kiwiscoota:savag3: Did anyone else think that what Paul Reynolds did on Radio NZ Morning Report (audio) where he minimised the outage by saying only 3% of their network was affected was pretty rude. I'm sure the ten thousand customers are much happier now knowing that they are only 3% and not really that important. I have to say to Paul Brislen's credit I have never heard him using this particularly objectionable form of spin.
I agree it was at very least a rather poor choice of words given the circumstances.
One thing I am curious about, is that if 3% = 10,000 customers, that means XT has (had ??) approx 330,000 customers, given that Telecom & Vodafone are the two biggest players, I would have expected Telecom to have more customers...
Did he say 3% of the network or 3% of the customers? The two would not probably not be the same thing.
3% of the network would imply 3% of the cellsites are still down. If they were in Auckland then that might impact* more than 3% of the customers (cos of population density) but if it were cellsites in somewhere with fewer people (like Invercargill or Timaru), then it would probably impact fewer than 3% of customers.
Also remember that a large portion of Telecom customers would still be on CDMA, another reason for the 300k seeming a little low.
*I decided not to risk the wrath of friedCrumpet by attempting to choose between effect and affect