NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

murphaph · 26-11-2014 8:45pm

Does this plan also cover premises INSIDE the blue areas that cannot get a 30Mb connection? There must be thousands of premises in this situation because of line faults or weird extra long cable runs back to the exchange. Will operators be compelled to fix their line faults to ensure they get at least 30Mb? Interesting times ahead!

bk · 27-11-2014 2:16pm

murphaph wrote: »

Does this plan also cover premises INSIDE the blue areas that cannot get a 30Mb connection? There must be thousands of premises in this situation because of line faults or weird extra long cable runs back to the exchange. Will operators be compelled to fix their line faults to ensure they get at least 30Mb? Interesting times ahead!

No, this plan doesn't cover any homes inside the blue areas.

The FAQ on the site says about this:

I’m living an area marked Blue but there is no connectivity available on my street/road?

If you are in a BLUE area and you don’t have a high speed broadband service, you should first check commercial operator websites to see whether your area has been upgraded yet.

There are three possible reasons why your area is market BLUE but you don’t have service:

(1) Your area has not been upgraded yet. All the BLUE areas are expected to be upgraded by the end of 2016. You can check operator maps and websites for an update on when your area is expected to be upgraded.
(2) Your area has been upgraded but there is a problem with your individual service. If this is the case you should contact your service provider. If this fails to resolve the matter you can contact ComReg (the independent regulator for the telecommunications industry) at http://www.askcomreg.ie/
(3) Your area has been upgraded but there are clusters of buildings in this area that have not been fully upgraded for technical reasons. Telecommunications operators have advised the Department that all of these areas will be addressed by the end of 2016. If you think your home or business falls into this category you can contact us using the on-line form. By providing us with specific details of your address we can follow up with the appropriate commercial providers.

So my reading of this is that no, they won't be required to deliver 30mb/s to you, but I'd imagine they will be under pretty strong pressure to do so and most people will be sorted out.

AlanS181824 · 27-11-2014 8:58pm

I looked up where my Nanny lives and her address is on it, 30Mb out there? I doubt it very much!

Recently a phone mast fell down in bad weather so we can't even get Edge out there anymore!

No internet whatsoever!

fitzgooble · 27-11-2014 11:57pm

My two cents is you'll have all the major towns and cities covered by Eircom, ESB/Voda and UPC. Eircom are pulling fibre to the cab so all copper lines to customers can be guaranteed 30Mbps in say up to 3-5KM or something, it falls of quite quickly after that. UPC can service their customers which are mostly in urban areas over co-axial cabling capable of savage speeds as is, but is not rural, nor I doubt they'll ever be. ESB have a cable running to every premises in the country so it'll be interesting to see what Vodafone will do with that infrastructure, the cost would be Ginormous to have FTTH in every premises so we'll wait and see what they roll out.
All the smaller towns are currently been put out to tender to the major fibre operators who are in essence running a fibre up the main street and 'T'ing' off to business premises in the town itself, tough luck to anyone on the outskirts of the town. That's where fixed wireless comes into play and with tx rates on 5Ghz unlicensed radios capable of over 20Mbps throughput, this could be a real solution in the interim if it's just one hop back to the fibre. 5Ghz is open to interference so here's hoping ComReg release something around the 3Ghz range.
Either/Or the cabling infrastructure in this country desperately needs to be overhauled but it would take massive investment to bring it to every house, there are solutions but not if it's all left up to one company like last time.

Nonoperational · 28-11-2014 8:48am

The blue areas look very fairly marked. I'd be amazed if this was complete in 2 years time though.

Villain · 28-11-2014 10:26am

Nonoperational wrote: »

The blue areas look very fairly marked. I'd be amazed if this was complete in 2 years time though.

2020 is the target date, it is only expected to start roll-out in 2016 but I would imagine the 2020 target will be missed too.

murphaph · 28-11-2014 1:21pm

2016 is the date for completion of the blue areas (ie, outside the scope of the NBP). The NBP has the 2020 date, but obviously that will be incredible if they make it, but even half of those 700k premises receiving minimum 30Mb would be impressive and the reality is if FTTH is preferred that the 30Mb figure will be blown out of the water.

