# Why should I have to pay for someone else's high speed broadband?



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2014)

*High-speed broadband promised for every house by 2020*





> The plan is expected to require the State to invest *hundreds of millions  of euro* to connect more than 700,000 premises across the country, which  are in areas that are unlikely to ever be served by commercial  high-speed broadband operators.
> ...He also said the cost of the service to the consumer would be affordable, and in line with the prices paid by city dwellers.
> ...The distance that will have to be covered by the State as it rolls out the broadband is equivalent to 100,000km of road network.


Will the rural dwellers subsidise my higher city rent or mortgage? 

This is the type of development which is welcomed by those benefiting from it, but those of us who will have to pay for it stay quiet.

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is the type of development which is welcomed by those benefiting from it, but those of us who will have to pay for it stay quiet.



Isn't that the case though for all infrastructure?


----------



## seamless (24 Nov 2014)

Its a business enabler and driver. And that benefits all of us.


----------



## Steven Barrett (24 Nov 2014)

I heard someone liken high speed broadband to houses getting electricity all those years ago. In the digital age we are living in, shouldn't everyone have access to it? 

The government waste millions €52m on e voting machines, €220m on the PPARS system. They are things I would get angry about, especially as there was no on held accountable for the waste. Improving the infrastructure of the country is an investment. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Delboy (24 Nov 2014)

sbarrett said:


> i heard someone liken high speed broadband to houses getting electricity all those years ago. In the digital age we are living in, shouldn't everyone have access to it?



+100.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2014)

T McGibney said:


> Isn't that the case though for all infrastructure?



OK, but we don't have a motorway going to every cottage on the top of a hill. 

I don't agree that it's like electricity at all.  Can people not get access to the internet via other means than broadband? 

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> OK, but we don't have a motorway going to every cottage on the top of a hill.


Of course not (that's not what motorways are for  ), but we do have publicly-funded roads going to every cottage on top of a hill - urban and rural.


----------



## SparkRite (24 Nov 2014)

T McGibney said:


> Of course not (that's not what motorways are for  ), but we do have publicly-funded roads going to every cottage on top of a hill - urban and rural.




Not entirely true, as we also have privately funded roads going to some of those cottages on top of those hills.


----------



## monagt (24 Nov 2014)

> Yesterday, Mr Coonan said “the protesters in Dublin act like parasites and live off country people as they have never acknowledged the role of country people”.



I think its the least we can do for our benefactors  

Although, would it not just encourage people to live in areas where the cost of providing services such as, for example: schools, hospitals, water, sewerage, roads, etc is far more expensive per capita that in urban areas.


----------



## Fatphrog (24 Nov 2014)

Sort of like the way rural dwellers with wells, group water schemes or septic tanks currently pay for water facilities for town and city dwellers through taxation.


----------



## Ceist Beag (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> OK, but we don't have a motorway going to every cottage on the top of a hill.
> 
> I don't agree that it's like electricity at all.  Can people not get access to the internet via other means than broadband?
> 
> Brendan


The electricity analogy is a good one. You could make the same argument for electricity Brendan - sure can't all those rural dwellers not erect their own electricty generation turbines/water mills, etc. 
It's all about what sort of country you want - one where everyone is pushed into urban centers or one with a rich and vibrant countryside. I'm all in favour of this initiative (and no I don't fall into the category of those who will benefit from it!).


----------



## Steven Barrett (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't agree that it's like electricity at all.  Can people not get access to the internet via other means than broadband?
> 
> Brendan



I live in South Dublin and up until very recently, the internet connection I got was shocking. I tried using different providers but it didn't make a difference. The best was using the mobile providers but you had limited data with them and with a family who have netflix and like to rent films online etc, that wasn't an option. 

The world has gone online, so I don't see why everyone can't have fast broadband. And we're not just talking people living down a lane in a remote part of the country, you are never going to get fibre optic internet service to every household in Ireland. But there are towns and villages all over the country will really substandard internet speeds. 




monagt said:


> Although, would it not just encourage people to live in areas where the cost of providing services such as, for example: schools, hospitals, water, sewerage, roads, etc is far more expensive per capita that in urban areas.



They have to be given planning permission.


----------



## monagt (24 Nov 2014)

> Sort of like the way rural dwellers with wells, group water schemes or septic tanks currently pay for water facilities for town and city dwellers through taxation.



OMG, do they pay tax now! .)

