eircom Statistics (a.k.a. "Facts")

De Rebel

Part of the prime Time Thread relates to eircom's use of statistics (which david mcredmond sometimes refers to as "facts". A number of posts said that IOFFL need to respond. You are right. We do need to tackle these broad brush statistics. And there are simple retorts that are as easy to digest as McRedmonds "facts"

For example.......

eircom has only enabled 1 in ever 5 of its exchanges for Broadband. 80% have not been enabled. It has taken 3 years to get to this point. Is it going to take 12 years to complete the rollout to the remaining 850 exchanges???

1 in every 2 houses/businesses cannot get broadband. That’s 50%.

Both of the above are factually correct. The first one is a clear measure of effort to date (or the lack of it) on eircom's part and more importantly a measure of what remains to be done. And in reality, denying broadband to the people connected to 80% of the exchanges in the country is reinforcing centuries of economic disadvantage. The very people who are most remote from our traditional social/economic hubs (i.e. large towns and cities) are now being further disadvantaged by being distanced from the internet. The very technology which has the potential to overcome their traditional disadvantages. And here we are, in the 21st century, not using technology as a leveller or as a means of achieving equality, but instead allowing it to be abused to create a digital divide.

The number of houses/businesses which cannot get broadband is a disgrace. 50% of lines are either not enabled or fail for various reasons. This is a national scandal.

I believe that each and every person in the country is entitled to a decent connection to the internet. There should not be any haves and have-nots. Neither analogue not isdn lines allow for practical business or consumer use of the internet, in this time of rich content, multimedia, multi tasking. Neither analogue not isdn constitute decent internet connectivity. And satellite certainly does not. So clearly eircom are not in a position to provide decent internet connections to 50% of the potential users in the country.

There are all the statistics in the world to be cherry picked and selectively used by a master of spin like david mcredmond. The blunt reality is that the statistics do not change the facts. eircom's offerings are pants. Their efforts are pathetic. And their rollout plans do not extend beyond the current 250 exchanges.

So remember,

Fact no.1
eircom has only enabled 1 in ever 5 of its exchanges for Broadband. 80% have not been enabled.

Fact no.1
1 in every 2 houses/businesses cannot get broadband. That’s 50%.

Paddy20

Well put, lets hope the media read this plain and understandable statement of facts. . Then pass it on to their readers and listeners and viewers ?....

De Rebel

We might just save them the bother of coming here and finding it, by sending off a little press release or two...

The new minister, while i would have great respect for his intellectual capability, seems to be ready to accept a certain amount of spin at face value. Its time for us to counteract this.

I would like to have Muck and Peter and a few of our other "facticians" comment on the above too.

Blaster99

I could be wrong, but I thought McRedmond said that exchanges covering 80% of the population were enabled and some percentage (70%?) of lines on those exchanges pass the broadband test.

Ripwave

De Rebel wrote:

Both of the above are factually correct.

And they're exactly the sort of statistical distortion that you accuse McRedmond of using.

By your own admission the 20% of exchanges that have been enabled have made DSL available to at least 50% of eircoms customers. In actual fact, they could probably supply 60% of the population tomorrow if the line test criteria were relaxed (or people were give inforation about why the failed, so that they could address internal wiring issues). When the firmware in the DSLAMs is upgraded to ADSL2+, and pairgain issues are addressed, this 20% of exchanges will probably serve 70-80% of the population. All Exchanges are not the same size, and it is an out and out distortion to imply the 20% figure is a meaningful measure of anything.

If you want to play the same games that McRedmond does, go ahead. Just be careful that you don't hurt yourself when you fall off that high horse.

And in reality, denying broadband to the people connected to 80% of the exchanges in the country is reinforcing centuries of economic disadvantage. The very people who are most remote from our traditional social/economic hubs (i.e. large towns and cities) are now being further disadvantaged by being distanced from the internet.

