Smart phone service gone

nilhg

I have just tried to make a outgoing call and got a fast busy tone followed by a recorded message telling me that my Smart telecom phone service is no longer available and that Comreg could give me a list of alternative vioce providers.
Incoming calls still work.
Looks like somebody has pulled the plug on Smart.

bennyx_o

Just tried to make a call from the land line and got the recorded message too. All very sudden, anyone know why? Or what happened?

cregser

This happened:
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1002/smart.html

spurious

It seems to be only some users. I can ring both Smart and non-Smart numbers, but have problems with incoming calls. Summerhill exchange in Dublin.

This was reported on another thread:
Eircom withdraws Smart's wholesale service

October 02, 2006 20:18

The majority of Smart Telecom's customers are no longer able to make outgoing calls from their phones tonight because of a dispute with the company and its wholesale provider Eircom.

Smart customers are being advised to contact ComReg. They can still receive incoming calls and are able to make emergency 999 calls.

An Eircom spokesman said that the company has had credit issues with Smart Telecom for some time.

A small number of Smart customers - those who still pay their line rental to Eircom - can still make outside calls by using the pre-fix 13666 before the telephone number they want.

A ComReg spokesman said they would be issuing Smart customers with more details of where they go from here in the coming days on their website and also in the national media.

Smart Telecom has been in financial trouble lately. Last month, it said it had concluded a strategic review which would see about 250 jobs being cut as the company's staff numbers are reduced from 348 to about 100.

It also said it planned to sell off a number of non-core businesses - including payphones and pre-paid call cards - in the coming months.

Nothing official from Smart yet.

bennyx_o

Yea, just after reading it. Don't make too many calls from it anyway.

Urban Weigl

In other news, Greece overtakes Ireland and now has more unbundled lines than us.

Eircom have been tightening the screws on Smart for a while now to ensure they go out of business, and have been telling them lies.

spurious

Looks like entirely Smart customers (broadband and free line rental - at least those that I know) can still make outgoing calls.

Can anyone who cannot make outgoing calls confirm whether you have your line rental still with Eircom?

SkepticOne

I was almost going to advise the company I work for to go with them a couple of weeks back. Very glad now I didn't.

Foxwood

Urban Weigl wrote:

In other news, Greece overtakes Ireland and now has more unbundled lines than us.

Eircom have been tightening the screws on Smart for a while now to ensure they go out of business, and have been telling them lies.

The unbundled lines are still unbundled - eircom is claiming that Smart hasn't paid the phone bill.

(I vaguely recall reading something about a dispute between eircom and Smart about this before. Can anyone the details?)

1huge1

Urban Weigl wrote:

In other news, Greece overtakes Ireland and now has more unbundled lines than us.

Eircom have been tightening the screws on Smart for a while now to ensure they go out of business, and have been telling them lies.

yes but they have like 10million people
and i think its like 2% of them over there have broadband and were like 8%

spurious

What ever happened this case, or has it been heard yet?

From: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1457604&issue_id=12922
Smart taking Eircom to High Court for €47m

SMART Telecom has taken a €47m High Court action against Eircom alleging that its bigger rival is abusing a dominant position in the market by refusing to allow Smart access to its network. Smart also alleges that a decision by Eircom earlier this year to cut Smart off from Eircom's network was unlawful.

Details of the court action are outlined in Eircom's prospectus on its proposed €420m acquisition of Meteor, and in a separate prospectus on the €420m rights issue which will fund the purchase. Both documents, copies of which have been seen by the Irish Independent, contain details of Smart's legal challenge.

Under the heading 'contingent liabilities', they state: "On 8 June 2005, Smart Telecom instituted proceedings against Eircom in the Irish High Court, challenging the validity of a notice of termination issued by Eircom to Smart Telecom terminating the interconnection agreement between the parties, and alleging that the notice of termination is an abuse by Eircom of its dominant position in the telecommunications market. Smart Telecom further alleges that Eircom is abusing its dominant position by refusing to provide network access in the form of LLU (local loop unbundling) to Smart Telecom in the manner required by Smart Telecom."