Even Eircom accept that copper is no use for our dispersed ribbon and one off development patterns and while fixed wireless has a place in all this, it will not be the default solution, if you believe the hyperbole in the video about "future proofed" broadband.

The NBP by the way wouldn't be possible without the densification of the fibre network that has come about and is coming about because of the commercial investment in our towns, and cities (and villages in fact). Without this scaffolding of fibre, the government couldn't possibly afford to do anything for those in one off or ribbon developments.

shortys94 · 28-11-2014 1:42pm

AlanS181824 wrote: »

I looked up where my Nanny lives and her address is on it, 30Mb out there? I doubt it very much!

Recently a phone mast fell down in bad weather so we can't even get Edge out there anymore!

No internet whatsoever!

Yea I know I have relations in the west who actually don't even have phone lines. They ripped apart last year and are just left on the side of the road. Nothing on the masts, could never envisage any kind of connection of the promised kind in these kinds of areas.

Jakey Rolling · 04-12-2014 8:31am

We currently have a reasonably stable 2Mb service from a wireless ISP.

My worry is that they will lose customers gradually as they are hooked up to fibre, to the point where their operation is financially unviable. They will have to shut up shop, leaving their remaining customers without any BB until the NBS fibre reaches them - we could end up without any service for months or years!

Do you think the scheme should provide some kind of subvention to current service providers on the margins to avoid this situation occurring?

thierry14 · 04-12-2014 2:24pm

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

Do you think the scheme should provide some kind of subvention to current service providers on the margins to avoid this situation occurring?

That's what has held the country back for so long.

Should be no subsidies for anything, survival of the fittest.

Your wireless provider should be looking to upgrade his service and compete, not looking for handouts.

Jakey Rolling · 05-12-2014 11:18am

thierry14 wrote: »

Should be no subsidies for anything, survival of the fittest.

So you disagree with the principle of state aid to bring 30MB service to every property?

thierry14 wrote: »

Your wireless provider should be looking to upgrade his service and compete, not looking for handouts.

Would you fork out your own capital to compete with a state-aided project which is going to usurp your operation in the near future?

Even if my WISP decided to run fibre from their backhaul node to every one of their geographically diverse customers, they would have to bear the full cost of implementing this infrastructure unlike their state-aided competitors. Try making a business plan on that basis to your bank.

The "handouts" would amount to covering basic running costs until such time as all customers were transferred to the NBS fibre.

Nollog · 05-12-2014 11:41am

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

So you disagree with the principle of state aid to bring 30MB service to every property?

Would you fork out your own capital to compete with a state-aided project which is going to usurp your operation in the near future?

Even if my WISP decided to run fibre from their backhaul node to every one of their geographically diverse customers, they would have to bear the full cost of implementing this infrastructure unlike their state-aided competitors. Try making a business plan on that basis to your bank.

The "handouts" would amount to covering basic running costs until such time as all customers were transferred to the NBS fibre.

Can't they apply for the same hand outs as the other isps?

Jakey Rolling · 05-12-2014 2:55pm

/\/ollog wrote: »

Can't they apply for the same hand outs as the other isps?

I'd imagine this is going to be implemented by Eircom/ESB, with an obligation to unbundle the local loop. Can't see this being of interest to anything other than major players. In fact, when it goes to tender there will probably be a minimum turnover requirement for bidders such as with the €40m requirement for Eircode.

There will be plenty community broadband schemes that will be affected as users migrate away, potentially having to shut down and leaving users to go back to dial-up or 3G modems until they get hooked up to fibre.

KOR101 · 18-01-2015 10:49am

Just been reading about BTs British FTTH On Demand offer. Posting it here because it gives some idea about the costs of full FTTH in rural areas. I think people on here have got a bit carried away about FTTH being the focus of the |National Broadband Plan.