The costs of providing any service should be levied appropriately. If I choose to live in a remote/rural area for cost of housing, be close to nature, then the extra cost of services should be paid by me. 
This the downside vs the upside of rural living (which are many)


----------



## Padraigb (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan, why should your broadband be cheaper because you have lots of neighbours? Aren't they, in effect, subsidising you?

One reason for giving us rural dwellers broadband is to keep us here, and not have us invading your cities. You don't want culchies driving up property prices in Mount Merrion.


----------



## MrEarl (24 Nov 2014)

SBarrett said:


> ....Improving the infrastructure of the country is an investment...



I agree with this principal, but I don't see why we can't expect our country cousins to help pay for it, if they are in remote locations (perhaps a once off lump sum payment towards installation costs by way of a levy ?)


----------



## fearbeag (24 Nov 2014)

Last week a new flyover at Newlands cross was opened. This only benefits a small portion of the drivers in the Country, hence should it have been built?

Of course it should, as by all accounts it was needed. The point being investments don't usually benefit everybody.

Is rural broadband needed. Yes I believe long term it would be a good investment. Though I must say I don't think it is the most urgent investment. Mobile broadband via Three was rolled out a few years ago to cover areas without broadband coverage. True it is unsuitable for watching Netflix etc. but it allows reasonable access to the Internet.


----------



## monagt (24 Nov 2014)

> This only benefits a small portion of the drivers in the Country, hence should it have been built?



You need to include the all traffic on the M50, traffic in from Kildare, traffic from Lucan to Tallaght, Naas road into City Centre, all are impacted so definitely not "small portion of the drivers in the country"


What about doing a Google search for "Satellite Broadband Ireland"?

I count 7 suppliers with 20MB down /6MB up, including TV packages, etc. (Netflix would not be a necessity, business and education would)

If greater speeds are required then its a matter of paying for it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Nov 2014)

monagt said:


> What about doing a Google search for "Satellite Broadband Ireland"?
> 
> I count 7 suppliers with 20MB down /6MB up, including TV packages, etc. (Netflix would not be a necessity, business and education would)
> 
> If greater speeds are required then its a matter of paying for it.



This is the point I was trying to make.  

I really do not want to pay more taxes so people in remote areas can watch movies and play computer games.  They can access the internet without broadband. 

How does it work with electricity and the phone? If I build a house miles from anywhere,  will they just provide me with electricity at the same price as someone in a town or city?

I heard the Minister on the radio earlier and he refused to say how much it would cost. Some have speculated that it would cost around €500m. I really don't want to pay that. 

Brendan


----------



## JohnJay (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Will the rural dwellers subsidise my higher city rent or mortgage?
> 
> Brendan



Brendan, 
They might argue that they have been subsidising your street lights, water and sewage treatment for the last number of decades. 

Your point is up there with someone not wanting their tax to go to pay children's allowance just because they are not a parent themselves.


----------



## flowerman (24 Nov 2014)

Nial Quinn can sort all those hilltop country cottages out with his Q-Sat broadband.

[broken link removed]


----------



## flowerman (24 Nov 2014)

We live in Dublin and Eircom could not give us E-Fibre BB even though they prommised it to us for over a year.We were stuck with a pathetic 6.8mb bb and a crackly phone line
I changed to UPC there on Saturday last and have the 60mb bb package,and Im delighted with it.Im actually getting bang on 60mb of broadband.
We have a large 100cm Triax satelite dish in the back garden with 3 different LNBs for all our Irish,UK,and European FTA TV channels.
I also have an IPTV android box at all the TV points around the house for watching other worldwide FTA TV Channels.
I like my MotoGP and Nascar and I wont pay Setanta or BT Sports to watch them,so instead so I watch them live via Australian and UAE FTA TV.

[broken link removed]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127582733@N07/15805342171/


----------



## JohnJay (24 Nov 2014)

monagt said:


> What about doing a Google search for "Satellite Broadband Ireland"?
> 
> I count 7 suppliers with 20MB down /6MB up, including TV packages, etc. (Netflix would not be a necessity, business and education would)
> 
> If greater speeds are required then its a matter of paying for it.



Its far from a stable solution. 
I know people who are paying silly money for satellite broadband and are still getting a very poor broadband service that is heavily affected by the weather conditions


----------



## Steven Barrett (24 Nov 2014)

MrEarl said:


> I agree with this principal, but I don't see why we can't expect our country cousins to help pay for it, if they are in remote locations (perhaps a once off lump sum payment towards installation costs by way of a levy ?)



