Eircom to axe 1,200 jobs

NewDubliner

af_thefragile wrote: »

There have been many free-market states in the past that worked perfectly.
It was only when the government starts interfering with the businesses that the markets started to screw up.

I see: Anglo was going great until the government interfered?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also the mobile phone service providers run quite like a free market system too. The public are free to chose between vodafone, O2, meteor and 3. All of those businesses compete of each other to provide customer with better and cheaper service.

Voice roaming charges were high until the EU interfered and data roaming charges....still astronomical, no matter who your provider is.

af_thefragile wrote: »

But there's still competition between the two and from predominantly the Asian market and hence to keep up car manufacturers need to keep releasing better, newer models every year to keep up or else they'll get left behind and fail (like GM!).

They've competed so much, they're putting each other out of business.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Now when you've got a monopolised industry like Eircom is in Ireland with a majority share in telecommunications sector, you stop seeing rapid progress and the quality of

Whose fault is that?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Cartels are formed only when they're allowed to form....It was only when the government starts interfering with the businesses that the markets started to screw up

af_thefragile

NewDubliner wrote: »

1. I see: Anglo was going great until the government interfered?

2. Voice roaming charges were high until the EU interfered and data roaming charges....still astronomical, no matter who your provider is.

3. They've competed so much, they're putting each other out of business.

4. Whose fault is that?

5.

1. Anglo is a bank and i think its not very fair to compare a financial institution with a commodity business cuz greedy financial institutions are doomed to fail. A part of the reason due to the flawed financial system itself and another part due to people's lack of understanding of how it all works. Very few people actually have a proper understanding of what happens to their money when they deposit it in a bank! Hence they find it almost impossible to differentiate between a good bank and a bad bank. The bankers use this fact to great advantage to manipulate people more.
A libertarian free-market state focuses towards educating the people more about how these systems works so that they can decide more wisely which bank they can trust with their money.

2. Chill out dude. You don't complain about the free texts, free calls, low international call rates and cheap cell phone prices and all you end up complaining about is roaming call charges?! Roaming works across international borders between different economic systems hence it is going to take time to be resolved. Though for a good while the cell phone service providers didn't feel it was much necessary to focus their attention on this subject. Saying that its due to the free-market competition between the service providers we've got a thing like roaming in the first place!
Tell me one good thing that came out of Soviet Russia or even Communist China?...

3. That is the natural order of systems. The ones who can't keep up fail. Its a good thing. Maintains the fear of failing among the businesses which makes them work harder as to not fail!

4. Eircom was monopolised by the state. Whose fault could it be?!

5. Government need to oppose stricter laws against the formation of cartels and persecute businesses who form a cartel. But the government goes easy on the whole thing hence we've got cartels. Also its easier to form a cartel between two giants than 4 to 5 different business groups.

NewDubliner

af_thefragile wrote: »

1. Anglo is a bank and i think its not very fair to compare a financial institution with a commodity business

Because it does not support your position that free market, without supervision is 'good'.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Roaming works across international borders between different economic systems hence it is going to take time to be resolved.

Nonsense.

af_thefragile wrote: »

5. Government need to oppose stricter laws against the formation of cartels

af_thefragile wrote: »

But the government goes easy on the whole thing hence we've got cartels.

But you're against government interferance in business?

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also its easier to form a cartel between two giants than 4 to 5 different business groups.

But that's what business does.

How do you feel about Oracle's takeover of Sun?

djpbarry

af_thefragile wrote: »

So in a libertarian state you've got a wise customer...

That's pretty much were the dream falls apart, isn't it? I can't envisage a society in which regulation (to protect consumers) is not needed.

Jacklefet

There was a cowboy called Sir Anthony who done a lot more damage before the Oz Sheils got involved.




:mad:

Sqaull20 wrote: »

Bit unfair to blame the workers for the state of them?

Its not like those OZ cowboys have pumped resources into company or anything!!

They have spent fcuk all since they bought the company and they are always looking for handouts from the goverment.Its easy money for them and now they can give the same level of mediocre service with an extra 45 million or so in the pocket This is good news for no one as the competition is a joke and you can blame the goverment for that too.