What a load of utter twaddle. DSL is a distance limited technology. It is fundamentally unsuited for servicing the needs of those who choose to live far from our towns and cities. The incremnal cost of delivering wireless to a house 8 miles from a hub, versus a house 3 miles from a hub is practically nothing. The incremental cost of delivering DSL to a house 8 miles from a hub compared to a house 3 miles from a hub is substantial. And personally, I have very little interest in subsidising that substantial additional cost. When only a tiny minority of those who can get broadband even want it, it's ridiculous to argue that there is some sort of obligation on either eircom or the taxpayer, to deliver what the vast majority of the population still consider an irrelevant luxury, whatever the opinion of the people that populate this forum. If you want to make a positive case for the benefits that broadband can bring a community, go right ahead, but please, spare us the béal bocht!

There are all the statistics in the world to be cherry picked and selectively used by a master of spin like david mcredmond.

You're no wallflower in that department yourself.

De Rebel

Blaster99 wrote:

I could be wrong, but I thought McRedmond said that exchanges covering 80% of the population were enabled and some percentage (70%?) of lines on those exchanges pass the broadband test.

The guy is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo slick with words. One of the best i have ever heard. He is like an illusionist, creating all sorts of images by sleight of mouth.


What you thought you heard "exchanges covering 80% of the population were enabled"
What he said "70% of the lines in the country are covered by broadband" - whatever the technical term "covered" actually means

What you thought you heard "(70%?) of lines on those exchanges pass the broadband test"
What he said was "in areas where broadband is available, 8 out of 10 people can get broadband today (this is rounded, its actually 76% according to eircom's published figures, 70% according to most other reliable sources)

so eircom are saying 70% of lines are connected to broadband enabled exchanges and of these 76% pass the test. and 76% of 70% is 53% of the lines in the country can get broadband today. 1 out of every 2.

In terms of exchanges, eircom have 1100 exchanges, they have comitted to enabling 250 of these. They have no plans for the remainder. 1 out of every 5 exchanges has been enabled. 4 out of every 5 exchanges has not been enabled, and there are no plans to do so.

De Rebel

Ripwave wrote:

And they're exactly the sort of statistical distortion that you accuse McRedmond of using.

By your own admission the 20% of exchanges that have been enabled have made DSL available to at least 50% of eircoms customers. In actual fact, they could probably supply 60% of the population tomorrow if the line test criteria were relaxed (or people were give inforation about why the failed, so that they could address internal wiring issues). When the firmware in the DSLAMs is upgraded to ADSL2+, and pairgain issues are addressed, this 20% of exchanges will probably serve 70-80% of the population. All Exchanges are not the same size, and it is an out and out distortion to imply the 20% figure is a meaningful measure of anything.

If you want to play the same games that McRedmond does, go ahead. Just be careful that you don't hurt yourself when you fall off that high horse.
What a load of utter twaddle. DSL is a distance limited technology. It is fundamentally unsuited for servicing the needs of those who choose to live far from our towns and cities. The incremnal cost of delivering wireless to a house 8 miles from a hub, versus a house 3 miles from a hub is practically nothing. The incremental cost of delivering DSL to a house 8 miles from a hub compared to a house 3 miles from a hub is substantial. And personally, I have very little interest in subsidising that substantial additional cost. When only a tiny minority of those who can get broadband even want it, it's ridiculous to argue that there is some sort of obligation on either eircom or the taxpayer, to deliver what the vast majority of the population still consider an irrelevant luxury, whatever the opinion of the people that populate this forum. If you want to make a positive case for the benefits that broadband can bring a community, go right ahead, but please, spare us the béal bocht!
You're no wallflower in that department yourself.

Ripwave I have great difficulty understanding what your angle is. You come in here and argue with just about everybody. Your arguments rarely if ever add anything to out knowledge of the situation or advance the cause. You appear engage in argument for argument's sake. A totally pointless way of going on.

Why don't you F**k off to humanities or some other academic talk shop and enjoy yourself. Your ceaseless pointless smart ass bickering just gets in the way here.

Ripwave

De Rebel wrote:

Ripwave I have great difficulty understanding what your angle is. You come in here and argue with just about everybody.

No, Rebel, I only argue with those who either are talking through their arses, or those who are quite happy to tell lies as long as the lies make the common enemy look bad.

And trying to make an issue of the fact that only 20% of exchanges have been enabled for DSL is essentially dishonest, a classic lie in the "lies, damed lies and statistcis" sense.

If it doesn't bother you to stoop to McRedmonds level in the propaganda game, that's fine. If you honestly think you can do a better job of it than he can, thought, you're a deluded fool.