Because we have a central taxation system. Some areas generate more tax income than other and the government spreads it to where it's needed. 

There are plenty of towns and villages of thousands of people with substandard broadband, not just individual houses here and there. 




monagt said:


> What about doing a Google search for "Satellite Broadband Ireland"?
> 
> I count 7 suppliers with 20MB down /6MB up, including TV packages, etc. (Netflix would not be a necessity, business and education would)



What is advertised and what is delivered are two very different matters. I was on Eircom's 20MB pacakage. I'd be doing well to get 2MB. I am now on eFibre which is advertised at 100MB. As I'm typing this, I am getting 19MB


----------



## Gerard123 (24 Nov 2014)

I have no problem with this in principle.  Swings and roundabouts really.  Should not be penalising people because they live in a rural area. Societies should be providing services to allow people to have a decent quality life and enjoy reasonable services.  

Not wanting to change the topic but makes the blood boil when I see this which I think is fair and acceptable, not wishing to penalise people because they live in a rural area. And then Property tax which is levied massively unfairly and to the detriment of urban, particularly Dublin, dwellers.  All other charges, electricity and gas units, road tax, etc, charged on a consistent and equal basis irrespective of where you live. Yet because it's charged simply on house value city people ends up paying multiples of rural dwellers even if living in an inferior house.  My argument is with HOW the charge is calculated and applied.  

I don't understand why all the protests over water which is a modest charge compared to insane levels of property tax that people face very soon, with house prices having increased significantly.

Ps I am from the countryside but now living in Dublin so can see both sides and can comprehend the unfairness of how property tax is charged.


----------



## Delboy (24 Nov 2014)

JohnJay said:


> Its far from a stable solution.
> I know people who are paying silly money for satellite broadband and are still getting a very poor broadband service that is heavily affected by the weather conditions



Exactlt...people suggesting this as an option obviously don't know anything about the service. It's patchy, very hit and miss.

No way could any business down the country rely solely on something like that


----------



## mercman (24 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I really do not want to pay more taxes so people in remote areas can watch movies and play computer games.  They can access the internet without broadband.
> 
> How does it work with electricity and the phone? If I build a house miles from anywhere,  will they just provide me with electricity at the same price as someone in a town or city?
> Brendan



I hate to tell you Brendan but with the Govt we have at present we are all going to pay tax on this, that and the other. If we don't pay directly, we will pay indirectly.

I live in the most rural part of the country and I have broadband which runs fine. In fact it is as good as I will get in Dublin. However the mobile reception is desperate.

As for electricity, if somebody wants to build a house in the middle of no where, then the ESB will charge them a hefty price for the supply.


----------



## Ceist Beag (25 Nov 2014)

Deleted post as it was incorrect


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2014)

seamless said:


> Its a business enabler and driver. And that benefits all of us.


 
I agree with this, and the comments that it is an infrastructure issue.  It is the future and we all need it.


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2014)

fearbeag said:


> Last week a new flyover at Newlands cross was opened. This only benefits a small portion of the drivers in the Country, hence should it have been built?
> 
> .


 
My OH tells me this is an absolutely fantastic new flyover, and it will benefit an awful lot of the country, not just Dublin commuters.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

mercman said:


> As for electricity, if somebody wants to build a house in the middle of no where, then the ESB will charge them a hefty price for the supply.



Thanks mercman

That is the way it should be. And that is the way it should be for broadband as well.

Presumably providing broadband to towns and villages would not be as expensive per head, so they can share the cost. 

My objection is to providing it to someone who lives well away from any town or village. 

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2014)

T McGibney said:


> Of course not (that's not what motorways are for  ), but we do have publicly-funded roads going to every cottage on top of a hill - urban and rural.


 
Which reminds me of a distant relation in rural Roscommon, the type with the house in field 5, after you pass through field 1 to 4.  Well in with FF and eventually got their road paid for.  I remember as a child visiting it via literally fields, but they did have electricity.  I think it was nearly two miles of road for one house.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Presumably providing broadband to towns and villages would not be as expensive per head, so they can share the cost.



Did you share the cost for your broadband Brendan? 


Steven


----------



## shoestring (25 Nov 2014)

Why should I as a rural dweller subsidize the cost of an urban dweller's water supplies when I have my own well?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

SBarrett said:


> Did you share the cost for your broadband Brendan?
> 
> 
> Steven



I presume that UPC is making a reasonable profit in supplying it to me? I don't think that they have been subsidised.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

shoestring said:


> Why should I as a rural dweller subsidize the cost of an urban dweller's water supplies when I have my own well?



