uncontended bandwidth.


    Back in the day BT used to have to offer satellite BB to anyone up north who was too far away to get DSL. This is the same idea. It's not ideal but when the cost of providing ONE building, that may or may not subscribe, is the same as delivering it to a small village


    Fibre to the home is nice. But it isn't cheap. Look at how many companies have walked away from the task. That alone makes me suspicious that a new entrant can do what established network companies that have existing infrastructure can't. And you need to be within about 500m of a distribution point. The last mile is still the issue.

    5G ?
    Stick up a mast at a crossroads that has 12 houses and a pub and move on.

    A tiny company gets to decide how to spend billions ? when it would be cheaper to just buy it with a fraction of the cash and then govt gets compete control.


    Overall this smacks of Dustin's campaign to bring the Dart to Dingle.

    Smacks of the I'm alright Jack attitude we see on here. Like I said fibre is the only sane way of delivering futureproof dependable rural broadband.


  • Options
    #134
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    Smacks of the I'm alright Jack attitude we see on here. Like I said fibre is the only sane way of delivering futureproof dependable rural broadband.

    Why should boreens in Ireland be served with 'dependable rural broadband' at great expense to everyone else?


  • Options
    #135
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Why should boreens in Ireland be served with 'dependable rural broadband' at great expense to everyone else?

    Because broadband has become as essential as running water, flushing toilets and electricity.

    The very fact that you used the word boreen says all about your attitude also. There are hundreds of thousands of rural homes not on boreens that cannot get decent services and lots of them weren't built in the last 10-20 years are older than that


  • Options
    #136
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,238 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    The whole fiasco is a massive waste of tax-funds.

    We should be discouraging one-off housing, not spending billions hooking them up to fibre. The take-up rate is shocking low for those homes which have been connected. A lot of them are frequently lived-in holiday homes who are not going to pay for year-round broadband.

    The Government, against all the advice are once agin spending our money trying to buy themselves votes.

    If you choose to live in the arse end of nowhere you shouldn't get broadband.


  • Options
    #137
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    Because broadband has become as essential as running water, flushing toilets and electricity.

    The very fact that you used the word boreen says all about your attitude also. There are hundreds of thousands of rural homes not on boreens that cannot get decent services and lots of them weren't built in the last 10-20 years are older than that

    1000Mbit broadband has not become as essential as running water, flushing toilets or electricity. That is a ludicrous statement.


  • Options
    #138
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    lawred2 wrote: »
    1000Mbit broadband has not become as essential as running water, flushing toilets or electricity. That is a ludicrous statement.

    Who mentioned 1000mbit? 30mbit is the requirement scaling to 150mbit by 2025. Fibre is just the medium being used because it is capable of long distances.


  • Options
    #139
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    Who mentioned 1000mbit? 30mbit is the requirement scaling to 150mbit by 2025. Fibre is just the medium being used because it is capable of long distances.

    You can't 'scale' to 150Mbit without ftth


  • Options
    #140
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    If you choose to live in the arse end of nowhere you shouldn't get broadband.

    My uncles house, my grandfather's house was built in the 30s, what do you want him and his family to do?


  • Options
    #141
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    lawred2 wrote: »
    You can't 'scale' to 150Mbit without ftth

    Exactly, which is why every other technology was excluded.

    I'm not saying the NBP is perfect, far from it. I'm just trying to dispel the myths that there are other technologies that can do it better or cheaper than fibre. Fibre is the only game in town for this


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    The high horse brigade wrote: »
    Exactly, which is why every other technology was excluded.

    I'm not saying the NBP is perfect, far from it. I'm just trying to dispel the myths that there are other technologies that can do it better or cheaper than fibre. Fibre is the only game in town for this

    Which is exactly why it's an outrageous waste of money. Just because it's the only show in town doesn't mean that it should be done.


  • Options
    #143
    The high horse brigade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,456 ✭✭✭The high horse brigade


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Which is exactly why it's an outrageous waste of money. Just because it's the only show in town doesn't mean that it should be done.

    So I'm alright Jack, great for you!

    It's 2 billion (when you strip out the VAT and the contingency plan money) spread over 25 years. It's pennies for what the country is getting TBH. Our children's children will benefit from it


  • Options
    #144
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    pOrNhuB iS a huMaN rIgHt

    But really, I'm from a field outside a small village, outside another village and our broadband at home is fine. I think some media and politicians think we're all still using dial-up in the sticks. We we have a choice of six providers, have no trouble streaming or accessing other content.

    I know there's awful coverage in some places, but those are the trade-offs we make for living in very remote places. Even where I'm based in Dublin, the broadband sometimes dips at certain times.

    Also, I'm not saying they've done anything wrong, but I don't trust Granahan McCourt (GMC), and neither apparently does the Department of a public Expenditure.

    I'm not from a remote place but the internet is awful. I get download speeds of .7mb. I can't even watch a youtube video. I live in Dublin and work there. I could work remotely if I had fast internet.

    You know, people complain investment is centred around Dublin yet complain because broadband will be put outside of Dublin. The flexible work force of the future needs fast internet. This will turn out to be a great decision.

    I know why people are against it, because they won't benefit from it. I bet there's no one in rural Ireland against this. Most ones against it are probably living in the cities and are pissed because they'd rather get that 2bn spent on them instead. I have no doubts that if tomorrow the metro was announced to cost 2bn extra then people would say "it's worth it to get it done, it's badly needed"


  • Options
    #145
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    facehugger99 wrote: »

    We should be discouraging one-off housing, not spending billions hooking them up to fibre.

    Sorry but some people would like to have a quality of life in a bigger house and some privacy.


  • Options
    #146
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,293 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    Sorry but some people would like to have a quality of life in a bigger house and some privacy.

    Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

    This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

    It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought


  • Options
    #147
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

    This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

    It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought

    Not only that but the ministers advisors were against it also. They've lost my vote anyway.


  • Options
    #148
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Pay for the costs of servicing it then.

    This clearly isn't a commercially viable plan or else the commercial operators would be falling over themselves to get the contract. And if the rural dweller isn't prepared to foot the bill for their idyllic privacy then why should someone not enjoying the same quality of life end up doing so?

    It's clearly a vote buying exercise and yet again the Irish prove themselves easily bought

    You pay for your luas and metro yourself then.

    Since when have all decisions been commercially based? If it was, Bus Eireann would have been disbanded years ago.


  • Options
    #149
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    You pay for your luas and metro yourself then.

    That's the point, Dublin obviously can pay for these things itself. It doesn't need propping up.


  • Options
    #150
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    Ush1 wrote: »
    That's the point, Dublin obviously can pay for these things itself. It doesn't need propping up.

    I think the 25 counties can cover 2bn over 25 years too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,502 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    I think the 25 counties can cover 2bn over 25 years too.

    Let's not forget there's also over 10,000 Dublin premises in the NBP intervention area.


Advertisement