Some thoughts on 90%

Zith

Was thinking about the recent statements of 90% availability and all that. Is that last 10% those towns/villages with <1500 population? It occurs to me that any such analysis is a bit flawed when you consider how many years old the census data is.

Surely come March 2006 that fateful day, Eircom will trumpet about 90% blah blah when in reality our population has moved on, expanded, changed distribution. So when the new census data appears we will see that 90% has become some lower percentage and the incumbent will be back looking for more tax payer money - as if they are not aware that their sample data is years out of date. Just a sad thought....:(

Sponge Bob

Zith wrote:

Was thinking about the recent statements of 90% availability and all that. Is that last 10% those towns/villages with <1500 population? It occurs to me that any such analysis is a bit flawed when you consider how many years old the census data is.

about 40% of the population live in or nears town with a population under 1500 so the program you referred to allowed 60% of people to get BB. 90% is pure horse****.

The census data from 2002 is clear on this. It has been done to death in here.
If only 60% of the population LIVE in or NEAR towns with a population of 1500 and IF the only exchanges with DSL are exchanges in towns over 1500 population then only 60% of the population can get DSL (less line failures of course which run at 20%)

Some further exchanges have been done since but not many, a good scad are expected onstream in this quarter. population coverage may be as high as 70% (less line failures of about 20% becase of quality or distance) from March 2006 or thereabouts .

Surely come March 2006 that fateful day, Eircom will trumpet about 90% blah blah when in reality our population has moved on, expanded, changed distribution.

eircom trumpet because so called tech journalists can not count or analyse.

So when the new census data appears we will see that 90% has become some lower percentage and the incumbent will be back looking for more tax payer money - as if they are not aware that their sample data is years out of date. Just a sad thought....:(

There never was a 90% DSL coverage or an 80% , we only recently wheezed past 60% . The sad sad sad bit is that you believed the lies

Zith

Sponge Bob wrote:

There never was a 90% DSL coverage or an 80% , we only recently wheezed past 60% . The sad sad sad bit is that you believed the lies

Well in fairness I never said there was or will be. That is the figure quoted by eircom and co as the (ever changing) goal . My point was really that I have never seen the reliance on those census figures questioned outside of some old posts in here. Surely it is another crack in the broadband 'availability' facade that should be highlighted more?

Thanks for the explanation above, helps clarify things in my mind anyway.

1huge1

i wouldnt even say 60%
and they dont do there research very well
they probably go by the census 100% and that can be very misleading
sure it says theres more people in galway city than limerick city when we all know that theres a good 30,000 at least more in limerick its just the city boundry is a lot smaller
anyway what im trying to sal lol is that they really need to stop being all talk and start getting the job done