What Eircom needs is resources and man power, not cut backs!! Good news, yeah :pac:

the_syco

dave-higgz wrote: »

UPC 10mb unlimited usage!! €30

In Dublin, and a few places nearby. The rest of the country? No.

hellbent wrote: »

Because, it eircom goes, there's no point in saying "so what, we'll use alternative providers" - they can't exist without eircom, as they use the eircom infrastructure to provide connections to premises. No eircom , no phone service at all. Surely communication counts as 'systemic' infrastructure, as much as the term applies to the banks.

Agreed 100%

=-=

Who maintains all the lines? Eircom. If Eircom hits the wall, it'll be nationalised, for one reason: I can't see anyone wanting to take it. Eircom does a decent job with f**k all resources, but people still think that Eircom should rent out it's infrastructure for free... :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

hellbent wrote: »

Because, it eircom goes, there's no point in saying "so what, we'll use alternative providers" - they can't exist without eircom, as they use the eircom infrastructure to provide connections to premises.

Some of them don't use any eircom infrastructure whatsoever.

oscarBravo

hellbent wrote: »

Truth is, the newcomers never intended to put in any infrastructure, they simply wanted eircom, a private/public company since 1999, to hand over its own infrastructure for free, and allow these niche-providers to attain super-profits.

I'll sit here and hold my breath while you dig out some examples of competitors looking for access to eircom's network for free.

I doubt if any of the alternative providers has put in more than a few kilometers of copper cable, and then only in Dublin2.

Copper is so 20th century. The alternative infrastructure is fibre, and it's the fibre that's been put in place by everyone but eircom that has shaken up the market.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

That's pretty much were the dream falls apart, isn't it? I can't envisage a society in which regulation (to protect consumers) is not needed.

it depends, an example of what could happen is where no gov. insurance to bail out depositors is available is that cutomers would be aware that they could lose their savings, services would develop where people would pay to be kept aware of how their bank is doing , the "best" bank would be the one that keeps the largest reserves as opposed to "where can I get the highest rate". Even if smaller customers were not acting smarter the sophisticated savers would act as a brake on reckless behaviour. People would vote with their feet.

af_thefragile

djpbarry wrote: »

That's pretty much were the dream falls apart, isn't it? I can't envisage a society in which regulation (to protect consumers) is not needed.

I don't ask for a society with no regulations. I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian. I just ask for minimal regulations. Basically regulations against forming cartels, regulations to protect the environment, regulations against fraud, regulations against the creation of monopolies and then the government passing incentives to educate the people so that they can make better decisions.

I say the government needs to go down strong and hard against businesses who commit fraud and try to create cartels.
I'm against government protecting certain businesses and bailing out the failed ones instead of just letting them continue.

The government should be there to protect people's law, security, rights and freedom. Not to dictate people's lives!

the_syco

oscarBravo wrote: »

The alternative infrastructure is fibre, and it's the fibre that's been put in place by everyone but eircom that has shaken up the market.

ESB has done this... and not switched most of it on.

silverharp wrote: »

People would vote with their feet.

No. The bank would not do well, and people would pull out. Like what happened to a bank in England. They voted with their feet, and everyone fled.

af_thefragile wrote: »

I don't ask for a society with no regulations. I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian. I just ask for minimal regulations.

Minimal regulations caused the mess with the banks, no?

NewDubliner

af_thefragile wrote: »

I say the government needs to go down strong and hard against businesses who commit fraud and try to create cartels.

af_thefragile wrote: »

5. Government need to oppose stricter laws against the formation of cartels

More u-turns than than the loo at FF HQ.

the_syco

NewDubliner wrote: »

More u-turns than than the loo at FF HQ.

Eh... they both say the same thing...

"I say the government needs to go down strong and hard against businesses who commit fraud and try to create cartels."

I think the "and" is more of a "and/or".

hellbent

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll sit here and hold my breath while you dig out some examples of competitors looking for access to eircom's network for free.

