Smart phone service gone

SeaSide

Interesting - but I would reverse your analogy in making eircom=supervalue who own all the shops in the country and charge CdF to offer its produce in their shop. Incidentially supervalu would have its own bakery which competes directly with CdF and is given preferential access in the shops.

Foxwood

Hornet wrote:

Eircom made a prudent decision based on accounting principles.

Eircoms actions aren't a prudent way of getting what they claim they are owed. They are an excellent way of destroying a significant competitor.

From a purely pounds and pence point of view, throwing €1.7m down the drain would be an incredibly cheap way for eircom to get it's hands on the 3rd 3G license. The wider question is whether it is in the pubic interest to allow this action to be rewarded in this way - Telecommunications is still a regulated market for a reason.

Hornet

spurious wrote:

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?

Good point! However, I would class that as an illegal activity (destroying property etc.). Unfortunately Eircom's anti-competitive behaviour was NOT illegal (as far as making exchanges available or the number NON-portability for Smart LLU customers is concerned). Maybe I should add ComReg to the parties that allowed Eircom to get away with too much. But then ComReg is only an extension of the government (despite their objections to that in early years) and does not have a LOT of powers.

--Hornet

Hornet

SeaSide wrote:

Interesting - but I would reverse your analogy in making eircom=supervalue who own all the shops in the country and charge CdF to offer its produce in their shop. Incidentially supervalu would have its own bakery which competes directly with CdF and is given preferential access in the shops.

You might be right! Once I get my head around your "slight" change of my story I will look at that again! ;-)

BUT the issue is still: Is Supervalu doing anything illegal or are they just defending (with all they have) their stranglehold on the business as you would expect it from any (greedy) business. And don't get me wrong, if I had shares in such a "greedy" business, I wanted it to be as greedy as possible!

I am not saying Eircom is fair! Not at all! But can we HONESTLY expect them to be different? And don't or wouldn't we really - to different degrees - appreciate a "powerful" position over our competitors in our own business lifes as well?

--Hornet

Hornet

Foxwood wrote:

Eircoms actions aren't a prudent way of getting what they claim they are owed. They are an excellent way of destroying a significant competitor.

From a purely pounds and pence point of view, throwing €1.7m down the drain would be an incredibly cheap way for eircom to get it's hands on the 3rd 3G license. The wider question is whether it is in the pubic interest to allow this action to be rewarded in this way - Telecommunications is still a regulated market for a reason.

It is prudent (if you report to shareholders) and it excellent if you can get rid of a nasty ankle biting competitor!

I don't think "public interest" plays a role anymore and if you think about the regulation then the ULTIMATE goal is to totally unregulate the market. The only problem is that governments protected the Telcos as they owned them and the move away from that needed regulation. Unfortunately these regulators were not equipped with tools powerful enough to regulate properly and surprisingly (or not really) the tools were handed out by the previous owners and were - maybe - therefore not really powerful!

Public interest went out the window when the former state-owned telcos were privatised. And if competition was working PROPERLY the classic "public interest" would be more a guarantee for higher prices than for lower prices.

Another side issue is that the people that were meant to regulate, often came from a strong civil servant background and might not be the most appropriate advocats of reducing the former state-owned company's power.

--Hornet

oscarBravo

Sponge Bob wrote:

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.

It gets better. :mad: Why are ComReg acting as if Smart are no longer in business?

Byte wrote:

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.

I'm sure that's the whole point of the exercise. Me? I'm a contrary bastard. I'm sticking with Smart until there's no Smart to stick to, and if that happens, Eircom can stuff their bloody landline.

shoegirl

Hornet wrote:

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?

Yes. There is one point which you missed, and that is, that retail customers don't pay for their product in advance, however most telephony customers pay for their rental, if not also their broadband 1-2 months in advance.

This means that for most of the 40,000 disconnected customers of Smart, they are being disconnected from a service that they have already paid in advance for, and presumably will be now charged again for by whoever sucks them up.

To add insult to injury, the regulator has done nothing to stop them being pounced on by the sales vultures in the very company who cut them off in the first place, so not only will eircom potentially gain the majority (as it almost inevitably will since it takes 2 weeks and possibly more to switch provider) of customers, they can also cahrge them connection fees if they wish and 2 months rental which they've already paid in advance!