Your arguments rarely if ever add anything to out knowledge of the situation or advance the cause. You appear engage in argument for argument's sake. A totally pointless way of going on.

Why don't you F**k off to humanities or some other academic talk shop and enjoy yourself. Your ceaseless pointless smart ass bickering just gets in the way here.

How eloquent. Just the sort of visionary statement that demonstrates how IOFFL should move forward.

Not.

The "emotional war" is pretty much won - there really isn't much to be gained by using misleading statistics to make eircom look bad, because, by all accounts, the public perception of the culture of eircom as a company is as bad is it's likely to get. IOFFL needs to stick with the facts, if it is to continue to make progress.

Ronan|Raven

Keep it civil please.

Paddy20

Ripwave,

Imho, you are out of order. Go take a chill pill, or maybe you need a couple ?..
P.

SkepticOne

De Rebel wrote:

What you thought you heard "exchanges covering 80% of the population were enabled"
What he said "70% of the lines in the country are covered by broadband" - whatever the technical term "covered" actually means

I think the term "covered" is used in the stud farm business meaning roughly what Eircom is doing to the country.

damien

Both parties can chill Paddy20.

Ripwave plays Devil's Advocate a lot here and it really is a good thing. We can all get caught up in our own versions of reality in this forum. If everyone was all happy and back-patting in these parts I don't think we could be able to stand up to a PR guru like McRedmond. He'd shred us to bits.

Strong doses of reality can be a good thing, though if presented as an appeasing pill and less like a needle into the eye, it might be better. We're both on the same side and driving to the same destination, just taking different routes and on the way may bump into each other. When we bump we all need to realise where we're coming from and where we're going to. It's not productive to use our energies against each other. Still the odd clearing of the air can be good too.

bealtine

Ripwave wrote:

this 20% of exchanges will probably serve 70-80% of the population.

I believe the figures being quoted here are based on eircom's own figures:

They've been trashed out a number of times here.

Ripwave wrote:

The incremental cost of delivering DSL to a house 8 miles from a hub compared to a house 3 miles from a hub is substantial.

The cost of delivering bb via DSL is exactly the same whether the house is 3km or 10km from the exchange. The UK can do it (deliver dsl to houses upto 10km from the exchange) and they would have similar densities and infrastructure, certainly outside of the main cities.

The main issue here is the quality of the lines (in the binders) supplied by eircom and not necessarily the "internal wiring" or other weasel excuses.

Furthermore not everybody gets a "choice" as to where they live. nowadays a lot of people simply have no choice but to live in estates situated outside towns. Blaming people for not living in Foxrock is utterly futile.

De Rebel

De Rebel wrote:

Why don't you F**k off to humanities or some other academic talk shop and enjoy yourself. Your ceaseless pointless smart ass bickering just gets in the way here.

I'd like to apologise for this. Having read Ripwave's most recent posts, I now realise that Humanities deserves better.

SkepticOne

Fact no.1
eircom has only enabled 1 in ever 5 of its exchanges for Broadband. 80% have not been enabled.

Fact no. 2
1 in every 2 houses/businesses cannot get broadband. That’s 50%.

I think these are good. It would be worth sending out an email with things like this to the members with an encouragement to spread the word.

While it might be argued that the first fact contains an element of 'spin', I'm not particularly worried about it being unfair on Eircom. Nor would I be concerned about the impression given to people in DCMNR or ComReg or other bodies. The statement itself is factual in any case and measuring the rollout of DSL by the number of exchanges is reasonable even if it doesn't measure the population covered which is dealt with in Fact#2.

De Rebel

First off - the number of exchanges issue
There are somewhere around 1100 eircom exchanges in the country. FACT. About 250 of these will be broadband enabled by the Spring of 2005. FACT. This represents about 20%. FACT. That’s 1 in 5. FACT. Eircom has no further rollout planned. FACT.

