Adam's List

murcielago

DeVore. elsewhere, requested 5 or 6 provable facts. Adam has provided 18 statements of 'fact' as at 04-January 2002.

I suggest (to avoid reinventing the wheel) referring Adam's List to the Research Group with a view a) to establishing relevant PROVABLE facts, and b) to develop a Selling Spin (statement of benefit or disbenefit for the audience) for each provable fact. The SS will normally begin with THIS MEANS ... or WHICH MEANS or something similar. Or, where the SS goes first, the PF will be followed by BECAUSE (or similar).

For convenience I am reproducing Adam's list together with a few indicative notes in a separate post.

Murcielago

murcielago

Adam's List Continued

http://iewebs.com/~abeecher/misc/io/htm/Telecommunications_-_Internet_Connectivity_Facts.htm
04-January-2002

PF = Provable Fact as requested by DeVore
SS = Selling Spin, that is, the customer benefit or disbenefit without which the provable fact is irrelevant in any negotiation.

Telecommunications & Internet Connectivity Facts

1.

Ireland is in breach of European Law

PF;
SS;
'11 months ago' - insert date & OJ reference. 'this morning' - insert date; 'November' - What year?

2.

Eircom has an Illegal monopoly

What is an illegal monopoly in Ireland? Having more than xx% of market share?
PF;
SS;

It was announced this morning that the EU is considering fining Ireland for its non-compliance. A report will be issed mid-November

This is stale news. Update (The EU announced in dd/mm/yy it was considering .. A report was due in November). Has the report been published?
PF;
SS;

3.

Eircom is anti-competitive

PF;
SS;
Note; Alledging

DSL costs announced by Eircom are not in line with costs of their own ISP retail prices

is a bit confusing. Is it the allegation that Eircom is subsidising or giving a price advantage to its own ISP vis-a-sis other ISP customers? If true it is a clear breach of national & EU legislation. If not true the statement is defamatory.

4.

The competition authority is avoiding the issue

PF;
SS;

5.

The ODTR is under-powered

PF;
SS;

Note 1. What powers does odtr require but not have? Do other national or EU authorities have the powers that are missing/absent from the odtr's portfolio? ... Examples; Competition authority; DCA; EU abuse of dominant position. Is the odtr making full use of the powers presently available?
Note 2. Communications Bill (title?). When introduced was based on a related EU document of

12 July 2000; COM(2000)392; Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on universal service and users rights relating to electronic communications networks and services

that required national governments to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive by 1 January 2001. Does anyone have the OJ reference to show that this directive went through all stages and was promulgated by the EU by 1 January 2001? Meanwhile the EU itself must take account of international agreements involving some 146 countries. The EU legislative process insists on wide ranging consultation with consumers and other affected parties. Has IOFFL been requested via ODTR to comment on any EU proposals and on the Communications Bill? If so has the committee made input?
Note 3. The USO currently in force is based on related EU legislation. So, EU is not the be all and end all of wisdom. Remember the curvature of the cucumber case. This provides a strong argument for having IOFFL as a good strong and representative consumer group to be consulted by both National and EU authorities.

6.

Ireland has no nationally-available flat-rate Internet access products available

Define flat-rate internet access products (see glossary perhaps)...
PF;
SS;

7.

Ireland has no true flat-rate Internet products

Define true flat-rate internet access products (see glossary perhaps)
PF;
SS;

8.

Ireland has little or no broadband coverage

PF;
SS;

9.

Tony O'Reilly's involvement with the Valentia consortium is unacceptable

Unacceptable to whom? What surveys or reports have been published ?
PF;
SS;

10.

Dialup costs have increased by 20% this year

What does 'this year' mean? 2002? December - December? Qtr1 - Qtr4?
PF;
SS;

11.

Universal connectivity is mandated, but quality requirements are outdated

Quality requirement in the USO is 2400bps.
PF;
SS;

12.

"Free" is not free

Explain. There are legal restrictions on the use of certain descriptive and generic names. Has DCA been consulted?
PF;
SS;

13.

High Speed is not high-speed, neither is it broadband

Explain the 2 terms. Has DCA been consulted about the use of the term 'high-speed'?
PF;
SS;

14.

Chorus has consistently delayed rollout of its PowerNet wireless product

PowerNet is a brand name. What is the generic product?
Give the history of PowerNet promised launches that have not met targets.
PF;
SS;

15.

Eircom has been supplying HDSL as leased lines for at least four years

Strikeout.

16.

Irish businesses are competitively weakened in European and International markets

PF;
SS; This means a) loss of jobs b) loss of profits c) increased social welfare payments d) loss of revenue to the exchequer.