The documents go on to outline the level of damages being sought by Smart, which amount to €47.1m.

They state: "Smart Telecom submitted general particulars of their damages claim under the headings wasted expenditure (€1.6m), delayed sales/lost customers (€3.8m per annum), and capitalisation of losses (€41.7m per annum)."

According to Eircom, even if the company were found to be culpable, the level of damages outlined by Smart is out of line.

It states: "Even if Smart Telecom could establish liability on Eircom's part under each of these headings, our directors do not believe that these figures represent damages that would be properly recoverable from Eircom."

Shares in Smart Telecom, which are listed on the AIM in London, were trading as high as stg37p last month but fell below stg20p this month after Eircom won a High Court case against ComReg, the communications regulator.

Eircom's win effectively stymies the regulator's efforts to force the company to open the 'last mile' of its network to competitors.

Jack Gorman, the telecoms analyst at Davy Stockbrokers, said the loss was bad news for Smart.

He said: "Basically, this means it will be the back end of this year at least before Smart is able to transfer its broadband customers easily.

"This is a major issue for Smart which must get customers, not just signed up, but connected."

Tom McEnaney

byte

I'm using an unbundled line (Smart's €35 Line Rent + BB offer) and I can still currently make outgoing calls. Would this be something to do with the fact that unbundled Smart lines use some sort of VOIP for calls from the line?

watty

And the evil side of LLU?
Every one of those SMART unbundled lines is STILL rented from Eircom! I'd imagine the BB will be cut too pretty soon if Smart can't pay the rent.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Sponge Bob

seems eircom have unilaterally suspended wlr and cps customers but not llu customers. the Winback from hell , eh !!:(

they are trying to stop smart from making a deal on the cps customers with BT ( I hear that BT made an offer for the lot ) by winning them back by suspending their services, 47000 persons affected. by the time they resume service (they will) they will have won back at least 30000

watty

Smart probabily do use VOIP as you can't LLU a line and have it still as an ordinary phone line!!

byte

To update, I've just noticed I can't receive incoming calls. I just get an engaged tone!

oscarBravo

Sponge Bob wrote:

they are trying to stop smart from making a deal on the cps customers with BT ( I hear that BT made an offer for the lot ) by winning them back by suspending their services, 47000 persons affected. by the time they resume service (they will) they will have won back at least 30000

To hell with that. I'm cancelling my phone line. No way in hell I'm going to play along with a stunt like this.

TimTim

watty wrote:

Smart probabily do use VOIP as you can't LLU a line and have it still as an ordinary phone line!!

I noticed I could make calls using Smart076 this evening without an issue.

Solair

As I see this one, eircom have now just catapolted a fairly nerdy issue at the edge of the political agenda right into being a serious general election hot patato.

They could now end up with calls for their business to be split in 2 or some rather more radical proposals from any number of parties!

You can't cut off 47,000 potential voters and not have FF, FG etc notice.

ednwireland

sorry is just me or have smart just not paid their bills ? dont they deserve to be cut off (not the customers obviously) but surely if eircom provide a service smart wont or cant pay for for whatever reason, then this will happen. i vaguely remember some massive deposit not been paid by smart but then thats between comreg smart and eircom, smart have obviously decided eircom will be blamed and their tactics wont be questioned. theres always two sides to a story like this

Blaster99

I'm sure Smart has made mistakes of their own, but the bigger picture is that ComReg has failed to regulate the LLU market properly and this has cost Smart a lot of money which has led to this situation.

crawler

Solair wrote:

As I see this one, eircom have now just catapolted a fairly nerdy issue at the edge of the political agenda right into being a serious general election hot patato.

They could now end up with calls for their business to be split in 2 or some rather more radical proposals from any number of parties!

