Mea Megathread

[Fatty]

but if you don't want to sell electricity to them, or you use solar panels to heat water I hardly think this is subject to a standing charge

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't matter what you 'think' is fair, i'm telling you what is right! If you use your solar panels to directly heat water, then i'm certain you'd be fine, but use solar panels to supply electricity that's connected to you house wiring, and thus uses the mains 240v when the sun goes in (for example) that's classed as using the mains as a 'back up' to your generator (the solar panel), and for that they will charge you! It's not a case of supplying the MEA with your excess (should you have any)

 

Yet i believe in the UK, that is just what happens! Now how un fair is that!!

 

It would be interesting to find out how they deal with what the Incinerator generates, but i guess they 'have' to take that, no matter what.

[Tempus Fugit]

but if you don't want to sell electricity to them, or you use solar panels to heat water I hardly think this is subject to a standing charge

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't matter what you 'think' is fair, i'm telling you what is right! If you use your solar panels to directly heat water, then i'm certain you'd be fine, but use solar panels to supply electricity that's connected to you house wiring, and thus uses the mains 240v when the sun goes in (for example) that's classed as using the mains as a 'back up' to your generator (the solar panel), and for that they will charge you! It's not a case of supplying the MEA with your excess (should you have any)

 

Yet i believe in the UK, that is just what happens! Now how un fair is that!!

 

It would be interesting to find out how they deal with what the Incinerator generates, but i guess they 'have' to take that, no matter what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You miss my point somewhat and seem to have misread what I posted, I made no reference whatsoever to anything being 'fair' or even 'what I thought to be fair', just whether it applied or not.

 

I am talking about alternative energy to reduce the consumption from the MEA supply, such as solar heating of water with heat collector panels on the roof, or wind generator or photovoltaic panels to charge batteries (as the source of energy is not constant), which would not then be connected to the house wiring.

 

I assume the MEA pay the incinera.... oops, 'energy from waste' plant at the wholesale rate that they could buy from the national grid via the cable.

[ManxWarrior]

Multiply them by 6 and you have more than enough to run to whole of the UK and probably Europe.

 

You might want to rethink that piece of fantasy chief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi ans – well I did say I opening myself here to a lot of debate, but non the less here’s my logic:

 

Assuming Europe has some 450million people.

6 pairs running next generation lighting technology (DWDM on 160 channels)

6x60million=360million phone calls.

Given not everybody in Europe would be on the phone at the same time than being able to handle 360million simultaneous calls is pretty high call to people ratio. Any telecom company would normally work on much lower ratios.

 

Getting over the capacity of these fibres to people is a difficult thing and equating to the number of simultaneous phone calls is just a way to quantify this mega number to something more meaningful.

 

Another point is in raising this subject is that I understand that Manx Telecom have shown an interest in taking over the complete FOC, in which case bye-bye any competition and MT can carry on overcharging as normal. Our political masters may see this as a neat and quick solution. It’s a short term gain and IoM Public Co would loose out in the longer term. No company could use all the capacity of this cable and would only want control of all of it to prevent competition entering the market.

[Gladys]

I'm sorry if I am losing the point here, but are you really saying that there is a real asset capable of being exploited by MEA but which it cannot for other reasons?

 

Way back in this thread I did ask of this optic cable was anything we shoud be looking at; and the fact that MT was granted a licence quite recently. Did that effectively stop MEA making the best of the assets it had?

[ans]

Hi ans – well I did say I opening myself here to a lot of debate, but non the less here’s my logic:

 

You also said 3Mil 2mbBroadbandConnects per pair, which would be 18million 2mb connects. I think you'll find this would be woefully short of the capacity for Europe.

[ManxWarrior]

sorry its a big posting but it is a big subject - thanks for reading it.

ttfn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

and the point is ? ...............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Two main points:

• The telecoms issue could be a big cash earner for the MEA, so maybe the big price hikes wouldn't be necessary
  
• Mhk's are being urged to make a decision by Dec'2005, this non usage of the FOC can't go on forever, its a wasting asset.
  

Regards

[Gladys]

Manx Warrior, please tell me was the fact that MT had its licence renewed anything to do with MEA being unable to meet its business plan|?

[ManxWarrior]

Hi ans – well I did say I opening myself here to a lot of debate, but non the less here’s my logic:

 

You also said 3Mil 2mbBroadbandConnects per pair, which would be 18million 2mb connects. I think you'll find this would be woefully short of the capacity for Europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ok I take you point but throw a contentention ratio in of 20:1 (as per business broadband) and your getting up there to 360million users. Even higher if you used higher contention ratios.