Hi shoestring

You shouldn't be.  We should all pay the full cost of our own water and sewage. 

Brendan


----------



## RichInSpirit (25 Nov 2014)

I'm a rural dweller too. I just use mobile broadband on my phone. It's mostly an edge (2.5g) service which is too slow for YouTube but fast enough for general browsing. Whenever I find a spot with a 3g connection I do all my updates etc. 
Premier broadband is a broadband provider that I hear of often that people have good experiences with in difficult to reach areas.


----------



## shoestring (25 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi shoestring
> 
> You shouldn't be. We should all pay the full cost of our own water and sewage.
> 
> Brendan


 
Hi Brendan
I suppose its swings and roundabouts was my point. For instance its been pressed home now for the last couple of months or so by the anti water side that 'we' already pay for our water services through general taxation. Thats grand, only for I have paid approximately 30 per month to treat my own water for years, along with a couple of hundred every few years to sort the wastewater treatment system, all without the need for Irish Water. I am also a tax payer. Thats me subsidizing Urban water users in my book and there are a huge portion of people like myself.

Yet again though, the government is looking to divide and conquer by giving me €100 next year 'all of a sudden', will they backdate it 10 years?

Incidentally I pay the same property tax as a bog standard 3 bed semi in Dublin but I dont have cycle lanes, public transport etc. I do have pot holes though.


----------



## tallpaul (25 Nov 2014)

One could also use the analogy that part of my taxes go to subsidise Dublin Bus for example Perhaps if all non-Dublin taxpayers had the option to withhold taxes paid that are diverted to that company, that would be fair?? I don't derive any benefit from it?


----------



## monagt (25 Nov 2014)

> Incidentally I pay the same property tax as a bog standard 3 bed semi in Dublin but I dont have cycle lanes, public transport etc. I do have pot holes though



You forget that the Taxes collected per linear mile of road, paths, etc is much much higher in an Urban area because of density.

Also, urban motorists pay a lot more in Car Tax per mile travelled and this tax is a part of general taxation. Many roads in Dublin pay a lot of car tax with very little or no spending on their road.
(No car tax and instead all car related tax put on fuel would be different so more you drive, the more you pay)

Probably going way from Topic. EOD................


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

shoestring said:


> Incidentally I pay the same property tax as a bog standard 3 bed semi in Dublin but I dont have cycle lanes, public transport etc. I do have pot holes though.



The property tax is based on the value.  If you have a bog standard 3 bed semi in an area which does not have broadband, you are paying a lot less in property tax that someone with a 3 bed semi in Dublin.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

shoestring said:


> Hi Brendan
> I suppose its swings and roundabouts was my point.



And I have no problem with swings and roundabouts.  Some things will be dearer for rural dwellers and some will be cheaper.  

But my problem is in paying for high speed broadband.  It's not an essential like roads, water or electricity as there are alternatives.


----------



## Time (25 Nov 2014)

So you want a discount for living in the capital?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

I am not sure what you mean by discount? 

I am happy to pay for my broadband connection in full and to contribute to the profits of UPC.

I am happy to subsidise the roads in rural Ireland to a certain extent, as some of them are subsidising my water. 

I am just not happy to subsidise high speed broadband so that they can watch netflix.

Brendan


----------



## monagt (25 Nov 2014)

An Urban dweller should benefit from "Economies of Scale" that derive from population density and the consequent savings when providing services or facilities.

This is a fact of life.................


----------



## Time (25 Nov 2014)

I already pay a premium for my electricity due to my address. Same for my internets.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

Time said:


> I already pay a premium for my electricity due to my address. Same for my internets.



Good, that is the way it should be.

I had not realised that there was variable pricing of electricity. 

Brendan


----------



## Janet (25 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am happy to pay for my broadband connection in full and to contribute to the profits of UPC.


From what I read in the article, though, what, if any, payment will be expected has not been decided on


> Among the questions that need to be answered are:
> - Who will own the network after it is built?
> - How will it be governed?
> - What technology will be used to deliver the broadband?
> ...


While the infrastructure might be put in place "free of charge" (paid for via taxes/by the taxpayer), I can't see the provision of the service being always provided free of charge.