You can't cut off 47,000 potential voters and not have FF, FG etc notice.

Good point - also now that the shares have been suspended on the stock market, every financial journo is also going to cover the story bringing it even more main stream.

kaizersoze

in addition to the 45,000 land line customers who lost their service, Eircom has also begun the task of disconnecting Smart Telecom's 17,000 broadband customers.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1003/smart.html

Sponge Bob

crawler wrote:

New Metro sites now live - Carlow, Drogheda, Farmers Cross

and why are the farmers cross with ye exactly , does metro have an effect on cows ??

crawler

Sponge Bob wrote:

and why are the farmers cross with ye exactly , does metro have an effect on cows ??

You really need to get out more!

probe

The consequences of eircom’s actions against Smart Telecom include:

1) There are thousands of business customers without a phone service this morning across the country – Irish owned and multi-nationals. A great picture to portray of Ireland AG/SA/Inc, and the way the country is run! Aside from the not immaterial risk they are suffering to their own business operations by eircom’s actions, unlike domestic subscribers, the average business can’t be expected to have to resort to the mobile phone networks until the mess is sorted out. The precipitate action by eircom has caused a big mess which could take weeks to sort out in terms of business customers sourcing alternative services.

Despite the “we’ll cut off incoming calls in a week’s time” threat, I’ve tried to call a number of multi-nationals in Ireland who depend on Smart and can’t get through today over the international networks. Eircom would make money from every incoming call delivered to the Smart network (and probably wouldn’t have to pay termination fees to Smart for same on the grounds of offset, thereby reducing Smart’s indebtedness to eircom). If eircom is behind this dirty trick, it is surely anti-competitive behaviour, at its most blatant?

2) It doesn’t cost eircom anything to handle most of Smart’s traffic (incoming and outgoing) – the phone network is entirely a fixed cost base (aside from any international outgoing calls that Smart may route over eircom [an unlikely scenario given eircom’s uncompetitive pricing]. There is no cost in handling the matter in a responsible manner. In any industry where there was competition, a supplier would not cut off its ultimate customers from their product or service precipitately, simply because they chose to “dump” the wholesaler. They would make timely arrangements to ensure continuity of service. This type of action only happens in monopoly situations where the supplier has “significant market power” and knows that ultimately the unfortunate victims are going to have to deal with them if they want the business lifeline that is a telecommunications service.

There is no reason why an orderly mechanism should not have been devised and incorporated in the regulatory system (ie eircom’s license), to deal with these eventualities. This gross failure and regulatory negligence will enhance eircom’s monopoly in future – because customers will be even more scared to try an alternative, in case eircom takes the same action again. This is yet another gross failure of the regulatory process. Unless action is taken to put a regulatory mechanism in place for these foreseeable events, the problem is almost certainly going to happen again

3) There are 275,200 DSL subscribers as of 30.6.2006 according to ComReg’s latest report. Of these, approx. 260,000 are either retailed directly by eircom or wholesaled by eircom to other brand names to give the illusion of competition and choice. Eircom has in rough terms 94% of the DSL market one way or another. This is yet another gross failure of the regulatory process.

When is the government going to take effective action to get an efficient telecommunications regulatory process in place to prevent eircom and its new owners from abusing its position and turning Ireland into an even worse banana republic that it already is on the infrastructural front?

When is the government going to take effective action to make loop unbundling work in a manner that forces eircom to fight for every customer, as happens in normal efficient marketplaces?

.probe

probe

spurious wrote:

What ever happened this case, or has it been heard yet?

From: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1457604&issue_id=12922
Smart taking Eircom to High Court for €47m

If you want access to a speedy court system, incorporate in Germany! With Ireland’s antiquated “common law” system, justice normally goes to those with the deepest pockets, particularly in the commercial arena – and in addition to being expensive, cases can grind on for ages – the longer the case takes the higher the fees payable (or “costs” as the industry euphemistically likes to call them!).