Somebody has to provide broadband for the people who are attached to remaining exchanges. This does not have to be DSL based broadband. This does not have to the wired/cable based broadband. But like other utilities, these people are entitled to broadband and there needs to be a plan to get it to them. Its called a plan for the last mile. That plan is missing. The Orieachtas committee highlighted the need for it. The Information Society Commission highlighted the need for it. IOFFL have long since been highlighting the need for it and under Christian Cooke, the previous chairman, devoted most of its time and energies to it. Clearly, eircom do not intend to address the issue. Clearly the Department do not have a plan at present. And clearly Dempsey, based on his performance on Prime Time does not have a plan, and worse, does not appear to understand the issue. The man actually thinks that there is competition in place. Not alone is there no real competition between services, for a large part of the country there isn't even a single service on offer. The issue of the number of exchanges that have not been and will not be broadband enabled is not some irrelevant statistic to be ignored. It is not spin. It is not hype. It is a real fact and a real problem. It must be addressed. And given that it is unlikely to be addressed by eircom it must be addressed by somebody else. IOFFL's role in this is to highlight the problem (i.e. there is no last mile plan) and get the need for a plan accepted and get the relevant people working on preparing, financing and implementing such a plan. Highlighting the fact that 80% of the exchanges remain to be enabled (or an alternative needs to be put in place) is critical to explaining that far from impression given by david mcredmond we are not at the last hurdle, we still have a long way to go.

Secondly The 50% Issue
I know that Ripwave has a bee in his/her bonnet about people living in rural areas, one off housing and all that. She/he has never explained what exactly her/his problem is. If she/he wants to change that i suggest she/he go the constitutional amendment route, because as things stand people are entitled to live outside the main population centres, and are entitled to the same basic services as every other citizen. I can feel Ripwave taking this off on some stupid tangent asking if on this basis people in Manorhamilton and Miltown Malbay and Lyreacrompane are entitled to a LUAS service. Broadband is the new utility. It is of fundamental importance to the economic and social development of the country's citizens going forward. We need a plan to achieve 100% availability. If we disagree on that, then we disagree on the fundamental issue. I have no interest in seeing Information Super Highways in the Cities and Towns and some form of "rural electrification scheme" type of internet access for the rest. We need to get the dots joined up. The backbone issues have been addressed. The regional distribution issues are being addressed. We urgently need a plan for the last mile. Without it we are denying large numbers of consumers and businesses a viable connection to the internet. eircom are not going to address the issue. comreg are not going to address the issue. The plan MUST come form the DCMNR. Dempsey and Tuohy MUST get their act together on this. Ahern did a lot, but we now need to see the final hurdle crossed. There is just no way we can ignore the fact that broadband is not available to 50% (1 in 2) of the population. This is not spin. This is not hype. It is a fact. And a pretty unpalatable one.

Blaster99

Who should pay for your proposed economically unviable broadband?

dahamsta

Blaster99 wrote:

Who should pay for your proposed economically unviable broadband?

I think a more accurate question given the context of the thread would be: Why should Irish citizens be conned by the misleading statistics put out by Eircom in general, and David McRedmond in particular?

adam

spongebob

Blaster99 wrote:

Who should pay for your proposed economically unviable broadband?

Who mentioned universal DSL ? Nobody. Pay for it yourself .

M

Capt'n Midnight

Blaster99 wrote:

Who should pay for your proposed economically unviable broadband?

1/2 million residential customers who won't get BB are paying €25 a month line rental each => €150,000,000 pa

If most other EU countries can offer BB capable lines to most of their population why can't we ? ( we pay twice the EU aveage for line rental so our equipment must be twice as good. :rolleyes: )

MarVeL

Ripwave wrote:

By your own admission the 20% of exchanges that have been enabled have made DSL available to at least 50% of eircoms customers. In actual fact, they could probably supply 60% of the population tomorrow if the line test criteria were relaxed (or people were give inforation about why the failed, so that they could address internal wiring issues). When the firmware in the DSLAMs is upgraded to ADSL2+, and pairgain issues are addressed, this 20% of exchanges will probably serve 70-80% of the population. All Exchanges are not the same size, and it is an out and out distortion to imply the 20% figure is a meaningful measure of anything.

While I can't argue that these changes may indeed result in the statistical increases mentioned it should be remembered that these are changes. Currently ercom does not provide this functionality to its users and I haven't heard any word on them doing so in the near future. Possibly these improvements are being held back in case cable or wireless start seriously eating into the profits but they are not statistically relevant as yet

Paddy20

dahamsta wrote:

I think a more accurate question given the context of the thread would be: Why should Irish citizens be conned by the misleading statistics put out by Eircom in general, and David McRedmond in particular?

adam

Whats happening ?.. I find myself more and more in agreement with Dahamsta ?.... :eek:

Ripwave

dahamsta wrote:

I think a more accurate question given the context of the thread would be: Why should Irish citizens be conned by the misleading statistics put out by Eircom in general, and David McRedmond in particular?