If ever there was rip-off Ireland and a failure of competition, this is it.

The problem as I see it is not so much the disconnection of users, but the fact that no notice was given, and the customers have probably already paid their line rentals (which I suspect is why eircom have left them inbound calls and a few select services - no doubt their sales lines are one of them).

What should have been done today was a court injunction against eircom retail being allowed to use customer records for marketing purposes. I know for a fact that one eircom sales rep was on doorsteps around Mallow peddling her barefaced lies to gullible Smart customers. If comreg had any credibility, they would have done this immediately.

JohnC.

byte wrote:

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.

This is what I fear too. A lot of people are not as well informed as people on this board. People who are informed know the deal, but those not informed could be thinking that eircom are the "safe" option and these new fangled alternatives are risky.

This whole affair is a sorry mess. It's almost like eircom and Comreg ganging up on competition. All too often, it seems like Comreg are a division of eircom.

lucernarian

It will be interesting to see if eircom do pull the plug, so to speak, on the Smart Telecom LLU connections.

How long will it take to disconnect ST's 16500 odd LLU broadband customers? I suspect that eircom will be most prompt and efficient in the execution of this particular task.

spurious

It took them two months to manage to connect me.

They're terribly professional and would not have been deliberately taking their time, (ComReg would have made sure that didn't happen) so I'm sure it will take them two months to disconnect me.

Urban Weigl

Eircom are pulling all the stops to win back Smart customers. When you call them on 1901, the first you hear is a message with instructions on how to "return to Eircom".

stereo_steve

Guys....this is a spur of the moment thing....but could we pull off Irelands largest private ad campaign? An anti eircom campaign?

Could someone draw up a list a factual anti compeditive stats on eircom?

Everybody could promise to canvas their estate. I'd stick an A4 sheet around the 400 odd houses in my estate.

Its only with everyones voice that the government will listen. Even if smart go which is what its looking like. Hopefully people won't go back to Eircom and also hopefully people will leave!!


Am I off the wall? Would people do this? We'd need a website that the flyer would send people too. Maybe compare rates of different telcos. Show broadband providers in their area. People could post stats about their experience with different companies.

trekkypj

What really needs to be done is for a White Knight to rescue Smart Telecom and then bring an anti-competition case against Eircom for disconnecting Smart customers without notice and engaging in aggressive tactics to put Smart outta business.

If it doesn't get anywhere in the High Court, bring it to Europe. If Microsoft can be fined, so can Eircom.

And Comreg needs a PROPER overhaul. Get rid of the ineffectual members therein and get proper regulation in there. And to make sure it does its job, appoint a former Judge to the regulator to oversee the legal issues, e.g. competition laws and so on.

JNive

hehe, any website that needs hosting im willing lol, provided there are plenty of disclaimers attached :-)

cgarvey

Does anyone know when the termination notice was served on Smart? I.e. what's the notice period?

billy the squid

Aparantly it was the third termination notice issued to Smart telecom. this was the first to end in total shut down though.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/biznews/9015995?view=Eircomnet

Morning Ireland business news is saying that eircom will be connecting people for two weeks to allow them find another operator.

JNive

how nice and generous of those great guys in eircom lol,

clohamon

trekkypj wrote:

And Comreg needs a PROPER overhaul. Get rid of the ineffectual members therein and get proper regulation in there. And to make sure it does its job, appoint a former Judge to the regulator to oversee the legal issues, e.g. competition laws and so on.

The regulator cannot be fired for incompetence. The only grounds are stated misbehaviour or incapacity due to illness.

Sponge Bob

clohamon wrote:

The only grounds are stated misbehaviour or incapacity due to illness.

I'm sick of them . Please abolish Comreg today .

probe

The opinion piece about Smart in the Times, and some other media comments this morning are surely missing big picture?