If eircom succeeds using market abusive behaviour in loop unbundling and cutting off Smart’s wholesale and interconnect access to the eircom network, it will probably succeed in killing off the Smart litigation against eircom and ComReg – because they are increasing the chance of the appointment of a liquidator (and with any luck there will be insufficient assets available to him or her to continue this litigation process). As a result eircom will probably end up with Smart’s UMTS (3G) license – an outcome that should be resisted by all right thinking people! Justice delayed is justice denied. If EirComReg manage to wangle the Smart UMTS license for Meteor – Ireland will remain at the top of the global rankings for mobile phone billing excesses.

.probe

watty

Surely since even the LLUed lines are rented from Eircom? that the percentage is even higher. Maybe BT has the very odd ex-Esat exchange/lines that arn't eircom's property?

Sponge Bob

probe wrote:

I’ve tried to call a number of multi-nationals in Ireland who depend on Smart and can’t get through today over the international networks. Eircom would make money from every incoming call delivered to the Smart network (and probably wouldn’t have to pay termination fees to Smart for same on the grounds of offset, thereby reducing Smart’s indebtedness to eircom). If eircom is behind this dirty trick, it is surely anti-competitive behaviour, at its most blatant?

quite correct probe and if there was a circuit rental issue the cost of that WITHHELD termination charges ...(offset against previous bills) would cover the cost of the rental.

Eircom simply could not lose sending calls INTO Smart .

This type of action only happens in monopoly situations where the supplier has “significant market power” and knows that ultimately the unfortunate victims are going to have to deal with them if they want the business lifeline that is a telecommunications service.

Not that eircom give a damn and Comreg cannot make them either.

When is the government going to take effective action to get an efficient telecommunications regulatory process in place to prevent eircom and its new owners from abusing its position and turning Ireland into an even worse banana republic that it already is on the infrastructural front?

Not on Noel Dempseys watch.

When is the government going to take effective action to make loop unbundling work in a manner that forces eircom to fight for every customer, as happens in normal efficient marketplaces?

Not on Noel Dempseys watch. No Communications Bill from Noel despite being promised long ago.

Noel will probably head off to eircom this aftenoon for tea and buns and an 'any chance ye might do something lads ' sort of meeting .

probe

watty wrote:

Surely since even the LLUed lines are rented from Eircom? that the percentage is even higher. Maybe BT has the very odd ex-Esat exchange/lines that arn't eircom's property?

Yes, but! You have to pay eircom something to maintain the unbundled lines. Once the line is (fully) unbundled they have substantially lost that market share element. One is not looking for eircom to be put out of business* - one simply wants to see a structure emerge that will enable a normal market to evolve where nobody has more than say a 30% share.

.probe

*Unless they continue in this modus operandi, when their license should be cancelled and an administrative receiver appointed to run the company while it is in the process of being split up and sold off under legislation based on the common good.

probe

Sponge Bob wrote:

Noel will probably head off to eircom this aftenoon for tea and buns and an 'any chance ye might do something lads ' sort of meeting .

Who knows, rather than the minister calling for some free tea and buns, someone might have the CAB knocking on their door some day? There is nothing to stop the Competition Authority from bringing criminal proceedings against a company that engages in monopolisation tactics that are in breach of the relevant competition legislation.

If a court held in favour of the Competition Authority, one would have thought that it would open the door for this bureau to take appropriate action.

.probe

probe

Sponge Bob wrote:

quite correct probe and if there was a circuit rental issue the cost of that WITHHELD termination charges ...(offset against previous bills) would cover the cost of the rental.

Yes, but even demanding “rental” in these circumstances again tends to imply a monopoly position!

If Sponge.net and Probe.net were two independent ISPs and we decided to peer our systems together to give better QoS to our respective customers, chances are we’d go back to back on costs (I wouldn’t charge you for connecting your “line” to my system on the understanding that you would reciprocate in kind).