All of them have lobbied for yonks to have, if not totally free access, then access at rates so close to zero as makes no odds. Have you no memory of this at all? It was regularly reported in all the papers, going back years. The Indo ran great 'agenda' campaigns to have eircom hand over the copper network (the 'local loop') to competitors, before Sir Anto bought eircom.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Copper is so 20th century. The alternative infrastructure is fibre, and it's the fibre that's been put in place by everyone but eircom that has shaken up the market.

Copper is how maybe 90% of households gain access to both telephone service and broadband. It's the holy grail still, due to the prohibitive cost-versus-return of providing house to house fibre.
Except for UPS/ Chorus, who have installed fibre optic cables to all households in a very few towns and parts of cities, there is no fibre infrastructure to households, either from eircom or anyone else. The national fibre infrastructure - eircom's and other providers who have one- is from town to town only. It doesn't connect to houses, and in the current economic climate we will wait a long time before it does. So how has "the provision of fibre by everyone" shaken up the market? I'm keen to hear more.

oscarBravo

the_syco wrote: »

ESB has done this... and not switched most of it on.

Really? I'd be interested in hearing about which part of ESB's NTFON isn't "switched on".

hellbent wrote: »

All of them have lobbied for yonks to have, if not totally free access, then access at rates so close to zero as makes no odds. Have you no memory of this at all? It was regularly reported in all the papers, going back years. The Indo ran great 'agenda' campaigns to have eircom hand over the copper network (the 'local loop') to competitors, before Sir Anto bought eircom.

The backpedal begins. First the competitors wanted access for free, now they wanted it for "close to zero".

Basically, what you're saying is that they wanted access to a monopoly network at a price that would allow them to offer competing services and still make money.

The evil bastards.

So how has "the provision of fibre by everyone" shaken up the market? I'm keen to hear more.

Because of eircom's carefully-guarded stranglehold on the copper "last mile", much of the competition in the market is in the form of alternative access technologies, such as fixed wireless. Such technologies wouldn't be viable if they didn't have affordable access to national fibre networks other than eircom's, such as the ESB network that the_syco doesn't think is switched on, but that I've been using for nearly four years.

hellbent

oscarBravo wrote: »

The backpedal begins. First the competitors wanted access for free, now they wanted it for "close to zero".

No backpedal, sorry. They all wanted access for free, and later for laughably tiny amounts when free was not an option.

When eircom was privatised, all its shareholders, (including me, unfortunately), bought the cable infrastructure too. Believe it or not, the company was entitled to set a price for competitors to access their cables, acting commercially, as they must, in the interest of those shareholders.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, what you're saying is that they wanted access to a monopoly network at a price that would allow them to offer competing services and still make money

Naw, I'm not saying that, you're putting words in my mouth. Freeloading and cherry picking is what they all wanted to do.


===================================================
Anyhow, the question posed by the OP was whether eircom should be re-nationalised. That's the core issue. I think it should and must be taken back into public ownership, for the forseeable future. Run it commercially, as per Telecom Eireann days.

NewDubliner

the_syco wrote: »

Eh... they both say the same thing...

"I say the government needs to go down strong and hard against businesses who commit fraud and try to create cartels."
.

But he also says that the government should oppose [the introduction of] stricter laws against cartels? And, he's against government interferance in business

af_thefragile

NewDubliner wrote: »

But he also says that the government should oppose [the introduction of] stricter laws against cartels? And, he's against government interferance in business

I never said that.

I said the government's job is to protect laws, rights, security and freedom.
Having strict laws against the formation of cartels is a part of that.
Along with the persecution of fraudulent businesses and education of the people so that they can make better decisions.

There is a difference between protection and interference.
Government supporting businesses and bailing them out when they go down is interfering not protecting.

I hope i have made that clear for once and for all!

the_syco

oscarBravo wrote: »

such as the ESB network that the_syco doesn't think is switched on, but that I've been using for nearly four years.

Cool. Didn't know that. Just remember reading an article about ESB not using the fiber cables that they had next to the power lines, and not reading anything about them being used since.

oscarBravo

hellbent wrote: »

No backpedal, sorry. They all wanted access for free, and later for laughably tiny amounts when free was not an option.

