Talk:Eircom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've just deleted a section here entitled "eircom's profiteering", in which it was confidently asserted that eircom did nothing about spam as a way of getting more dialup minutes and boosting profits. This is biased and misleading, as is a lot of this article. I personally opposed the privatisation of eircom, but how can one repeatedly refer to this event as a "fiasco" in an objective article? It was not good for people who lost money in the end, but that is what speculating on the stock exchange can involve. The proceeds from the initial sale were invested in the national pension fund for the beefit of all irish workers. Before the privatisation the company was a semi-state, with a large stake in the company held by Telia and KPN. Prevarication by the owners of this stake, and the crash in the telecoms sector led to the negative outcome in terms of share price when the company was bought be a private entity in 2002. The company was floated again in 2004, yielding a large return to its private investors.

It is very improper to delete a whole paragraph and then classify the remainder as disputed - what parts in the reminder of the article are disputed or are you disputing your own changes? the remainder is quite factual and to the point - moreover if you believe that the article is "biased and misleading", then please feel free to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages - again it must be said that the remainder, very little of which has been edited, is neither advocacy nor propaganda referring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is well known, in Ireland, that Eircom has not embraced the same spirit that Telecom Eireann had which transformed Irish telecommunications in the late 1980s and early 1990s - open any Irish newspaper which does not have significant advertising revenue from Eircom and see the lack of investment, initiative and forward looking. Djegan 14:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted the "eircom's profiteering" which was removed - whilst I did not write it I do not believe it is misleading and should be edited for correction rather than deletion - a large section of the material is quite correct, certainly the first paragraph. Ireland is at least 5 years behind Europe in terms of broadband availabilty and Eircom as that national telecommunications company must bear some responsibility. Former state compananies, both Ireland and abroad, often find it difficult to accept market conditions. Djegan

Contents 1 Response to bias allegations 2 More problems with Eircom 3 Is this article still POV? 4 Outrightly improper additions 5 This article is still really POV 6 Lower case "e" 7 possible way forward on the pov problem

[edit] Response to bias allegations

As the original author of the admittedly rather nasty piece, I've attempted to edit it for tone. Djegen is right however, the actual content is true. I have edited to point out the bits that are simply "assumptions" - but they are rather valid assumptions/allegations, based on "Eircom wants to make money". As a dominant company, with a virtual monopoly, they do not play fair to acheive the profit. This is not made up. I hope the piece is a bit more careful, and if you have problems with it, then do please edit - but it should not be removed en-masse. Zoney 20:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki, so apologies for wholesale paragraph removal. What I can't understand is innacurate statements such as "The majority of Eircom's revenue now comes from dial-up internet charges." being included in something that claims to be factual and neutral. Can you substantiate this claim? Where did you get it from?