.probe

JohnC.

Just heard on RTÉ radio news that Noel Dempsey is calling on eircom to reinstate full service to Smart customers.

BendiBus

Kahless wrote:

Just heard on RTÉ radio news that Noel Dempsey is calling on eircom to reinstate full service to Smart customers.

In other words

Sponge Bob wrote:

Noel will probably head off to eircom this aftenoon for tea and buns and an 'any chance ye might do something lads ' sort of meeting

uncle_sam_ie

Kahless wrote:

Just heard on RTÉ radio news that Noel Dempsey is calling on eircom to reinstate full service to Smart customers.

That's great, isn't Noel just a swell guy. Aren't we so lucky to have the Minister and Comreg there to look out for us. :rolleyes:

Urban Weigl

Eircom have now decided to take this to the next level and actually put human lives at risk, by advising ComReg that: "Services including calls to emergency services (999/112) cannot be guaranteed" for Smart Broadband customers.

The message: move to another operator and it could cost you your life! I think they're clearly taking it too far now. Tactics like this could backfire.

shoegirl

As for the comment about eircom paying its bills - nonsense - the question is - has the end customers paid THEIR bill? Because if they have then eircom shouldn't cut them off.
What is particularly disturbing about this is already today I know that eircom sales were on the doorstep of one Smart customer, offering reconnection, a free cordless phone, and promising them that their entire service was going to be fully disconnected by 6pm today if they don't go back to eircom!!
I would warn Smart customers - DONT GO BACK TO EIRCOM AS THEY ARE THE COMPANY WHO HAVE CUT YOU OFF. Take your business to BT or Imagine or any other company but eircom, who ultimately are the company who've cut off the services and who should not be allowed to exploit this to gain more customers.

Boston

watty wrote:

Smart probabily do use VOIP as you can't LLU a line and have it still as an ordinary phone line!!

Why cant you operate an LLU line as a phone line? I certainly don't have Voip, so that would suggest you are wrong.

Fitzee

shoegirl wrote:

As for the comment about eircom paying its bills - nonsense - the question is - has the end customers paid THEIR bill? Because if they have then eircom shouldn't cut them off.
What is particularly disturbing about this is already today I know that eircom sales were on the doorstep of one Smart customer, offering reconnection, a free cordless phone, and promising them that their entire service was going to be fully disconnected by 6pm today if they don't go back to eircom!!
I would warn Smart customers - DONT GO BACK TO EIRCOM AS THEY ARE THE COMPANY WHO HAVE CUT YOU OFF. Take your business to BT or Imagine or any other company but eircom, who ultimately are the company who've cut off the services and who should not be allowed to exploit this to gain more customers.

Sorry shoegirl but if Smart didn't pay eircom, it doesn't matter to eircom whether the end users paid smart or not. Their customer is smart, not all the individual users, not that this is right, but this is so.

On the other hand, I strongly agree on not going back to eircom. BT, Imagine, TalkTalk, Perlico, Pure, ANYBODY BUT EIRCOM!!!

IMHO eircom have blatantly abused their dominant market position in fixed line telecoms. Pierre Danon should resign, as should Isolde Goggin and Noel Dempsey. Eircom should have a fine of 45m euro levied on them, and then this money should be used to fund regional wireless broadband initiatives. What eircom have done here is simply criminal, not just anticompetitive, and should be treated as such. That ComReg allowed it to happen - if it was, all along, aware of the danger (as is apparently the case) - is a resignation matter for Ms. Goggin and Minister Dempsey. What the F**K was Dempsey doing sitting on Questions and Answers when this had hit the fan????:mad: :mad: :mad:

But as usual, none of the above will probably happen and we'll continue to suffer with a lack of competition in a market that's crucial to Irish business competitiveness, not to mind inward investments.

This cynical action from eircom has set competition in the Irish telecoms market back to the stone ages. It's ludicrous. It has nothing to do with overdue monies. It's all about killing off Smart, the only company who really took eircom on head-on.