Probe’s neighbour, an elderly lady, decided to take her €10,000 life savings “mattress money” to the bank one day. Seeing her walking into town, with a supermarket bag full of cash, probe goes and hits her over the head and grabs the bag. In all right thinking people’s minds, this would be a crime and probe would be found guilty in any decent court system. Probe would have no valid defence in saying to the judge, “well your lordship, she was a silly old cow – she should have used a taxi or ‘securivan’ to take the money to the bank. She didn’t manage this business matter as well as she could have. You must leave me off your lordship because I wasn’t totally to blame”.

The files of ComReg, Smart, eircom, and most other companies in the industry in Ireland are surely bulging with evidence (which would be available in a court discovery process) showing that eircom was “dragging its feet” (ultra-polite understatement mode=on) in opening up its network to alternative suppliers. Let’s not forget, eircom was a central government department (Dept of P&T) which had 100% of the market, and which was re-branded, subsequently sold off etc. Under various EU directives and Irish competition and telecommunications laws, eircom was and is required to open its former state monopoly of infrastructure to other parties. Successive governments invited the private sector to invest and avail of this infrastructure and gave the appearance of putting the necessary regulatory regime into place (in the form of ODTR and Comreg) to facilitate the diversification of the business.

If eircom had not “dragged its feet” and continued to abuse its monopoly in the market, and instead put an efficient system in place where Smart or anyone else could, for example, go to a website and put in a line unbundling order - following which the necessary arrangements for the unbundling transaction were put in place by eircom, in a timely manner, on an equitably computed costing basis – Smart would have no excuse to blame eircom or ComReg or anyone else. But this did not happen. Eircom instead behaved more like probe grabbing the bag of mattress money!

In my view eircom has a case to answer for abuse of its dominant position under Irish and EU competition and telecommunications laws. The relative business competence or otherwise of victims of this abuse is irrelevant and immaterial. Eircom should be held accountable to customers, employees, suppliers and investors in any company in the industry, that have suffered loss or damage directly or indirectly as a result of eircom’s attempts at maintaining its monopoly, by “making life difficult” for alternative service providers and their customers, who are simply exercising their legal right to take an alternative route to a government established monopoly that still remains substantially intact today, particularly in the DSL / “GLUMP” marketplace.

.probe

johnlambe

stereo_steve wrote:

Could someone draw up a list a factual anti compeditive stats on eircom?

Everybody could promise to canvas their estate. I'd stick an A4 sheet around the 400 odd houses in my estate.

If someone prepares a flyer that is fair and accurate, I would distribute it in my area, or maybe a nearby area which is more affected.

I live in Crumlin, where I was waiting for Eircom to give Smart access to the exchange so that I could switch to them.


By the way, notice the timing of the disconnection - coinciding with Bertie's speech about his "loans" and "gifts", to overshadow news about this and calls for better regulation.
Eircom were probably waiting for such an opportunity and had time to prepare it when Bertie announced the timing of this.

fatherdougalmag

Hindsight's a great thing but the govt should have abstracted the network from the services of the national telephony provider and only floated the services side. Didn't the tax payer pay for the bulk of the network? CPO's are all the rage these days. Bertie should ask for a whip-around or a loan and buy the copper and hardware back so that the people own it. Then there's a chance of competition. As for ComReg, they should go and work the empty tills at Aldi and Lidl.

trekkypj

clohamon wrote:

The regulator cannot be fired for incompetence. The only grounds are stated misbehaviour or incapacity due to illness.

Really? I would have thought that the Government would have retained some provision to fire the regulator for incompetence. The independence of Comreg should not extend to insulating them from their own failures. They are supposed to regulate, not sit on their respective arses.

How do people get appointed to positions of responsibility in Comreg, anyway?

clohamon

trekkypj wrote:

Really? I would have thought that the Government would have retained some provision to fire the regulator for incompetence. The independence of Comreg should not extend to insulating them from their own failures. They are supposed to regulate, not sit on their respective arses.

How do people get appointed to positions of responsibility in Comreg, anyway?

The term is 3 to 5 years. I suppose pressure could be applied to force a resignation, anyway its all there in the Communications Regulation Act 2002.

http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2002.0020.3.html#partii-sec18

Enjoy.

Hornet

Guys, I Know that ANY discussion that involves Eircom is HIGHLY emotional, and I agree that Eircom have dragged their heels and were anti-competitive, BUT are you saying that Smart is the good guy and has a clean vest?

