Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

McRedmond Cons Another Dopey Journalist #36

Options
  • 13-01-2004 11:40am
    #1
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭


    McRedmond was given a platform to talk sh1te again, this time by Morning Ireland. McRedmond banged on uncorrected about how Ireland has unusually low population density ...and therefore the most expensive line rental in the EU....and he wants to put it up 7.5% even though it is ALREADY some 50% OVER the EU average.

    Sweden has 5 Times Fewer People Per KM 2 than Ireland
    Finland has 3 Times Fewer People Per KM 2 than Ireland

    Both these countries charge about €16 PM for line rental, including a higher VAT rate than here. This includes lines which are situated :

    Above The ****ing Artic Circle

    So it ain't population densities or adverse weather McRedmond, it is greed.

    Where the **** is the USO line state data you were supposed to submit by the 24th of October 2003

    M


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    McRedmond banged on uncorrected about how Ireland has unusually low population density ...and therefore the most expensive line rental in the EU....and he wants to put it up 7.5% even though it is ALREADY some 50% OVER the EU average.

    Sweden has 5 Times Fewer People Per KM 2 than Ireland
    Finland has 3 Times Fewer People Per KM 2 than Ireland
    Here we go again.

    Look, if you want to accuse McRedmond of "distortions", it's best if you don't indulge in them yourself.

    Sweden and Finland have vast tracts of totally uninhabited countryside. The cost of supplying telephone service to these areas? €0. Ireland, on the otherhand, has vast numbers of one-off houses, and very few areas that are utterly uninhabited.

    Ribbon development is vastly more expensive to provide infrastructure for than clustered development. Sweden and Finland have a lot more clustered communities than we have.

    McRedmond laid lots of hostages to fortune in his statements today and yesterday. Focus on the ones that you can actually disprove.


  • Options
    #3
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Ripwave, do you have specific statistics which you're basing your argument on or are you just taking a guess?


  • Options
    #4
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    The North of Sweden is very sparsely populated, but it /is/ populated. I very much doubt that Sweden's adjusted population density is higher than Ireland. However as Moriary suggests: Muck's provided figures, you haven't.

    adam


  • Options
    #5
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Originally posted by Ripwave
    Here we go again.

    Look, if you want to accuse McRedmond of "distortions", it's best if you don't indulge in them yourself.

    Sweden and Finland have vast tracts of totally uninhabited countryside. The cost of supplying telephone service to these areas? €0. Ireland, on the otherhand, has vast numbers of one-off houses, and very few areas that are utterly uninhabited.

    This is more bollox from you , unsupported may I add! The cost of supplying silage to south Dublin is also €0 .....by approimately the same logic you used .

    1. How is it more expensive to provide a line along a boreen on a pole instead of across tundra to a tent like Sonera and Telia do in parts their respective countries. Why do the Norwegians supply ISDN as standard north of the Artic Circle ?

    Why have these countries overcome a far more inhospitable geographic environment in order to provide an advanced telecoms service at an affordable price to their citizens. ? We all owned our National Carriers 5 years ago, the key investments had been made by then.

    2. At least as many Finns live in houses as do Irish people, These houses are even further apart than ours tend to be on bigger sites. A RIBBON is a linear cluster, Finnish one off houses tend to be ONE OFF and not in a line along a boreen and therefore MORE DIFFICULT to provision with copper. The Irish ones are normally within reach of poles at the boreen........ I was never in Sweden.

    Despite the FAR LOWER population densities in these countries they have FAR LOWER line rentals. If you have any FACTS cthat can prove why this should be so then POST them.

    If you do not have the facts then please fúck off with your sacntimonious repetition of the sh1te that the D4 media comes out with when rural infrastructure is mentioned.


  • Options
    #6
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    Ripwave, do you have specific statistics which you're basing your argument on or are you just taking a guess?
    83% of the Swedish population live in Urban areas. The figure for Ireland is 59%.

    (France 76%, Germany 88%, Spain 78%, Italy 67%, Luxemburg 92%, UK 90%, Denmark 85%, Netherlands 90%, Belgium 97%).

    Source

    Finland is also 59%, but this map demonstrates the point I was making.
    From http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/populat.html:
    The overall population density is 17 per km² of land, yet the density in the province of Uusimaa, which includes the capital, is almost 205 per km². The population density in the other, more industrialized southern provinces is over 30 per km², while that in the provinces of the east and north is less than 10 per km². Lapland is the most sparsely populated province, with a population density of only 2.2 persons per km².

    Here's 3 maps showing the population density of each of the 3 countries:

    http://www.cipotato.org/DIVA/data/DataServer.asp?AREA=IRL&THEME=_pop
    http://www.cipotato.org/DIVA/data/DataServer.asp?AREA=SWE&THEME=_pop
    http://www.cipotato.org/DIVA/data/DataServer.asp?AREA=FIN&THEME=_pop


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Muck
    1. How is it more expensive to provide a line along a boreen on a pole instead of across tundra to a tent like Sonera and Telia do in parts their respective countries.
    How many lines do we have running up boreens, and how many lines do sonera and telia terminating in tents? Being such a great believer in facts, and sources, I'm sure you have this information to hand?
    If you do not have the facts then please fúck off with your sacntimonious repetition of the sh1te that the D4 media comes out with when rural infrastructure is mentioned.
    It must be terrible to be burdened with such a chip on your shoulder.