However, I'm not sure if your quite emotive question of "why should I pay for others" is really the issue at hand. I wonder if the question should rather be, or first be, should everyone be entitled to have access to high-speed broadband. Just because one of the things people do use high-speed broadband for is watching Netflix, doesn't make it the only possible use. I'm sure programmer types would be able to offer more information on the kinds of things that high-speed is necessary for.

Generally speaking, isn't it a good thing that rural areas don't become depopulated? Farmers need access to the internet, too and while they might not spend a huge amount of time transacting business online, perhaps they have family members who would stay around if they could telecommute. 

So I think really the question is whether or not access to high-speed broadband should be considered to be a basic human right.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Nov 2014)

Janet said:


> So I think really the question is whether or not access to high-speed broadband should be considered to be a basic human right.



That is a very good question indeed. 

And it seems clear to me that it is not a human right to have high-speed broadband access delivered to your door wherever you live. 

Brendan


----------



## 110quests (25 Nov 2014)

While it is not a basic human right in the manner of food, shelter, water, education it is a basic need in a modern society. 

Its availability nationwide would enhance the  acumen of many rural businesses and the ability of individuals conduct day to day transactions more efficiently and effectively. If in addition it lends variety to enjoyment of leisure time why not ?

For the benefit of the all, this will be paid for through taxes both rural and urban , as are schools, colleges, clinics, hospitals etc. We share the cost and reap the benefits


----------



## monagt (25 Nov 2014)

> education it is a basic need in a modern society



Broadband @ 20MB available from Satellite suppliers in rural areas which is more that adequate for this.


----------



## 110quests (25 Nov 2014)

monagt said:


> Broadband @ 20MB available from Satellite suppliers in rural areas which is more that adequate for this.



The first line of my post should have had a comma after education. Then 'it' would mean that high speed connection would be a basic need in modern society.

Are you inferring in your comment that 20MB is adequate for education purposes. ? But why should education sector not have the highest and best available ?  High speed should not be the prerogative of business and industry should it ?  Or am I misreading you ?


----------



## Janet (25 Nov 2014)

I'm undecided about to what extent I would consider access to high-speed internet a right although if I was forced to choose today, I'd be more inclined to say it is than not. I thought I'd do a bit more reading as I vaguely remember reading something about internet access being one of the items on a list determining levels of poverty and came across a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access, which others might find interesting to read. It makes the distinction between basic human rights and basic civil rights, which I wasn't really aware of or had thought about before.


----------



## monagt (25 Nov 2014)

> Are you inferring in your comment that 20MB is adequate for education purposes. ? But why should education sector not have the highest and best available ? High speed should not be the prerogative of business and industry should it ? Or am I misreading you ?



YES to your first question, Gaming and Streaming require faster connections.

Fast connections to colleges, schools and businesses which are usually located in an urban location may be justified but BB as a "right" to every dwelling, probably not.

If users in rural or ribbon development require faster speed then they should pay the associated costs, the day of subsidies are gone..........the state is broke.


----------



## T McGibney (25 Nov 2014)

I'm beginning to think this discussion is moot, as it has apparently emerged today that the government have announced this "plan" (itself a rehash of previous successive unfulfilled plans) before ever costing it.

So until the government actually commits a specific budget to the project, it won't be worth even debating.


----------



## JohnJay (26 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And it seems clear to me that it is not a human right to have high-speed broadband access delivered to your door wherever you live.
> 
> Brendan



Neither is having a Blue and Yellow bus passing at the head of the road every 10 minutes, but every tax payer in the country is still subsidising Dublin Bus.

Sure one bus a day would be enough for you. Thats what they get in rural Ireland, if they are very lucky


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Nov 2014)

Are the buses and trains in rural Ireland profitable? 

Anyway, I don't think that the comparison is appropriate.  It makes sense for the whole community to promote public transport over private transport.  So I have no objection to reasonable subsidies. 

There is no big benefit to society in providing high speed broadband in every nook and cranny of the country. 

Brendan


----------



## Padraigb (26 Nov 2014)

Society includes the denizens of rural and small-town Ireland. In general, good access to the online world is as beneficial to them as to the residents of Dublin.

I imagine there were similar rants against the extension of the telephone system.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Nov 2014)

Padraigb said:


> Society includes the denizens of rural and small-town Ireland. In general, good access to the online world is as beneficial to them as to the residents of Dublin.



The corollary here is of course that universal access to broadband allows the State save serious money in bringing its own operations online. 



Padraigb said:


> I imagine there were similar rants against the extension of the telephone system.



Quite.