My one hope is that out of this people and businesses will leave eircom in their thousands. As long as you use CPS and not WLR this could never happen again AFAIK.

:mad:

The_Hustler

kaizersoze wrote:

in addition to the 45,000 land line customers who lost their service, Eircom has also begun the task of disconnecting Smart Telecom's 17,000 broadband customers.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1003/smart.html

I haven't had Broadband since yesterday evening. I'm guessing that's because I'm fully with smart so if they cut off one thing they cut off everything.

probe

I attach a list of geographic telephone numbering ranges allocated to customers of Smart Telecom.

If you can't get through to any phone numbers on this list - blame eircom and complain to:

Noel Dempsey T.D.
Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

(He uses eircom, so unless you are a Smart Telecom subscriber, you shouldn't have any problem reaching him by phone!)

Tel 01 678 2000
Local call: 1890 44 99 00
Fax 01 678 2029

minister.dempsey@dcmnr.ie
www.dcmnr.gov.ie

.probe

probe

The_Hustler wrote:

kaizersoze wrote:

I haven't had Broadband since yesterday evening. I'm guessing that's because I'm fully with smart so if they cut off one thing they cut off everything.

Don't worry, eircom will be in touch with you shortly* to make you an offer you can't refuse, at a considerably higher price than you have been paying to Smart for an even slower service. If you don't go with eircom, and try to opt for an alternative (eg Magnet) - you'll probably be stuck hanging around your local internet cafe for the next few months...

*unlike any other telco, eircom has a Smart telecom customer list (which they needless to say did not buy).

.probe

probe

Smart Telecom received a contract to supply approximately 1,000 schools with broadband - one assumes that the plug is being pulled on all of these around now. Knowing the glacial manner in which government tendering operates, these schools will probably be without an internet connection for another year or so.

Yet another aspect of the shambles left by new eircom[Babcock & Brown]+ComReg.

.probe

You Suck!

And now here I sit with the sword of damecles hanging over my head..........

This is sick, it's well known the policys and lies of eircom, an example being that one one hand eircom were denying that dsl was possible for a new smart customer, but when he rang eircom....hey! no probs :rolleyes:

Also, this highlights perfectly the justice of the long pocket that is now a defacto reality in Ireland. Sick, Just Sick!

oscarBravo

I've just heard that we'll be reconnected tonight - Smart's investors dug deep again.

What's the chances this whole fiasco will have a positive side-effect, by highlighting the complete failure of regulation that allowed it to happen in the first place?

dahamsta

Slim. And none.

I just heard the same.

oscarBravo

The more I think about this scenario, the more pissed off I get.

For example, the wording of the recorded message: "Your Smart Telecom service is no longer available," followed by information about ComReg providing you with a list of alternative providers. Think about it: this doesn't suggest that there's a temporary suspension of service, and that it may be resumed shortly; it implies that Smart are kaput and that you're going to have to go elsewhere for service.

Disgraceful. :mad:

Sponge Bob

oscarBravo wrote:

The more I think about this scenario, the more pissed off I get.

For example, the wording of the recorded message: "Your Smart Telecom service is no longer available," followed by information about ComReg providing you with a list of alternative providers.

It furthermore implies the foreknowledge and connivance of Comreg and that the recorded message was in a format approved by and known to Comreg before the plug was pulled.

If eircom wholesale pulled the plug why was this information not on the www.eircomwholesale.ie site one wonders with a reference to that site in the voice message .

Then there is the thorny issue where Comreg and Smart have an outstanding case about a certain 3g licence and that Comreg may have preempted the judgement by that logic (next week) by conniving in this attempt to take Smart out before the judgement was delivered

Comreg really should clarify what they knew and when, and should be ready to appear before the judge on contempt charges......if they had any part in the plug being pulled and that message replacing the service .