Why should they be conned by the misleading statistics put out by DeRebel, or any other member of IOFFL?

d-j-k

It's also worth noting that the terminology used to describe PSTN switching infrastrure can be a little confusing. What you're describing as an "exchange" may actually not be one!

In the old days, when switching was based on crossbar (electromechanical) technology, each area had an "exchange" which was pretty much independent and self-contained.

Digital switching systems don't necessarily follow that structure.

In each area there's a main switching node. (in larger cities like Dublin and Cork there are several)

These main nodes, have large number of remote concentrator units (RCUs) which occupy the buildings that would have been local "exchanges" in the old days.

Eircom tends to use the term "exchange" to refer to a major switching node and all of its RCUs... (These units vary from the size of a small office phone system to supplying thousands of lines)

So, having all 250 major nodes enabled could potentially mean a very large-scale coverage... then again, they could be very location-specific.

The only way of knowing is to actually check which areas/districts are DSL enabled. The exchange names arn't necessarily that useful unless you know exactly what areas they are serving.

Ripwave

MarVeL wrote:

Possibly these improvements are being held back in case cable or wireless start seriously eating into the profits but they are not statistically relevant as yet

Neither is the fact that only 20% of exchanges have been enabled.

Would you prefer if eircom had swapped things around, and enabled to 80% of exchanges that serve 20% of the population?

Ripwave

d-j-k wrote:

It's also worth noting that the terminology used to describe PSTN switching infrastrure can be a little confusing. What you're describing as an "exchange" may actually not be one!

Shhh! You'll spoil the propaganda value of DeRebels "statistics"!

MarVeL

Ripwave wrote:

Neither is the fact that only 20% of exchanges have been enabled.

Would you prefer if eircom had swapped things around, and enabled to 80% of exchanges that serve 20% of the population?

No and I can see very good reasons (even apart from my own personal benefit) for why those exchanges would be targetted. These would be the sites anyone would choose. Most companies would probably have some plans in place to carry on to some extent though.

The fact remains that for various reasons, many of which are based on eircom's unreasonable behaviour towards the testing and correcting of lines, currently only around 50% of sites have any possibility of getting broadband from eircom (not including obviously the laughable satellite service they offer)

De Rebel

Ripwave wrote:

Why should they be conned by the misleading statistics put out by DeRebel, or any other member of IOFFL?

Why indeed.

Been doing some thinking about this ripwave, and seeing as you're so much more clued in than i am, how about i step down from the committee and make space for you to contribute.

Clearly you believe that you have a lot to offer.

Ripwave

De Rebel wrote:

Why indeed.

Been doing some thinking about this ripwave, and seeing as you're so much more clued in than i am, how about i step down from the committee and make space for you to contribute.

Clearly you believe that you have a lot to offer.

Is that a "put up or shut up" challenge? Or are you actually admitting that you're just as much a hypocrite as McRedmond is when it comes to the use of emotional and misleading statistics?

De Rebel

Ripwave wrote:

Is that a "put up or shut up" challenge?

Call it wahat you will.

I was just wondering whether you are the windbag I suspect, or if you are actually prepared to contribute something useful.

Ripwave

MarVeL wrote:

The fact remains that for various reasons, many of which are based on eircom's unreasonable behaviour towards the testing and correcting of lines, currently only around 50% of sites have any possibility of getting broadband from eircom (not including obviously the laughable satellite service they offer)

Now how do you think eircom should deploy it's resources? By upgrading the 80% of "low yield" exchanges that aren't yet upgraded, or by impoving the coverage in the "high yield" exchanges, from the current 70% coverage to 90%, by addressing line failure issues.

Bear in mind that the line failure rate in those low yield exchanges is going to be even higher than the 30% rate currently occuring, so increasing the success rate on existing exchanges from 70% to 90% would deliver DSL to more people than upgrading the remaining 80% of exchanges.