----------



## monagt (26 Nov 2014)

> Neither is having a Blue and Yellow bus passing at the head of the road every 10 minutes, but every tax payer in the country is still subsidising Dublin Bus.



Its all about population density and economies of scale.

If they buses were not there, the consequences would be:

More private cars on road -> congestion -> business traffic delayed -> cost to businesses and customers + emergency services affected
Maybe congestion charges in city centers.


----------



## Bronco Lane (26 Nov 2014)

If Dublin takes water from the Shannon then I assume everyone will have to pay for this.

My property tax came in at c€1400 this year and that's down 15% on last year. I don't have much of an income but my savings are being constantly eroded by all these costs despite having a frugal lifestyle. Enough is enough.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2014)

Bronco Lane said:


> If Dublin takes water from the Shannon then I assume everyone will have to pay for this.


The reality is that Dublin is the engine of the Irish economy and tax payers in Dublin subsidise the rest of the country. Since a large proportion of the people in Dublin are from other parts of the country that's a reasonable scenario. If people in the Shannon region don't want people who live in Dublin to take "their water" then should people in Dublin stop those same people from living in "their city".
People in rural areas should have access to broadband but it shouldn't include every nook and cranny and they should pay a reasonable rate for access to the network. And yes, it should be more expensive than in urban areas.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Nov 2014)

Purple said:


> People in rural areas should have access to broadband but it shouldn't include every nook and cranny and they should pay a reasonable rate for access to the network. And yes, it should be more expensive than in urban areas.



But all these factors apply to the "proposal" launched by the Minister this week. So what's the big problem?


----------



## fearbeag (26 Nov 2014)

Perhaps the money for this plan is not coming from hard pressed Dublin Pockets after all.

It seems that Juncker has found €315 Billion under the mattress in Luxembourg and High speed broadband is high on the Christmas list for all from the Boyne to the Baltic and from the Reeks to Rome.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1126/662603-european-investment/

While I find the respective Culchie / Dublin bashing amusing, I am not sure how productive it is.

A suggestion I would have is when they lay the pipeline bringing water from the Shannon to Dublin that they could possibly lay a Fibre optic cable or two in the same trench, would help reduce the costs a tad. A similar approach with our Wind energy would help.

That said I don't think that Broadband is the highest priority in rural Ireland. 
The highest priority must surely be sustainable jobs so that we all don't have to go to Dublin.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2014)

T McGibney said:


> But all these factors apply to the "proposal" launched by the Minister this week. So what's the big problem?



I don't think there is one.


----------



## Padraigb (26 Nov 2014)

fearbeag said:


> ... I don't think that Broadband is the highest priority in rural Ireland.
> The highest priority must surely be sustainable jobs so that we all don't have to go to Dublin.


Broadband and job creation are linked. That, rather than any wish I might have to subscribe to Netflix, is what underpins the argument.


----------



## Jim2007 (26 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is the type of development which is welcomed by those benefiting from it, but those of us who will have to pay for it stay quiet.



That is about the same as people in a rural areas asking for compensation for government decision that caused revenue generating opportunities to be placed in certain parts of the country to the detriment of their area!  It would be total unfair to expect that you can benefit from those decisions to the detriment of your fellow citizens.

The alternative would be some kind of federal government like say that of Germany, where counties the benefited from such government decisions would be required to pay tax equalisation levies that would be distributed to counties that did not benefit from such decisions.  The result would be that people in Dublin would be paying very high local taxes to compensate the rest of the country for the fact that most of the government is located there, the fact that the financial service centre is located there and so on.....


----------



## moneybox (26 Nov 2014)

mercman said:


> As for electricity, if somebody wants to build a house in the middle of no where, then the ESB will charge them a hefty price for the supply.


 

yes,that is true.  A a very very hefy price


----------



## Time (26 Nov 2014)

And continue to charge you rural rates thereafter.


----------



## newtothis (27 Nov 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There is no big benefit to society in providing high speed broadband in every nook and cranny of the country.
> 
> Brendan


 
There are certain things that (so called) developed countries have: universal access to clean water, access to electricity, access to free education, access to transport networks (roads universally, rail and air to larger centres of population), the list probably goes on.

Whilst in each case you can say at the micro-level lack of any one of these isn't necessarily going to hinder economic activity, taken as a whole just look at the difference they make between countries that have these things and those that don't.