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLO%0AGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D

£6,125 (ex VAT) if you're between 1500m and 1999m. And, note the big jump from prices in 2013. Presumably they discovered it was a lot more expensive than they imagined. Eircom's approach seems to be a 'word for word' copy of BTs.

bk · 18-01-2015 11:45am

Yes, rolling out FTTH is expensive, no question of that. However there are a few things to consider here as compared to the BT Fiber On Demand

With the BT project they are rolling out individual homes who order it, it is a one off custom thing. The idea I believe under the NBP project is to roll it out to entire areas, which should allow for economies of scale.

Also BT are digging new trenches to do this, while the ESB or Eircom are more likely to run it along poles, making it cheaper to deploy.

Lets say it costs €10000 per rural home. Over 30 years that is €27.77 per month. Would it really be too much to ask people in rural Ireland to pay €30 per month extra (total €60 to €70 per month) for FTTH?

This makes it very doable.

They already pay extra for electricity, given the massive extra expense for FTTH, I don't see why they would not pay extra for this too.

Cuddlesworth · 18-01-2015 11:57am

Fibre to the home for a specific population density(towns), plus the ability to use that fibre backbone to populate rural wireless networks would be a far better alternative. The problem with most rural wireless schemes is getting a decent reliable backbone.

I can't see how FTTH would ever be feasable in rural Ireland, we are too dispersed with a long history of one off housing. And rewarding one off housing with heavily subsidised services simply compounds the problem.

KOR101 · 18-01-2015 12:02pm

Personally, I could see myself paying €5,000 to get it.

I think it's unrealistic to think they will go the whole way in this plan. For one thing, they will surely look to tie this in with EU plans (hence the min 30mbit) and with EU support for developing underdeveloped regions. EU funding support is stated as part of their thinking, but would the EU fund something way more ambitious than elsewhere?

What is encouraging is the open endedness of what they have said so far. Saying that perhaps something like community schemes may be used. If the plan was philosophically underpinned by FTTH, and they left it open for people or communities to pay for the last bit from the local school or Garda station then I would settle for that.

bk · 18-01-2015 12:09pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Fibre to the home for a specific population density(towns), plus the ability to use that fibre backbone to populate rural wireless networks would be a far better alternative. The problem with most rural wireless schemes is getting a decent reliable backbone.

Except according to Eircoms very detailed report on the matter, wireless is not suitable for rural FTTH.

Eircom make it very clear in their report that in order to meet 30mb/s minimum at peak times for all users that you would require a massive number of very dense wireless bases and thus the cost, in particular power and maintenance costs would cost more then just doing FTTH from the start.

jd · 18-01-2015 8:17pm

Niall Quinn, ex footballer, and now director of QSAT came out with this ion the Indo today

Then the economic crash happened and the consortium wanted to sell the club. Quinn returned home again and became involved with QSat, a satellite broadband company, ploughing his own money into it.

The company's biggest problem has been "that the Government continually announced that everyone was going to get fibre. If that happened it would cost more than the bank bailout - it's not going to happen. We support people who are right out in the sticks.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ive-been-able-to-get-the-most-out-of-myself-in-football-and-in-business-30915634.html

ardmacha · 18-01-2015 9:19pm

Ireland did a good job of rural electrification and if this fibre can be carried on the same network there is no reason why it could not be brought into every part of the country.

But it needs to be done as a common carrier and not as a service monopoly.

Tommy Lagahan · 18-01-2015 9:48pm

KOR101 wrote: »

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLO%0AGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D

£6,125 (ex VAT) if you're between 1500m and 1999m. And, note the big jump from prices in 2013. Presumably they discovered it was a lot more expensive than they imagined. Eircom's approach seems to be a 'word for word' copy of BTs.

Jaysus that's not bad at all, would pay it in a heartbeat myself to not deal with midband wireless contention and paying upwards of 100 quid a month for 3 connections just to stay online with about 1Mbit guaranteed. Pitty I'm 8KM out from the exchange lol!
I always figured it would be more like 30 grand or something for an individual house.

bk · 19-01-2015 4:21am

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

Pitty I'm 8KM out from the exchange lol!
I always figured it would be more like 30 grand or something for an individual house.