 

These are silly numbers, but please accept my general point that the capacity is awesome.

 

cheers

[joeyconcrete]

I found a lot of the MEA's marketing hype was, if anything, advertising the benefits of the internet and internet telephony. I certainly wasn't taken by it.

 

The optic can generate revenue, whether it be simply selling capacity at the lower levels or selling IP wholesale on it. All the other hype the MEA splurted out is simply an indirect benefit and could be achieved without the cable.

 

I'd be against Manx-Telecom owning the cable, I've no objections if they bought capacity on it like anybody else. Unfortunately I can see the various friends of friends deciding that it'd be in the Island's interest to pass over the "management" or suchlike to MT. You have to remember that C&W already sell capacity on their cable which both leading ISPs utilise.

 

To have the fairest outcome, an inpartial company/department needs to be in control of the cable in order to allocate it fairly. Selling sole-usage rights to a single commercial company (unless with guarantees) is certainly not going to benefit anyone. MT (O2) would also certainly outbid most local companies if it was to protect their revenue stream.

[ManxWarrior]

I'm sorry if I am losing the point here, but are you really saying that there is a real asset capable of being exploited by MEA but which it cannot for other reasons? 

Yes the FOC is a real asset to IoM PublicCoLtd both in this and the next generation telecoms. The asset is worth millions and is quietly rotting in the Irish sea. The MEA are being prevented from using this asset by the action of civil servants contrary to the will of Tynwald. (ref para 50, Standing Committee Report). MT have a vested interest for the FOC & MEA to fail which maintains the near monoploy situation. So read between the lines, they have a lot of friends.

 

Way back in this thread I did ask of this optic cable was anything we shoud be looking at; and the fact that MT was granted a licence quite recently.  Did that effectively stop MEA making the best of the assets it had?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know the exact terms of MT's new licence but MT no longer pays IoM Government some several million pounds per annum. The license does not restrict competition (Cable & Wireless already operate on the Island) so I understand the MEA is not restricted.

 

 

Regards

[Gladys]

Hmmm!

[ManxWarrior]

Since we have mentioned how friends of MT have in one-way or another scuppered plans for the MEA to supply telecoms. Frequently it’s difficult to find something tangible but here’s an instance that’s so blatant its makes one eyes water.

 

To start with have a look at Paragraphs 30 thro 33 of the Standing Committee - Annual Report for 2004-2005 which refers to a report ref a price survey of MTs charges.

 

The Governments e-Business Press release for the Report It looks like a pucker Government document.

 

This is the Report itself on the IoM Governments Website:

“Benchmarking Manx Telecom’s pricing”

 

Note the IoM Government Logo, making it looks like the real thing but was in fact was commissioned and paid for by Manx Telecom.

 

Its so full of superlatives about MT it makes me cry with laughter.

 

But seriously - just to show how far this lobbying can go.

Why is the cost per month of Broadband use double that charged in other jurisdictions?

In a written reply the PurePricing report formed a cornerstone of the answer.

A report from .PurePricing', a specialist in telecoms' price comparisons, which is now on the Government website, was recently prepared for the Treasury's e-business division.

 

No wonder our MHK’s are confused, lots of grumbling from Joe Public, yet our Civil servants are manipulated by MT into throwing up this sort of nonsense. Shame on you. If you read the full reply in Hansard, you’ll realise that it, was possibly, drafted by MT who couldn’t resist the opportunity to promote the corporate image.

 

The full Hansard Document is here.

 

All you company & legal buffs have a look at ‘Pure Pricing Ltd’, at Companies House UK. You’ll find it’s a very small company indeed that had changed its name from ‘Swift Software Limited’ only a couple of months before getting the contract from MT in November 2004.

 

It begs the question why with the resources of O2 and MT did they engage a tiny company like PurePricing? I’ll leave it to you to work out the answer.

 

Can one ever trust any such document ever again. Sorry MT you shot yourself in the foot.

 

All this type of stuff highlights the strong lobbying which MT have been doing over the years which has effectively stopped any usage of the Fibre Optic Cable by both the Manx Cable Co and the MEA. MT have overcharged us for years and its about time we had some real competition in the telecoms market. The MEA is that competition.