You can be quite sure that when each and every one of them was brought in, voices would have been heard: "why should my taxes go to pay for someone else's benefit?", or "why do they need that, can't they live just was well without"? or "all people use the roads for is to drive to the pub" or whatever. The benefit at the micro level is certainly huge for the individual, but experience has shown they also benefit everyone at the macro level, by virtue of being universally available. 

In each case, the infrastructure didn't just happen at the behest of the modern God we call "the market": it was driven through at a political level, with the possible exception of the very early railway network. Similarly, adequate universal broadband has not just happened.

The only question I'd have is does high speed broadband fall into one of the key universally available infrastructures that are defining characteristics of developed economies, ones that have the ability to develop further and faster than those without it. For sure that's a debatable point, but if it's accepted that yes it is, then to achieve universality no doubt subsidies will be required to put it in place, as if they weren't it would be there already.

Arguments such as "why should I pay?" don't make a lot of sense to me: it's logically the same as saying the electricity, road, education and other key infrastructures should be retrenched to a core that can afford it due to population density. Do you really believe such a strategy would be good for the economy as a whole?


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Nov 2014)

Well said, Newtothis.

All too often, what holds the country back is small-mindedness and failure to see relationships between issues.


----------



## jdwex (28 Nov 2014)

I think people should have a look at the submissions from the Telcos
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyre...nstoCFIforpublication22ndOctober2014FINAL.pdf

It's pretty clear that it'll have to be FTTH. DSL is too distant dependent, VDSL dropping off rapidly after about 300 meters from a cabinet.


----------



## darag (28 Nov 2014)

I'm assuming this will not go ahead but if it does, one thing I can confidently predict is that at the end of spending hundreds of millions, there will be cheaper and more effective/powerful technologies available.

The government will either invest in something which is guaranteed to be obsolete by the time it's done like copper wires or else they will have to gamble on one of a number of up-and-coming technologies - risking ending up with an curiosity/oddity unless they are lucky enough to pick a winner.  I don't feel confident that public servants in the department of whatever will do a better job in picking a technology winner over global IT and telecoms industries.

I remember calls for government to subsidise ISDN uptake; that would not have been a good government investment and neither would this be.

Somewhat pointless anecdote: I have a friend living in a remote house who always complained of terrible internet access until mid last year when they switched to 3.5G.  Now they can watch all the youtube cat videos they want stutter-free as well use useful services like Skype.  And when 4G arrives, they will have 10/20 times the bandwidth again.  I know this may not be the majority of experiences but it seems to me that in some cases at least the problem is already solving itself without massive government spending.  Satalite has already been pointed out as being available everywhere.

---
By the way SBarrett, I think you might be confusing MB/s (megaBYTES a second) and Mb/s (megaBITS a second).  There are 8 bits in a byte and the Mb/s number also includes overhead (10% or 20%) so 20Mb/s and 2MB/s are pretty much equivalent.  Because of the easy confusing, people are switching to writing Mbit/s instead of Mb/s.


----------



## Sophrosyne (28 Nov 2014)

darag said:


> I'm assuming this will not go ahead but if it does, one thing I can confidently predict is that at the end of spending hundreds of millions, there will be cheaper and more effective/powerful technologies available..


 
Why make that assumption?


----------



## Jim2007 (28 Nov 2014)

darag said:


> I'm assuming this will not go ahead but if it does, one thing I can confidently predict is that at the end of spending hundreds of millions, there will be cheaper and more effective/powerful technologies available.



This will always always be true, as we can expect the technology will evolve.  However it is not an acceptable excuse to do nothing!  A solid investment in broadband technology today that allows people to enjoy very acceptable transfer rates for the next five years or more is not a waste of money nor a display on incompetence on the part of civil servants as you suggest, it is simply how investments in technology work.


----------



## jdwex (28 Nov 2014)

FTTH is pretty well future proofed as a physical medium.


----------



## Leo (28 Nov 2014)

darag said:


> I'm assuming this will not go ahead but if it does, one thing I can confidently predict is that at the end of spending hundreds of millions, there will be cheaper and more effective/powerful technologies available.



That's Moore's law for you. But if you waited for technology to be cheaper, we'd still be cooking over open fires and washing our clothes in a bucket!



darag said:


> The government will either invest in something which is guaranteed to be obsolete by the time it's done like copper wires or else they will have to gamble on one of a number of up-and-coming technologies - risking ending up with an curiosity/oddity unless they are lucky enough to pick a winner..