No - I don't have specific sources, it's something I've seen in the media though - and I find it quite believable - the 5 minute minimum call duration makes them a packet now. Don't forget, if you sign up with IOL, UTV, anyone, mostly it is Eircom who get the dial-up phone rates. (Even yet, few people go for the option of Eircom line rental and Esat/whoever call charges - although I believe one does only get one bill now with that arrangement). By and large, Eircom still have a monopoly on the actual phone service connecting people to the Internet (even if they are not the only ISP). It perhaps isn't clear that I'm not referring to them making the majority of their money from the ISP role - it's from the telco role - i.e. call charges for dial-up. But yes - a source is needed - I'll get around to looking for one at some stage. zoney ███ talk 13:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, it goes without saying that Eircom is uncompetitive, is Wikipedia about citing every source - could one ever critise a large corporation or government this way? To illustrate, remember "Eircom hi-speed", this is/was a rather disingenuous attempt by Eircom to introduce a "high speed" ISDN product. This product was heavily marketed to the public at a time when most Western Countries were at an advanced stage of introducing ASDL, a fairly superior product, and in many of these countries ISDN has long been considered an obsolete technology. Similarly dial-up ISP services are more expensive than similar services offered in other countries, and are often limited in terms of online hours - their is a limited number of providers of flat rate tariffs. Eircom as a significant market force and must bear some responsibility, like ma bell had to. Djegan 17:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes. (rubs hands with glee). I forgot to mention the nonsense over the whole ISDN/ADSL affair. Actually, there is a place for ISDN (it's quite a step up from ordinary phone lines). After the years spent promoting ISDN - if someone who bought it now switches to broadband - guess what - Eircom rip out the ISDN and put in a bog standard phone line! Now, for those non-techies out there - ISDN is a different way to use your phone line. It's digital - even for voice. There is a special error-correction channel also. So, in more sensible countries, like Germany, DSL is often provided across ISDN lines (offering much better Quality of Service, higher speeds, etc.). Note I say DSL - DSL is the generic term - the "A" in our ADSL stands for "Analogue". It's painful that they don't at least offer both services. Ennis, the "Information Age Town" (remember?) was all kitted out, the WHOLE TOWN, with ISDN. Guess what happens if you sign up for ADSL there? Yep, they rip out the ISDN and put in the inferior standard analogue line. ARGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!! zoney ███ talk 18:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it stands for Asymetric. And always has. "DSL" over ISDN isn't DSL, as such. DSL can only be implemented over PSTN (analogue phones). "DSL" over ISDN is closer to E1 standards.

The point is that it's preferable, it's a retrograde step to remove ISDN and replace with PSTN. Thanks for pointing out the error about the acronym though! zoney ███ talk 13:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More problems with Eircom

I actually want to add more complaints about Eircom. Here's one. Line quality. An astounding rumour I have heard (I'd like it substantiated, as it seems likely) is that when ComReg was set up and QoS levels set for Eircom - they removed all dial-up obligations!!! Apparently Eircom previously had to ensure that the line quality was at least good enough for a measly (9600baud?) connection. Now, all they have to provide is sufficient quality for voice.

AFAIK they didn't remove the obligation for internet traffic, they just reduced it. They reduced it to 0. It's still technically there, but it's pointless. ;) ____ Ebelular 00:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following is not rumour. Lots of lines around the country are degrading, to such a level that dial-up is only acheivable at speeds way below 56k. In fact, some subscribers have difficulty connecting at all!!! We have this situation at home. Another person I know has the same problem in a rural area in Co. Cork. Again, the worse the line quality is, the more money Eircom make. Every failed connection attempt is another phone call - oh - and didn't they raise the minimum call duration to 5 mins? So 3 times attempting to connect on dialup = 15 minutes call time. Lovely.

So yes - I will be adding this issue - once I can coherently address it. Feel free to comment - or add your own experiences with a company that makes BT look like angels. (Not that Eircom haven't been taking lessons - the broadband trigger facade is a carbon-copy - except BT didn't have the audacity to set them at IMPOSSIBLE levels - just improbable levels).

Zoney 20:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article still POV?

I don't see any need for the NPOV header here anymore - the article has been toned down a lot since it was slapped on, or so it seems. Kiand 01:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - the original proposer has given very little input since proposal Djegan 20:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Outrightly improper additions

I will be first to say that it's hard to write about Eircom in a neutral (read "nice") fashion. I mean, essentially

by bloodsucking their customers by having them in a stranglehold. Also, they're a shower of thieving greedy bastards.

is entirely accurate. However, common sense should dictate we refrain from such obviously improper additions.

There's still the problem that the more (entirely true and factual) details we include, and the more the article is expanded, the worse Eircom looks. I mean, there is NO possible way the broadband trickery can be presented in a good or neutral light. They are outright LYING to the whole Irish public, the government, and their shareholders. I certainly hope the next EU survey shows us bottom of the 25 for broadband (of course, we are already in the bottom ten in the latest such survey, even including the new members!!!)

Any suggestions?

zoney ♣ talk 21:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is still really POV

I mean, they may well be profiteering bastards, but half of this article is a rant on their prices, quality, customer service, etc... really not neutral. --Ce garcon 05:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to write about them in a neutral way, as just about EVERY fact is stacked against them. There's no POV about it. They are a bunch of profiteering blood-sucking pigs. I did remove the language that was written in that fashion - but the facts show it regardless.

