The Shape of things to come

Scottish

Or another depressing article showing how this place will be left behind?

Interesting to hear that "naked" DSL is going to be available in the UK as of next month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1294850,00.html

eircomtribunal

Scottish wrote:

Or another depressing article showing how this place will be left behind?

Interesting to hear that "naked" DSL is going to be available in the UK as of next month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1294850,00.html

Not only can you get "naked" dsl – meaning no telephony line rental, but:
"Furthermore, in a rather controversial move, you will also be able to transfer your existing landline telephone number to your VoIP provider."

Comreg, go on. Visit your colleagues in the UK and in Denmark! Stop for a moment blindly crawling around in the dense legalistic undergrowth, get out and get a view of the bigger picture. It is no shame to copy other and more successful regulators.

With a broadband availability of under 70% Eircom is "relatively" safe from these developments.
A Comreg USO definition like the Danish one – all telephone lines have to be at least capable to carry ISDN – would change the picture.

P.

LFCFan

I don't think Eircon will be quaking in their boots waiting for Comwreck to 'force' them to sell naked DSL and force number portability to VoIP. We're still waiting for the very simple addition of a minimum speed for internet connections in the USO FFS.

query

Q. 15. ComReg invites comments on the Number Portability (NP) issues.
a) Do you agree that NP should be required between PSTN and VoIP
operators for geographic numbers? Please comment on your answer.
b) Do you agree that NP should not be required between PSTN and VoIP
operators for personal numbers (if these are permitted to be used for VoIP
purposes), in view of the existing complexity of personal numbers even
without taking inter-technology issues into account?
c) If existing number ranges (e.g. geographic or personal numbers) are
allowed for use with VoIP services, do you agree that NP should be
required between different (but compatible) VoIP operators?
d) If (a) new number range(s) are designated specifically for VoIP and/or
other new technologies, do you consider that NP should be required for
these between different (but compatible) operators of such services, either
from the outset or at a later more mature stage of the market?
Please explain your views on these NP issues as succinctly as possible.

De Rebel

Scottish wrote:

Or another depressing article showing how this place will be left behind?

Interesting to hear that "naked" DSL is going to be available in the UK as of next month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1294850,00.html

That’s a wide ranging and very interesting article. Puts a lot of what’s going on in this country in perspective. Makes us look quite pathetic and really far behind. And Britain isn't exactly regarded as a world leader in the communications sector.

Scary.

Scottish

The difference, I think, is that the UK regulator is more than happy to throw BT to the market wolves. It's big enough to look after itself.

I think here, the regulator/politicians still look at eircom as something that needs protecting. They are scared of what might happen if it was allowed to fend for itself.

We'll never see real competition. Which would be fine, if eircom was still publicly owned and could be used to further the national interest. But it's not. It's sucking money out of the country, and leaving us in the sh!t.

They are also, I think, scared of large scale job losses at eircom. It's a big employer.

Ireland has got the worst of both worlds, and only now are we going to see how far behind we really are going to fall.