17.

Students and citizens are unable to use the Internet to its maximum potential

PF:
SS;
Apart from considerations of equity students are the future wealth of the country. Neglect now will prove costly later. Citizens represent the market for ICT services. Citizens competent in ICT facilitate greater efficiency and effectiveness in the dissemination of information by the public sector. All citizens cannot afford the cost or opportunity to attend full time courses. Normally they could rely on learning by practice. But having to pay high fixed and unit costs out of after tax income is prohibitive for most.

18.

Eircom's pricing for its i-Stream ADSL product is not viable or cost-oriented

PF;
SS;
Substantiate what is meant by viable or cost-oriented. Note costing is not an exact science. Has any economist and particularly an economist specialising in the microeconomics of service operations & marketing been consulted? Alternatively has any published work by any such person been consulted?



E&OE

seamus

I wasn't quite clear on what you were saying here, but what I think you're talking about here is a list of facts that would be presentable at a meeting or in handbook form to people(just an example - this would be horribly expensive). Obviously, dahamsta's list is just a rundown of the basic points that have been thrashed out on the forum here over the last few months, and most of the reasons that IOFFL's goals cannot be attained.

As forum readers, all of the points make sense to us, but I suppose that an outsider, especially your average internet user, would be confused by some of the terminology used, or even might disagree with some of the points (eg a nolimits user) if not properly explained. I don't think any of the proposed working groups are set up yet, so this one would have to be placed on the backburner until they are.
Also, some of the points deal with totally different issues(law, business, technology), so maybe, as I have said before, it would be a good idea to use students from each of the different disciplines in the research, as they will have access to massive amounts of resources on the data (library, lecturers, etc). It would also relieve the committee members of the pressure of trying to research the subjects and get on with their own jobs. Nice idea murc, but it will probably have to wait until the groups are set up.

(soz about going a tad OT there )

murcielago

Seamus,
Thanks for your comment. For further clarification the proposed exercise is as follows.

1. Check out each statement to see if it complies with DeVores standard of PROVABLE facts. Every 'fact' may not be provable.

2. Prepare an inventory of PROVABLE facts. Have it on the shelf (or on disc) to draw on as required. How the facts are used is a separate detail. Show on the main website for example. Distribute by e-mail or hard copy to politicians and other decision influencers. Have available to answer specific media queries or to issue a press release on some current development/topic. Use as part of a FAQ. Other uses will present themselves over time. New facts can be added, obsolete ones removed or some facts combined.

3. When technologists develop new products they have to identify the benefits in lay-person language for sales, advertising, PR, producers of collateral material etc. Using jargon, they must translate the features into customer benefits. Customers do not buy features. They buy benefits or so the argument goes. So we have the motto of Sell the Sizzle not the Steak. The facts identified above will be wrapped up in an attractive looking package and ready for sale to the customers already identified. The wrapping might vary according to each target market segment.

4. Some of the facts on Adam's List may have to be refined or dropped to satisfy the need for PROOF and credibility.

5. It is offered as a project for the research group. But meanwhile anybody who so wishes can express an opinion here on the form where no doubt the Research Team will find and check it out.

If any further clarification is desired please ask.

Murcielago

dahamsta

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here folks. Although the items in that document on my personal website are listed as "facts", there's no doubt that they're, at least currently, unprovable as facts. They came from my days as unofficial "propaganda minister" of IO. You know they're true, I know they're true, but they're not actually definitive. Unless I'm missing the point entirely, Murcielago is proposing a sensible idea, that we actually make them provable. Am I correct Murcialeago?

adam

murcielago

Adam's List; 7 points max

This is a follow-up that I deferred from my initial suggestion in order to avoid overload.

It will be noticed that DeVore requested 5 or 6 facts.

Experts in communications insist on not having more than seven points maximum in a communication such as a speech, presentation, brochure, press release, article in a newspaper or magazine, etc.

I would be surprised if all 18 points on Adam's list survive the suggested scrutiny. But if more than seven survive they should/could be manipulated, compressed or processed so as to arrive at not more than that magic number.

Murcielago

murcielago

Am I correct? Dahamsta

Dahamsta,

Not exactly, but you have the gist of it. Your observation on the nature of the list confirms my interpretation of it. It is what I had construed it to be.

The idea is not to 'prove' something that is not provable. This would be a contradiction. However, to eat that elephant one must start with the first byte. Adam's List is as good a place as any to start. Hopefully, the 18 statements when panned will produce the required amount of gold.

BTW your post anticipated my follow-up

Thanks for your response



Murcielago