Along with the ineptitude of the Irish Government and Comreg they are responsible for Ireland having the third lowest broadband takeup in the EU25. Although that was in an EU survey about a month or two ago, so we are probably last now.

They continue not to repair the one in four faulty lines connected to broadband-enabled exchanges (urban areas only) and the quality of the non-broadband enabled areas' (mostly rural) lines is most certainly worse. Unfortunately it is now the case that Eircom only have to provide basic voice service - so even if dialup doesn't work - too bad.

There are all manner of relevant facts that don't reflect well on Eircom. For example - their monopoly on the ISP access no.s (even if with another telco for phone line, and a non-Eircom ISP, one's ISP access rates are dictated by Eircom).

Their latest tomfoolery is to charge other telcos €1.50 p.m. for 999 calls. There's agreement that it's fair enough charging other telcos for the service, but €1.50 per minute is absurdly high.

I could go on ad-nauseum, and have actually restrained myself from flooding the article with more facts about Eircom (as I realise there is a presentation problem in the article). But do not be under any illusions that we can hide the truth under the guise of NPOV. To do so is not neutral.

zoney ♣ talk 11:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is fine but that is not the same as having to give reasons or excuses for someone or somethings shortcomings or failures, or to paint something with a totally false persona. Wikipedia does not have to be an apologist for the smallest or greatest crimes in history - tell it as it is, if you think its misleading expand and explain as to why. Too often raising pov issues is just a hidden agenda to promote somthing.

Djegan 13:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lower case "e"

eircom's corporate branding would have it that the company name is always spelled with a lower case "e". Should we honour this in the article title and throughout? --Ryano 17:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point - might be worth mentioning in the article - their is a policy on this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)? Djegan 18:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 'e' be more correctly 'é'? - (Aidan Work 05:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

No, it's just a regular e. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a tradename, so, no. --Kiand 12:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Could this be a case of "fadarrhea", the tendency to overuse the "fada" (accute accent). Djegan 14:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Djegan, I reckon that spelling Eirecom's name with a lower case 'e' is wrong. I reckon it should start with 'é', given the fact that the Irish name for Ireland starts with 'é'. What do you think? - (Aidan Work 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

It is very clear that Telecom Éireann decided that the new company be called simply eircom (plc), without a starting 'é', moreover eircom is not an Irish word but rather some form of anglicisation. For instance, Aer Lingus whilst it does indeed have the appearence of being an Irish name it is in fact not. Djegan 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Djegan, it is a very funny way of trying to anglicise an Irish-Gaelic word. Thanks for clarifying the reasons why the fada is not used. - (Aidan Work 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] possible way forward on the pov problem

This article is very pov - criticism is implicit, if not explicit, in almost every sentence. Contributors should have a look at the Microsoft article. I think this does a good job giving a npov account of a much-vilified corporation. Criticisms are reported (not levelled) only in the section devoted to them, and only criticisms which have been well - documented are accounted - not whatever annoys any given contributor. There is material here for a decent eircom article, so we should try to match that with good, unbiased writing

I agree that this article must be npov'ed as it has perhaps become somewhat of a soundboard against the company. Djegan 18:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

eircom recently (feb 2006) automatically "upgraded" all their broadband 30 euro a month customers to faster speeds at the same price. soon after less than three months they increased the price of this new faster speed connection to 40 euro a month. A sneaky and questionable sales tactic designed to exploit the massive intertia of eircom customers? Customers can downgrade back to 30 euro a month and are presented with information on their bill but most will not. Cannot think of an unbaised way to add this criticism to the article.

I would suggest not adding it because I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. What they did was change the name off all the packages. If you were on eircom home starter which was 39.99 you were upgraded to homeplus. They at the same time, decreased all the prices of the packages. People ended up on a slightly better package for the same money. I know people who were annoyed because it was really giving someone something they didn't order, but there was no difference in price.

--Liam123 23:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)