Yes, at 8KM you would be looking at about 30 grand, with BT in the UK. They charge per meter!

Tommy Lagahan · 19-01-2015 11:29am

bk wrote: »

Yes, at 8KM you would be looking at about 30 grand, with BT in the UK. They charge per meter!

Hah damn, pitty they couldn't take it off the main Eircom fiber lines connecting Donegal and Ballybofey ¬900M away under the main road, or the fiber running along ESB's high tension power lines ¬1100M away. So close yet so far

Cuddlesworth · 20-01-2015 7:51pm

bk wrote: »

Except according to Eircoms very detailed report on the matter, wireless is not suitable for rural FTTH.

Eircom make it very clear in their report that in order to meet 30mb/s minimum at peak times for all users that you would require a massive number of very dense wireless bases and thus the cost, in particular power and maintenance costs would cost more then just doing FTTH from the start.

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.

Tommy Lagahan · 20-01-2015 8:15pm

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.

How well does 5GHz handle non-line-of-sight connections though? My area is loads of small hills that give HSPA a run for its money trying to cope with signal. My fixed wireless provider runs 5GHz but won't connect anyone without line of sight.

There's a good 240+ one off households with no fixed line connections within 5 square KM that are currently either vying for Three bandwidth (not a hope) or a fixed wireless provider (NWE) in the area which is also also pretty much dead at peak times, I expect mine to either reduce to 0.4Mbit or dead within the hour til around 10pm. Off peak (1am - 4pm) its a good 10Mbit.

Is there a fixed wireless tech that can handle that many people, non-line of sight, with relatively decent handling of contention, even if there's fiber piped straight to the mast?
I'd very happily settle for wireless with a relatively low contention rate.
Hell if I knew it would work I'd sink me damn savings into it and do it myself.

bk · 20-01-2015 8:44pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

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.

The thing is, fixed position 5GHz largely needs point to point line of site. So you quickly run into the same issues or even worse then LTE. You need to put lots of large antennas on the top of lots of hills, feed by lots of fiber running up the side of otherwise empty hills, new electrical wires run up hills, all with lots of expensive gear exposed to the elements and potential vandalism!

In order to reach everyone, with a minimum of 30mb/s, this would get VERY expensive very quickly, potentially just as expensive if not more then just running FTTH to everyone!

And it would definitely have higher running (electric) and maintenance costs (storms blowing antennas down).

And of course, it has no longterm upgradability. Sure it might just get you 30mb/s today, but what about when that becomes too slow and people start demanding 100mb/s, or 500mb/s or 1Gb/s ?

FTTH is future proof, once in place, it will be relatively easy to upgrade its already massive capacity by just replacing the lasers to use more of the fiber and give you multi gig speeds!!!!

Also FTTH is far more reliable and has vastly reduced operating and maintenance costs.

I'm often very suspicious of Eircom, but for once they actually seem to be looking at the long term and FTTH is absolutely the best and probably cheapest long term solution.

heyjude · 20-01-2015 9:02pm

I wouldn't have a great deal of confidence in the success of this plan for several reasons, firstly and most obviously, the minister is making promises for a plan that will be completed by 2020, when the current Dail term ends next year, meaning that the plan will essentially be implemented by the next government not this one, and he cannot guarantee the priorities/plans of a future government or that the necessary funding will be available over a 5 year period. Secondly, the plan is based on the assumption that if high speed broadband is available in all rural areas, that there is sufficient demand from customers in these areas willing to pay the going rate for such services, so that a continued state subsidy is not required to maintain these services, but is this the case ?

I'm also a bit puzzled :rolleyes: as at the height of the discussion on the water tax, there was considerable comment from those living in rural areas about how unfair it was that their taxes were subsidising water supplies in urban areas while they had to pay for their own water supplies. Yet now we have a state funded(taxpayer) scheme to pay for state subsidised broadband in rural areas. Yet those living in rural areas seem to have no problem with services being subsidised if they are benefitting.