Care to provide any evidence of anyone looking for access to eircom's network for free?

Also, what's a "laughably tiny" amount? What do you think is a fair price?

When eircom was privatised, all its shareholders, (including me, unfortunately), bought the cable infrastructure too. Believe it or not, the company was entitled to set a price for competitors to access their cables, acting commercially, as they must, in the interest of those shareholders.

As an operator with significant market power (regulatory-speak for a monopoly), they are not entitled to do as they please.

Naw, I'm not saying that, you're putting words in my mouth. Freeloading and cherry picking is what they all wanted to do.

With all due respect, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

NewDubliner

af_thefragile wrote: »

I never said that.

af_thefragile wrote: »

5. Government need to oppose stricter laws against the formation of cartels

Is this what you said?

af_thefragile

NewDubliner wrote: »

Is this what you said?

Aah, that was a typo. Get over it.
I meant the government needs to implement stricter laws against the formation of cartels.

NewDubliner

af_thefragile wrote: »

Aah, that was a typo. Get over it.
I meant the government needs to implement stricter laws against the formation of cartels.

And that's the kind of quality & attention to detail the private sector thinks is going to save the economy?:P

Akrasia

dave-higgz wrote: »

UPC 10mb unlimited usage!! €30

wonderful if you live in one of the 6 or 7 places in the country that they actually service, for everyone else, its eircom (or one of the resellers)

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

wonderful if you live in one of the 6 or 7 places in the country that they actually service, for everyone else, its eircom (or one of the resellers)

...or another alternative technology.

casey jones

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll sit here and hold my breath while you dig out some examples of competitors looking for access to eircom's network for free. Copper is so 20th century. The alternative infrastructure is fibre, and it's the fibre that's been put in place by everyone but eircom that has shaken up the market.

eircom has been putting in fibre in the core network since the mid 80's. They have trialled fibre to the kerb and home but the costs are horrendous, exacerbated by our low housing density and scattered housing "policy". Some of the other operators have put in a tiny amount of fibre to a few apartment blocks but nothing worth talking about. Fibre to the home or kerb will require govt help as has happened elsewhere e.g. France.

af_thefragile

^Virgin did it in UK without much of a problem...

Quartet

madout wrote: »

It is a well known fact the Irish has lost their bottle! Or is it? 1916 uprising well where are they now? When we have a government rocking our boat and killing the economy that thrived for years. Or did it, who made the money, the ones who already had the money!

Budget 2008 ok well, protest over poor millionaire land owners who have retired sold a big lump of land and are now sitting pretty. Media hype the situation, medical card means testing. Why the hell not? I ask you.

Now is it not a fact, we voted the F.F. government in "not me" and is it not true the government are here for the good of the country and people. Well it does not look that way they are screwing us and looking out for themselves and their own families. Doing nothing for the jobless and cutting back everything!

Come over here to Ireland it pays good social welfare and gives corporation housing. “Little Europe”. Now there are no jobs left for the non Irish nationals and all the rest that lived in soft Ireland long enough to breed to get naturalisation. I say let you the average Irish tax payer pay your social welfare! Why would they go back home?

I know there will be some out there that say, what, is the point in complaining, no one cares!
And there is nothing you can do or is there? Means testing OAPs.

Oh and be patriotic.

Viva la revolution.

Errhh Have you not posted this elsewhere.....

Ref

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59985689#post59985689
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59986263#post59986263

madout

Maybe so! parts relate to all 3 posts so why not. Its about getting a point in and that is the truth we sit we do nothing. Half the people that lost the jobs if not more are not irish nationals. 1200 more on the welfare..

Quartet

madout wrote: »

Maybe so! parts relate to all 3 posts so why not. Its about getting a point in and that is the truth we sit we do nothing. Half the people that lost the jobs if not more are not irish nationals. 1200 more on the welfare..

OK....

this thread is about

• Eircom to axe 1,200 jobs

However the other two threads are:

• Social Welfare scams
• Christmas bonus - gone!!

No sorry you have lost me there....