The most expensive component of this plan by far will be the installation of the physical transmission medium. This is going to be fibre, with probably some element of copper. Neither of these are going obsolete any time soon, there are no new transmission media that will replace these any time soon whereas there is significant work underway increasing the speed/capacity of copper and fibre. Wireless requires too much infrastructure and is way too expensive to get to 100% coverage, and the infrastructure still requires a very significant physical network back-bone to link it all together.

But I too have doubts about how likely this is, I think the competition rules could be the biggest stumbling block. Some of the drive behind this might be to up the percentage of the population who have access to a high-speed broadband service to attract more foreign direct investment outside of Dublin.


----------



## Padraigb (28 Nov 2014)

Leo said:


> ... I think the competition rules could be the biggest stumbling block....


Why should there be a problem with competition rules? This would be an infrastructure project.


----------



## Leo (28 Nov 2014)

Padraigb said:


> Why should there be a problem with competition rules? This would be an infrastructure project.



Because it would be construed as state aid to commercial entities.


----------



## 44brendan (28 Nov 2014)

> I have a friend living in a remote house who always complained of terrible internet access until mid last year when they switched to 3.5G


I am living in a remote house with poor internet access! What is required to change to 3.5G darag?


----------



## Padraigb (28 Nov 2014)

Leo said:


> Because it would be construed as state aid to commercial entities.


Infrastructure development is not generally considered as state aid. It might be different if one line were laid to facilitate a particular firm, but if it is a general provision available to all, that's not state aid to a commercial entity.


----------



## Leo (28 Nov 2014)

44brendan said:


> I am living in a remote house with poor internet access! What is required to change to 3.5G darag?



Check your coverage from the various mobile providers, Vodafone for example, then look at the options they have available for USB stick, or other modems.


----------



## 44brendan (28 Nov 2014)

Thanks Leo!


----------



## Leo (28 Nov 2014)

No prob, one thing I forgot though, try get a trial period if you can. Many people report patchy or poor performance with these, so you'll need to be sure they work where you need it before committing to a 12+ month contract.


----------



## darag (28 Nov 2014)

Indeed Leo/Brendan, you need good coverage for 3/3.5g to work well.

Jim, I'm simply not convinced by the argument that it's always better for the government to something rather than nothing but I'd like to side-step an argument about ideology.  But saying it is better to deliver something useful for the next 5 years does not seem relevant here; the plan, from what I understand it, would be to deliver by 2020.  And even if were rolled-out overnight, I'd want to see the numbers on how many households were benefiting from an expenditure of 100m a year.  Even if it 100k households got broadband who had previously no means whatsoever to access broadband, this would represent a subsidy of 1k euro a year to a somewhat arbitrary section of the population.

I was sceptical for a long time but I'm now of the belief that wireless will solve the problem on its own.  I could actually buy the argument that the government should support ensuring there was proper universal mobile phone coverage in the country.  This would have tangible benefits like helping in life-saving/emergency situations as well as allowing people to watch youtube videos.  Proper 4G mobile will arrive in a few years and will blow current wireless out of the water.

jdwex, fibre probably seems future-proof but it has a serious flaw.  I remember in the mid-early 90s confidently arguing we'd all have fibre to our desktops within a year or two.  It never happened despite my conviction and cheap/low-tech cat5 twisted-pair ethernet became ubiquitous. That's because fibre was and still is expensive and relatively tricky to install and maintain.  Installing and maintaining a 10/30km run of fibre buried under windy boreens just to connect an exchange to a single home just seems like madness to me.   Criss-crossing cities and even suburban areas with it makes plenty of sense.


----------



## flowerman (28 Nov 2014)

Fibre needs to be spliced and this is a very time consuming and delicate operation.
Try doing it outdoors at junction boxes with gale force winds allmost blowing your outdoor tent away while you are standing in knee deep storm water hat has formed down in the base of the underground duct runs.Now also imagine trying to use a splicing machine and get each splice bang on perfect when out in those conditions.The fibre core itself also extremely brittle and even the slightest pressure on it and the actual bare fibre core will break it clean off.


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2014)

flowerman said:


> Fibre needs to be spliced and this is a very time consuming and delicate operation.
> Try doing it outdoors at junction boxes with gale force winds allmost blowing your outdoor tent away while you are standing in knee deep storm water hat has formed down in the base of the underground duct runs.Now also imagine trying to use a splicing machine and get each splice bang on perfect when out in those conditions.The fibre core itself also extremely brittle and even the slightest pressure on it and the actual bare fibre core will break it clean off.



And you're point being................?


----------