[ManxWarrior]

and google  PLT  INTERFERENCE

 

and see about 16,200 hits and reasons that it has been abandoned elsewhere as impossible to meet emc levels. BBC engineering has a good brief on it too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take it since you have raised this question you are an Amateur Radio enthusiast.

 

First generation PLC as used by NorWeb used FSK technology which did emit high level of radio noise in the 1-30 MHz bandwidth.

 

Subsequent generations of PLC technologies are using techniques like OFDM, which substantially reduce the potential of interference to radio users. The OFDM modulation spreads the signal over a very wide bandwidth, thus reducing the amount on power injected at a single frequency. Individual frequencies are also soft selectable. Field trials of PLC technologies carried out during the last 2 years in Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany), North America, South America (Chile, Brazil) and Asia (Singapore) have shown that interference with radio users is no longer a problem for PLC. OFDM is a mature technology that just doesn’t have the same problems.

 

Also remember that the MEA propose that PLC is only used for the ‘last half mile’, the equivalent of the local loop, where the mains cable is mostly underground which also negates any effect of radio interference. I assume larger businesses would be serviced by fibre directly and there’s no reason why the MEA can’t get into Community Wireless Systems too, should the need arise. So there’s several options to deliver that last half mile and the whole MEA scheme shouldn’t be rubbished because of failed schemes and technologies from the past.

[ManxWarrior]

I found a lot of the MEA's marketing hype was, if anything, advertising the benefits of the internet and internet telephony. I certainly wasn't taken by it.

The MEAs proposals are not dissimilar to BTs 21st Century Network (21CN) scheme - is this hype too? There maybe some blue sky radical thinking in there but I can’t see anything wrong in principle. It’s logical combining of several existing services. The bottom line is the general demand for more bandwidth is set to increase. Even todays 2mb general broadband standard will become laughable in a few years. How fast Community Wireless Networking takes off is another factor. The MEA’s apparent hype covers all these topics, so I see it as visionary thinking – of a type we have never seen on the IoM before.

 

The optic can generate revenue, whether it be simply selling capacity at the lower levels or selling IP wholesale on it. All the other hype the MEA splurted out is simply an indirect benefit and could be achieved without the cable.

We need a company that going to keep the IoM in the forefront of telecoms technology lets not rubbish the only company that could deliver some true competition to MT. Just look at the some of the headline prices of broadband in the UK. It’s less than half of MT’s residential rate. That’s for the faster 2mb service and a static IP which manx residential users can’t have. If one wants a static IP then MT force the usage of the business service at £88/month.

 

I'd be against Manx-Telecom owning the cable, I've no objections if they bought capacity on it like anybody else. Unfortunately I can see the various friends of friends deciding that it'd be in the Island's interest to pass over the "management" or suchlike to MT.  You have to remember that C&W already sell capacity on their cable which both leading ISPs utilise. 

Yes I’m with you on this one, there’s plenty of capacity as I have explained in previous postings. As to whether the capacity would be taken up, by other third parties is another story. I'm sure its almost a done deal that MT are to take over the FOC.

To have the fairest outcome, an inpartial company/department needs to be in control of the cable in order to allocate it fairly. Selling sole-usage rights to a single commercial company (unless with guarantees) is certainly not going to benefit anyone. MT (O2) would also certainly outbid most local companies if it was to protect their revenue stream.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe this has already been tried via the Manx Cable Co. Strong lobbying from MT and friends seems to have killed this off, witness we have a Network Operations Centre (NOC) in Ridgeway Street which cost some £250,000 funded by the DTI lying idle just like the FOC. Seems strange that the DTI should build a NOC then say the MEA business case won’t hold water.

[ButterflyMaiden]

If I could change the thread direction slightly ... Having recently received an electricity bill I wondered what FCA was (check your account).

I asked in the MEA showroom and was informed it was an adjustment made to account for adjustments to fuel prices for generation. In other words it is a fuel cost adjustment.

The amount per unit is 2.7 pence. Maths isnt my strongpoint but I calculate this to be £27 per megawatthour. This seems to be an extraordinary amount to be be paying for a fuel cost adjustment when power can be bought wholesale at £31 per megawatthour. Offpeak power could be bought for less than the MEA fuel cost adjustment. See this link for some, admittedly limited price information Wholesale Power Prices

I for one do not believe this adjustment can possibly be correct given the cost of wholesale power. The majority of power in the UK is generated by gas fired plant and we are led to believe that is the case in the Island as well.

Is the MEA really so inefficient that their raw fuel costs exceed the cost at which power can be bought for ? .... I think we should be told