A final observation would be that the state does not have a great track record where technology projects are concerned, so I'd be very interested to see how we can be assured that the targets in the plan are fully realised, on time, on budget and to the specifications detailed.

ED E · 20-01-2015 9:03pm

bk wrote: »

I'm often very suspicious of Eircom, but for once they actually seem to be looking at the long term and FTTH is absolutely the best and probably cheapest long term solution.

Eircom currently operate a large fixed wireless network in feeding their own remote exchanges as well as eMobile/Meteor kit and TETRA stuff for the emergency services. I'm sure theyre all too familiar with the reliability and scaling issues with those systems.

The new aggressive eircom is doing VDSL right and seem to take the NBP seriously (even if the politicians will forget it after the next election). Its all looking up assuming the cash appears for it.

SMJSF · 20-01-2015 9:08pm

am I missing something? nearly the whole of Dublin city area is blue; commercial.
there is residential in that area, a lot of it. so houses in Dublin aren't qualified for it??

ED E · 20-01-2015 9:15pm

SMJSF wrote: »

am I missing something? nearly the whole of Dublin city area is blue; commercial.
there is residential in that area, a lot of it. so houses in Dublin aren't qualified for it??

Commercial means that the incumbents have it sorted, or mostly sorted. Dublin has a high UPC coverage, and lots of VDSL from eircom. It doesnt need government subsidies.

Tommy Lagahan · 20-01-2015 9:37pm

heyjude wrote: »

I'm also a bit puzzled :rolleyes: as at the height of the discussion on the water tax, there was considerable comment from those living in rural areas about how unfair it was that their taxes were subsidising water supplies in urban areas while they had to pay for their own water supplies. Yet now we have a state funded(taxpayer) scheme to pay for state subsidised broadband in rural areas. Yet those living in rural areas seem to have no problem with services being subsidised if they are benefitting.

Which is why a system by which a community can apply to an existing ISP to set up a FTTC cabinet for instance would be suitable IMO. Maybe the ISP can get tax incentives or something.
For an example there's a very high number of houses in my area, around 160 in 2sq KM, which I'm sure is enough to justify a VDSL cabinet. Even at 2KM range the connection quality would be a tenfold increase on what we get currently with our shambles contended wireless connections. Of course Eircom will listen to none of it despite numerous attempts to get them to do something about it.

For areas well out with very low population density, wireless contention would hardly be an issue and an LTE mast would do rightly.

Don't assume we're all commies out in the styx and think everyone should pay for our stuff.
I'd far rather front the cash along with my community and get something done than rely on shady, shaky infrastructure plans by a government heavily detached from the realities of the infrastructure problem.

There's an awful lot of dismissal and down-talking rather than healthy discussion about this scheme and anything else that could potentially serve rural areas, its getting on my tits.

Cuddlesworth · 20-01-2015 9:38pm

Tommy Lagahan wrote: »

How well does 5GHz handle non-line-of-sight connections though? My area is loads of small hills that give HSPA a run for its money trying to cope with signal. My fixed wireless provider runs 5GHz but won't connect anyone without line of sight.

There's a good 240+ one off households with no fixed line connections within 5 square KM that are currently either vying for Three bandwidth (not a hope) or a fixed wireless provider (NWE) in the area which is also also pretty much dead at peak times, I expect mine to either reduce to 0.4Mbit or dead within the hour til around 10pm. Off peak (1am - 4pm) its a good 10Mbit.

Is there a fixed wireless tech that can handle that many people, non-line of sight, with relatively decent handling of contention, even if there's fiber piped straight to the mast?
I'd very happily settle for wireless with a relatively low contention rate.
Hell if I knew it would work I'd sink me damn savings into it and do it myself.

There will of course be areas and houses in which fixed wireless won't work but for the most part we live in a very flat country. But fixed wireless, even with contention, can provide meaningful bandwidth. In your case I wouldn't be surprised if your local providers backhaul link was close to the average Eircom DSL connection in terms of speed and the best they could get/afford and their network speed and equipment is simply a mirror of that slow link since it isn't required.