I mean if a company looses shareholder confidence, is forced to fire its CEO (or cause his health to falter so that he can leave with his head a little higher) and burns money as if there is no tomorrow, then I can't help it but get the impression that the management of this company was maybe incapable of running a company in difficult times!

All Eircom's behaviour was predictable and there are quite a number of companies who seem to be able to flourish despite Eircom. Maybe they don't grow slower, maybe they are not able to fund extravagant top management life styles, but they stay in the market and provide what seems to be good service to customers.

As examples I could mention maybe Imagine or Magnet.

I totally agree with the opinion that Eircom made life as difficult as possible for Smart, but they do the same to all other Eircom competitors! Still, none of the others is as bullish and as loud as Smart was. None of the others is claiming to take over the world.

Smart was in my opinion doomed from very early on as it was run as if there is unlimited money available and as it was run as if the buy-out is around the corner. If you want to run a company long-term you have to ADJUST to market conditions!

Gee, Smart had 300 employees in the year after they raised 15mio on the stock market. My rough calculation tells me that with an average employee cost of 30k and 300 employees, you burn 9mio per year. If you have raised 15 mio on the stock market that money will last exactly 1.66 years! So HOW do you pay the salaries after 1.6 years if you already have milked the stock market cow dry and if you loose money in all other areas (not only salaries) as well?

By the way, does anyone think that Smart was NOT anti-competitive (and therefore better than Eircom) whereever they could be?

Just as a disclaimer: In NO way I am defending Eircom! But I am more than surprised about this unabated glorification of Smart! (On the other hand, B Ahern can do whatever stupid, crooked or immoral thing he wants and people still support him. Maybe Smart is Telecom's Bertie!)

--Hornet

trekkypj

clohamon wrote:

The term is 3 to 5 years. I suppose pressure could be applied to force a resignation, anyway its all there in the Communications Regulation Act 2002.

http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2002.0020.3.html#partii-sec18

Enjoy.

Thanks. Will take a look at it.

edit: From what I see there is actually no provision for dismissal arising from incompetence or ineffectual regulation. What were they thinking? There's effectively nothing in the Act that allows for the Govt ensuring that Comreg do their job, apart for some waffle about not accepting positions for 12 months after leaving office that might compromise secrets, not working for anyone else during the time and so on. And yet there is nothing there to allow for the sacking of any commissioner, nor any disciplinary procedure laid out to determine if a commissioner should be sacked. Pathetic!

Even so, I don't wish to be too hard on Comreg itself because they are victims of sloppy legislation and they don't have the authority or the incentive to fight Eircom at this moment in time. Make them accountable, give them powers to punish those who don't obey their directives, and have a system that ensures that if comreg fails to enforce their powers, they face a realistic possibility of disciplinary action and/or dismissal of some/all of its commissioners.

I hope that's fixed in the next version of the Act. If it ever arrives.

In the meantime we're stuck with piecemeal, ineffectual noisemaking about stats and more stats and damn all else. Smart may have misjudged their finances, but they would have lasted longer had the regulator been given proper teeth and, more vitally, were held accountable themselves if they ****ed up.

Apologies for the harsh tone of this post, but Comreg's failures as a regulator make me really annoyed.

eircomtribunal

Dave Burstein refers to the SMART/Eircom/Ireland situation in his DSL newsletter:

Disaster: 40,000 Customers in Eircom Payment Dispute
Ireland at the bottom
Phone lines went dead suddenly and without notice, as Eircom cut off competitor Smart telecom. Minister Dempsey asked Eircom “to maintain full services for the affected customers until discussions can take place between the Regulator, Smart telecom and Eircom.” The politically powerful Eircom gave the customers no notice and shut them down. A multimillion investment from part owner Brian Murtagh is keeping the company at least partly afloat, and over the week many customers may be reconnected.

Jeff Carlisle issued regulations that made such a cutoff without notice illegal in the United States. The former head of the FCC Wireline Bureau speaks of this as his proudest moment, because he directly protected consumers. This has long been the nightmare scenario for competition. The likely FUD factor will produce a strong incumbent advantage.