    By the way, there's no need to apologise for that slur, Muck.


  • Options
    #8
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    It looks to me from those 3 comparison charts that sweeden and finland have a greater percentage area of low density to high density population than ireland does. They also have spots where there are extremely low population densitys where each line would cost an absolute fortune to provide due to distances from each other - a problem eircom, in the main, doesnt have. Theres also the far harsher weather (and hence damage to plant, extra costs needed for maintanence etc) to take into account for both sweeden and finland that arent an issue here.


  • Options
    #9
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    Originally posted by Moriarty
    It looks to me from those 3 comparison charts that sweeden and finland have a greater percentage area of low density to high density population than ireland does. They also have spots where there are extremely low population densitys where each line would cost an absolute fortune to provide due to distances from each other - a problem eircom, in the main, doesnt have. Theres also the far harsher weather (and hence damage to plant, extra costs needed for maintanence etc) to take into account for both sweeden and finland that arent an issue here.
    Huh? Both Finland and Sweden have vast areas (easily 25%-40%) with less than one person per square kilometre. That means they don't have to provide any infrastructure at all in those areas.

    Compare the cost of providing 100 lines in an area the size of Connaught. Are you seriously suggesting that the cost would be anything like the cost of providing 100,000 lines in that same area?

    Average population density is not a sound basis fight eircom's line rental increase. If that's the only "data" that you're basing you case on, McRedmond would walk all over you in a straight fight. If you have any better data, then you'd better start publishing it.


  • Options
    #10
    MDR
    Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭MDR


    They also have spots where there are extremely low population densitys where each line would cost an absolute fortune to provide due to distances from each other - a problem eircom, in the main, doesnt have

    I don't know about this, under Irish population density no particular area would have enough population to justify the building of an exchange/the laying of fibre to serve it. Therefore I imagine Eircom do get this quite a bit, in Ireland lots of people are gonna end up quite far from the exchange, increasing the pressure on Eircom to split lines.
    Theres also the far harsher weather (and hence damage to plant, extra costs needed for maintanence etc) to take into account for both sweeden and finland that arent an issue here.

    I don't know about that either, would Finland/Sweden endure the storms the whole west coast of ireland endures every winter ?

    If you ask me, and I know you aren't, and this definetly with my committee hat off, I feel the whole one off development thing to be quite lamentable.


  • Options
    #11
    MDR
    Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭MDR


    I suppose what we are asking is two questions ?

    1. Does Irish population density really imply such exaggerated costs in the provision of services, outside of the main population centres.

    2. Should the people living in those population centres, be continued to be asked to subsidise those living outside them ?

    In response to the first question, I suppose there is a clear implication that Ireland's population density would increase the costs of service provision, the Ovum report confirms as much. However I amn't convinced that this is sufficient justification for the line rental increases we have recently seen. Unless a trustworthy external auditor went through eircom's books and reported this to be the case, I would still remained convinced that they are just using this as yet another excuse to feather their nests.

    In event that such evidence did come to light, to confirm that a dis-proportionate amount of our collective line rental is subsiding lines in areas outside of Ireland's main population centres/areas of high density. What would we do, should those living in the higher density areas be asked to continue subsidising those who don't, and if so to what degree ?

    Realistically should an apartment dweller in Cork city centre be asked to subsidise, some living on Achill Island, and if so, to what degree ? Does the person living on Achill Island to a certain extent choose to live there and thus bear the cost of living there. After all, if I choose to live in the centre of Cork, I must pay inflated property prices, trade offs in environmental health and quality of life. Should the person living on Achill not accept his/her trade off's ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    After Matt Cooper I incremented the thread title to #36 :(



    M


  • Options
    #13
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    [edit - original post on wrong thread - too much spin from Eircom - I'm getting dizzy]

    Population density is kinda academic since most people who want phone lines already have them or live near a road that has phone wires already.

    RE: ribbon development - just means you put the wires on the existing poles. Not too many Irish people live far off the beaten track. And most new homes are in estates esp. since a lot of counties are cutting back on one off's / ye olde section 4 etc.

    And since one of the reasons mentioned for the increase was to subsidise BB rollout - Eircom have stated something about all the "towns in Ireland" (not village or houses or exchanges) - even they aren't using the boreen (SP.
    bothair beag) in north mayo excuse.


  • Options
    #14
    Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Thread split, off topic stuff moved here. Feel free to continue that conversation in that thread, but not here. Thanks.


  • Options
    #15
    machalla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭machalla


    At least we finally have an answer to the problem of low population density outside Dublin. Lets just take all the phonelines out of all those one off country homes! Get your clippers and get started.. We will all have cheap affordable broadband within the next month. Well in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway at least.. No excuses for Eircom anymore (nor anyone else).

    No excuses, snip snip!


Advertisement