I don't think its worth investing our countrys income in wiring every house in this country for fibre. I also don't think its worth saying that "every" house should have 30mb as a minimum. I do think that any town in this country should have it, and outlying houses should have the chance of a wireless solution. It would be far more worthwhile to wire towns and dense community with state subsidised fibre, proving a carrot on a stick for rural Ireland to start moving back into towns.

If Eircoms report was so meaningful, they wouldn't have completely sidestepped the 5ghz equipment/argument in the very beginning when outlying all the options.

bk · 20-01-2015 9:46pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I also don't think its worth saying that "every" house should have 30mb as a minimum.

That is non negotiable, it is an EU requirement for the whole of Europe and frankly rightfully so.

And as such the EU is happy to throw a great deal of money at us to get it done.

So if we are spending all this EU money, then it makes sense to do it right from the start.

Cuddlesworth · 20-01-2015 9:54pm

bk wrote: »

That is non negotiable, it is an EU requirement for the whole of Europe and frankly rightfully so.

And as such the EU is happy to throw a great deal of money at us to get it done.

So if we are spending all this EU money, then it makes sense to do it right from the start.

I wasn't aware the money was EU funded. In that case, FTTH it is.

Do we own the fibre after installation, simply paying for install and maintenance of the service? Or do they belong to the company that installed them?

bk · 20-01-2015 10:23pm

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I wasn't aware the money was EU funded. In that case, FTTH it is.

At least partly, it will likely be a combination of Government money, EU money and private investment.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Do we own the fibre after installation, simply paying for install and maintenance of the service? Or do they belong to the company that installed them?

We don't know the details yet, but it will likely be owned either by a company (likely Eircom or ESB) or a government semi state company.

BeerWolf · 22-01-2015 4:28pm

bk wrote: »

That is non negotiable, it is an EU requirement for the whole of Europe and frankly rightfully so.

And as such the EU is happy to throw a great deal of money at us to get it done.

So if we are spending all this EU money, then it makes sense to do it right from the start.

Would that be for FIXED broadband, or would lame mobile broadband be covered under that too?

MajesticDonkey · 22-01-2015 4:33pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

Would that be for FIXED broadband, or would lame mobile broadband be covered under that too?

Mobile broadband won't really be an issue, because it's generally fairly hard to get over 30 Mb/s with 4G, and even more unlikely at peak times - something which is a requirement by the EU. And 5G is years off, though it has a theoretical speed of something like 10 Gb/s.

KOR101 · 22-01-2015 6:40pm

bk wrote: »

That is non negotiable, it is an EU requirement for the whole of Europe and frankly rightfully so.

And as such the EU is happy to throw a great deal of money at us to get it done.

So if we are spending all this EU money, then it makes sense to do it right from the start.

Do you have any figures for the sums the EU has provided to countries under this objective?

I'm quite prepared to accept that the 'penny has dropped' with both companies and the government that FTTH is the inevitable future and also the most cost efficient in the long run. My doubts are about the size of the bill for doing that in the entire country. To meet the objective of a minimum speed of 30mbits, you would have to run the fibre as far as within about 750m of every house in the country.

This will ONLY happen if the bill is not huge, regardless of whether it is the cheapest in the long run IMHO.

Johnboy1951 · 23-01-2015 5:37pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Mobile broadband won't really be an issue, because it's generally fairly hard to get over 30 Mb/s with 4G, and even more unlikely at peak times - something which is a requirement by the EU. And 5G is years off, though it has a theoretical speed of something like 10 Gb/s.

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.

MajesticDonkey · 23-01-2015 5:44pm

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.

Yep, I have seen over 60 Mb/s on 4G in Clonmel, but generally it's under 30 Mb/s in my experience, probably because of an insufficient amount of masts - exactly why the previous NBP with Three was a disaster.

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

NBP: National Broadband Plan Announced

Comments