Talk:Eir (telecommunications)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"eircom's profiteering"

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

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)

Actually, DSL refers to a family of technologies for transmitting data over copper wires. "Digital Subscriber Line" technology. It comes in a few forms, ADSL being the most common for internet access in all markets, including Ireland. The "A" = Asymetric i.e. one side is bigger than the other. This means, the download speed is much faster than the upload. SDSL, where the "S" = Symetric does exist, but it's not really much use to a home user.

ADSL is possible over either a POTS (normal telephone line) or ISDN line. However, it requires different equipment for each line type. Annex 1 modems - POTS Annex 2 modems - ISDN

eircom, and many other companies, opted to only provide Annex 1 DSL service as the number of ISDN lines in use in Ireland for voice service is quite small. Where ISDN was installed, it was used for providing internet access. So it was logical from an economic perspective to roll out only the Annex 1 version of DSL and require ISDN users to downgrade to a POTS line. The situation in Germany and some other EU countries was different, many voice lines were provided over ISDN, so there was more of a market for DSL over ISDN lines.

When DSL is used on a line, ISDN or POTS, it simply piggy backs a signal over on the line using frequencies that are not used by the existing analogue telephone service or ISDN service. It has nothing to do with E1 service, or any other ISDN data services. eircom, like BT and other companies, made a decision to only have 1 type of DSL equipment in exchanges, i.e. for POTS service.

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)

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)

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)

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))

Djegan, That was a very good point, however I believe that if the company wanted to use some aspect of Irish in their logo, they should have respected all what came with it. If you look at international companies not that far away from us, you see that even though they do not use the fada/accute accent on their corporate logo, they do when used in textual form. These examples include France Télécom and Telefónica.
I also read a rather insulting online commentary from a website which slated the eircom name-change because, they went for the EIRcom logo as (aparantly) the AIRcom name was already taken both in trademark and .com website domain[1]. Now i know this is ignorance on their part but i do believe having the é even in the textual form of the company name would distinguish to international and local observers that there must be a linguistic reason for the eircom rather than simply a cheaper alternative than forking out for the AIRcom rights. --Ró2000 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style) specifically gives an example on when to use lowercase names for companies (search for "eBay"). I have made this change in the article, hopefully I got them all! 2A04:4540:6F03:601:78DF:8E9F:535A:E863 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I cannot move the page to rename it to "eir". Could someone else take care of this? 2A04:4540:6F03:601:78DF:8E9F:535A:E863 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eircomlogo.png

Image:Eircomlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The NEW eircom Logo - Can anyone get permission to add it?

I have noticed that eircom have recently changed the colours of their logo, removing the blue from "eircom" and changing it instead to a greyish-brown. This is officially the new company colours as shown on numberous communications from the company. I have tried to upload this however it gets rejected as i have no permissions to do so. --RóNáN 01:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Disposal of Meteor and eircom Retail By Babcock & Brown

I have read recently in the Irish Independent that the australian private investemt house "Babcock & Brown" are to split eircom into the core Wholesale Network Devision and retain this while selling the fixed-line Retail and Mobile (Meteor) business. Will this not only add to the deminishing telecoms infrastructure of our country? The Government gave away the national telecoms network, only for it to be put in the hands of a foreign investment house, intent of squeezing every bit of value out of the business for their own gain. The Governement should re-aquire the wholesale fixed-line Network and but it back in national ownership so we can concentrate on developing NGN Networks for the well-being of the national interest. --RóNáN 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

I object to my reasonable corrections of error and clarification getting dismissed out of hand Wattyirl, 18:13 UTC 4th Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.125.171 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All of your additions were either unsourced (see WP:RS etc.), or written from a non-neutral point of view (WP:POV). Please don't continue to re-add them until the appropriate sources have been found, and until you are able to phrase them without resorting to your own point of view. Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatisation

Which EU law required the Irish government to privatise Telecom Eireann which led to Eircom?--193.1.96.36 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

the vast majority of this stuff is just abuse. eircom is a private company and tries to maximize profits. So does ntl, upc, ibm and your local greengrocer. They are a monopoly. Well to some extent the copper access network in most countries is a natural monopoly, and someone has to own it. What do you want, 4 or 5 companies erecting poles across the land? Criticism of dsl rollout is fair enough, but please compare it to other countries with a similarly geographically dispersed population, and add government subsidies into the mix. Same goes for customer service. And, finally, the govt. did not give eircom away. The democratically elected govt. of Ireland SOLD it, for hundreds of millions. If you think they should re-acquire it, engage in the political process. Compare ISDN service, carrier distribution, and DSL prices with peer countries before allowing your head to boil. And do you suppose I work for eircom? Yes I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.57.36 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Meteor.svg

The image Image:Meteor.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New reports

http://digg.com/tech_news/Music_Industry_Orders_BitTorrent_Blackout Apparently new reports are that they are censoring the internet, so perhaps a mention of this controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.40.220 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This move isn't censorship by Eircom. Censorship in the usual current meaning of the word is a vile and despicable thing done to prevent free information. Preventing copyright material from being stolen is hardly something on that kind of level. Please refrain from using hyperbole and inaccurate words in Wikipedia to further your views. Anonywiki (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eircom League

This section is very brief and very strange! Is "performances in Europe improving dramatically with clubs knocking out teams like Aberdeen, Gretna, Gothenburg and Elfsborg and the financial collapse of the clubs who achieved those results" intended to be ironic? And the logo is huge! It gives the impression that the remainder of the article is all about football. I recommend either expanding the section so it makes some sense or removing it altogether and stating the bald fact that eircom sponsored the LOI elsewhere in the article, say under "Services". Likewise the logo should be either drastically shrunk or deleted. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to eircom shares in 2001?

Reading the section "Disposal of Eircell, going private and reflotation", it looks like eircom shareholders lost out when the company went private. They got their vodafone shares from the sale of eircell but did they get anything from whatever shares they still had when Valentia bought eircom?

Tenwit (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eircom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025151716/http://archives.tcm.ie:80/businesspost/2004/01/18/story441589443.asp to http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/18/story441589443.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)