Smart has burned through 60M euro, as CEO Oisin Fanning made extraordinary promises that were never fulfilled. Customer counts were a quarter of projections according to the Irish Independent. A 3G license was first won and then lost amid wild stock gyrations. Only about 34 of the planned 64 CO’s were completed. Fanning was recently ousted. It’s not clear whether enough customers will stay to leave Murtagh a shell to rebuild, but Irish papers report losses have been 3M euro a month.

Throughout this all, Ireland is consistently next to last in EU broadband. Only Greece is lower among the 15 long term EU members. This is amazing in a highly literate, affluent society. Eircom has been allowed essentially the highest rates in Europe. Regulators now are looking for subsidies that will probably amount to a giveaway to the telco.

P.

dahamsta

Time to put the feet up and pull out a history book methinks.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224613

adam

machalla

Ah that was the thread that was. It was like all my christmases come at once when they claimed they could enable even failing lines. Which they did.

On the point of Smart not being blameless well eircomtribunal's post certainly points that out.

Something is clearly broken though when you can cut off that many phone-lines with not an ounce of warning. A failure of regulation indeed. Still according to the papers today Noel is not going to let it happen again and is giving Comreg more "policing powers" (truncheons?).

dub45

machalla wrote:

Ah that was the thread that was. It was like all my christmases come at once when they claimed they could enable even failing lines. Which they did.

On the point of Smart not being blameless well eircomtribunal's post certainly points that out.

Something is clearly broken though when you can cut off that many phone-lines with not an ounce of warning. A failure of regulation indeed. Still according to the papers today Noel is not going to let it happen again and is giving Comreg more "policing powers" (truncheons?).

This has been said before I am sure but it really does beggar belief that nowadays so many people can be cut off from what is an essential of day to day life whether for business purposes - health purposes - security purposes etc etc. Surely the Depart and Comreg should have foreseen that a some stage a company could go bang and put in place with the cooperation of all the companies a form of bonding (just like the travel people) to ensure that communication facilities would be provide while the mess was sorted out? For instance all the monies due to the company in question for whatever period could have been 'red circled' and divided out afterwards proportionately

When you think about it even Eircom customers are being seriously inconvenienced by not being able to ring Smart customers.

JohnC.

Were Smart's payphones on the streets also cut off? Not heard about it and didn't even think about it until I walked past them today.

Solair

Yup they were cut off. I used one today!

"Your Smart Telecom Service is no longer available..." and so on.

watty

Yes. Not working in Dooradoyle Shopping center in Limerick according to received reliable reports.

Also visited a petrol station on Wednesday or thursday not taking Credit Cards or Laser due to no Smart phone.

kaizersoze

From RTE: http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/1006/smart.html

End for Smart as Murtagh takes over

October 06, 2006 19:54
The board of troubled telecoms group Smart is to sell off all of its businesses and assets for €1 to a private company controlled by its largest shareholders Brendan Murtagh.

A statement said the deal would allow Smart to provide a full service to its 160 corporate and 17,000 residential broadband customers 'effective immediately'.

Eircom began cutting off these customers earlier this week, having disconnected 40,000 of Smart's fixed-line customers, saying it was owed €4m by the company.


Mr Murtagh's company, BidCo, will also take on all of Smart's debts, estimated to amount to nearly €40m. Smart will be given a 10% stake in BidCo as part of the deal.

The deal is subject to approval of shareholders at an EGM. BidCo has received undertaking from shareholders representing 42% of Smart to back the agreement. BidCo will also provide funds to keep Smart going until the shareholder meeting.

Smart's acting chief executive Ciaran Casey said this was 'a very disappointing outcome' for shareholders, but was the only option.

Last month, Smart cut 250 jobs after a strategic review. Mr Murtagh, who holds 20% of the company, also agreed to lend the company €2.4m to keep it going.

Services to Smart's 40,000 fixed-line customers were restored after ComReg and Eircom hammered out an interim agreement. For two weeks, Smart's fixed-line customers will not be able to ring mobile phones or make international calls but they will be able to make national and local calls. They will then have to make alternative arrangements. It's understood Friday's deal does not cover these customers.