"Disgraceful ". Quite.

byte

oscarBravo wrote:

The more I think about this scenario, the more pissed off I get.

For example, the wording of the recorded message: "Your Smart Telecom service is no longer available," followed by information about ComReg providing you with a list of alternative providers. Think about it: this doesn't suggest that there's a temporary suspension of service, and that it may be resumed shortly; it implies that Smart are kaput and that you're going to have to go elsewhere for service.

Disgraceful. :mad:

Yeah, that is woeful indeed! :mad:

But, even if all Smart customers get reconnected, I'd imagine a fair few are already thinking "how long will it work for now before it dies again" and will be proceeding to look elsewhere.

In fact, I'm looking at alternatives myself, even though NO operator comes close to the same price & product combination. The nearest I found was IBB for 3mbit service for under 50eur (the phoneline I have is pretty irrelevant as I seldom use it, primary use is DSL), but there have been too many complaints on boards.ie regarding IBB...

Hornet

What if - for a moment - we forget who the companies involved are. Let's create a different story:

Let's say Cuisine de France (CdF) - they are the guys who supplies shops with baguettes and croissants etc which will then be baked in the shop - has a delivery contract with SuperValu. And let's say SuperValu isn't paying the outstanding money they owe to CdF. Now CdF decides not to supply further pre-baked products to SuperValu. CdF is not happy about loosing a customer, but considering that it seems unlikely that (in this story) SuperValu will ever be able to cough up the money they owe to CdF, they don't see a justification either of supplying more and more product for no pay.

I guess all of you would understand CdF and would accept that delivered products need to be paid and SuperValu should have run their business in such a manner so that they can pay what they order.

Anybody disagreeing?

It doesn't really matter if the "baguettes" are a service or a product. And it doesn't really matter if they owe a few million or a few thousand. And it doesn't matter if thousands of customers can't get their well deserved baguettes from SuperValu. It is business decision that makes sense!

If we change back to the Eircom vs. Smart story and just look at the similarities to my (invented!) CdF vs. SuperValu story, Eircom made a prudent decision based on accounting principles.

But my stories has a few problems! CdF needs SuperValu and can't sell their products without resellers.

Without a doubt Eircom was influenced by the fact that they don't need Smart, that they hate Smart and that for a long time they are hoping for Smart to get into trouble.

Eircom as well was certainly influenced by their expectations that - no matter what the immediate outcome - this will give Smart such a huge "credibility and trust blow" that they will probably never ever recover from it again.

Eircom once WAS a state owned company and then a semi-state company, but the people that were elected by the majority in Ireland (incidentially, they are the people that the majority would elect again tomorrow!!), decided to screw you and to sell the company for a song lock, stock and barrel.

Eircom's fault? Only in so far that Eircom didn't say: NO, thanks! That is MUCH to generous!

So Eircom was and is a greedy company (like Tesco or Statoil etc.) and NO, I don't like the way they "serve" customers, but at the same time I am not sure if I can crucify them for being a greedy company.

The did what was OFFERED to them by Smart (who seemed to have burnt money as if there is no tomorrow and ultimately isn't providing a good service to customers either) or by the Governments of today and the past (who seems to be or have been (?) a shower of corrupt and spineless individuals equally greedy as Eircom - or maybe even Smart???). They are all in for the take not the give.

None of the parties involved is charitable (unlike the business people around Bertie Ahern - it seems).

--Hornet

spurious

Hornet wrote:

What if - for a moment - we forget who the companies involved are. Let's create a different story:

Let's say Cuisine de France (CdF) - they are the guys who supplies shops with baguettes and croissants etc which will then be baked in the shop - has a delivery contract with SuperValu. And let's say SuperValu isn't paying the outstanding money they owe to CdF. Now CdF decides not to supply further pre-baked products to SuperValu.

What if CdF have let down the tyres on Supervalu's vans thus making sure they can't deliver to all - are they justified in then screwing them cos they can't make the money from deliveries to pay CdF?