Damien Mulley on Prime Time.

skywalker

Tom Young wrote:

Pg 154:

Number Portability

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/implementation_enforcement/annualreports/11threport/sec_2006_193-vol1.pdf

According to the data of October 2005, a total of 50 826 fixed numbers and 330 000
mobile numbers were ported in Ireland. The consumer friendly process which facilitates
customers in porting their number in approximately two hours and which provides no
direct retail charges is seen as a key driver of number portability. However the prices for
the inter-operator handling charges for fixed and mobile portability have remained
amongst the highest in the EU 25.

Mobile number porting can indeed be done easily and in 2 hours from what Ive seen.

Fixed Line porting is in a different universe in terms of ease and time. Ive never seen anyone else claim otherwise.

Sponge Bob

Tom Young wrote:

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/implementation_enforcement/annualreports/11threport/sec_2006_193-vol1.pdf

The consumer friendly process which facilitates
customers in porting their number in approximately two hours and which provides no
direct retail charges is seen as a key driver of number portability. However the prices .....

FFS Tom this is la la data supplied by Comreg to the EU and you know its a lie

MNP works very well but GNP is a disaster , there is no consumer friendly GNP process which takes 2 months never mind 2 hours and you know that. Its a long drawn out 6 month long mess.

Please stop posting Comreg lies or worse still Comreg lies repeated by the EU . GNP should be as straightforward as our excellent and consumer friendly MNP process.

Tom Young

Sponge Bob wrote:

FFS Tom this is la la data supplied by Comreg to the EU and you know its a lie

MNP works very well but GNP is a disaster , there is no consumer friendly GNP process which takes 2 months never mind 2 hours and you know that. Its a long drawn out 6 month long mess.

Please stop posting Comreg lies or worse still Comreg lies repeated by the EU . GNP should be as straightforward as our excellent and consumer friendly MNP process.

Sponge with due respect your attitude speaks for itself. If that post is a measure of your attitude to fact, contributions and people's opinions then so be it. Just know that it looks bad.

Sponge Bob

Tom

You have quoted data supplied by regulators to the effect that Number Portability works well in Ireland today.

That would encompass GNP under USO rules, MNP under industry process and NGNP too for all I know.

Let me state what happens in the wild. Porting a Geographic Number takes 6 months which surely must mean that Comreg and the Department of Comms / government are in gross breach of the USO Directive of 2002 .

If I get a Galway Number in the morning then will you tell me how to get it to any carrier other than eircom and within 6 months , guaranteed.

If you can not then pray tell why there is a huge disconnect between what the regulator says 'works' and reality ????

If there really is such a consumer friendly implemented and replicable procedure I would love to hear about it and so would many others. My case remains "Consumer Friendly" GNP in Ireland is regulatory la la LA LA land .

You could come back to me telling me what I did wrong when I requested the port that took 6 months , by all means do. My attitude simply reflects what I the consumer is apparently entitled to ....which is a pretty much an unregulated nothingness when it comes to GNP , Billing, T&C compliance , Repairs and Faults and all the other things a competent regulator would not stand for .

Now back on topic, why are eircom allowed to invent a reverse LLU process / winback offeensive with no comment from Comreg on whats happening ?

RangeR

Tom Young wrote:

Sponge with due respect your attitude speaks for itself. If that post is a measure of your attitude to fact, contributions and people's opinions then so be it. Just know that it looks bad.

I don't really want to get in the way of your tiff with SB [who is a pretty well respected, factual person in these parts]... You are entitled to your opinion but please don't state that your opinion on Geo Number Portability is fact. You are mistaken.

Case in point. Port your home GNP to Blueface. Then port it back, if you'd like. How long does it take?

fatherdougalmag

FYI - Earlier this year I ported from Eircom to Blueface/NTL within 4 weeks. However, I was with EsatBT and felt it was best to hop on over to Eircom before porting to BF/NTL as I'd heard nightmare stories about going from non-Eircom to BF/NTL. Still though, can't understand why it should take even that long.

Sponge Bob

4 weeks sounds very good father D , but not as good as the 2 hours claim.

was it "Consumer Friendly" like Comreg told the EU ?

was the original number on a Tandem or an RSU ....ie a big exchange or on a smaller one 'out the country' like me .

How long did the Esat BT- eircom portion take or was it 4 weeks after that ??

Did you have to pay the fee twice, once for Esat BT- eircom and once for eircom - NTL/Blueface

Urban Weigl

I have ported 2 different phone numbers in the past 18 months. Each time, it took a solid 6 months for the process to be completed!

Not to mention it was a lot of hassle, with special forms needing to be filled out in triplicate, signed, etc.. Mobile number portability, on the other hand, works as it's supposed to.

Nobody can say GNP works in Ireland. It does not, and I have multiple experiences to back that up. I'm not just saying it doesn't work, I know from my real world experience that the process does not work. If I were an average consumer, I'd have given up.

fatherdougalmag

Sponge Bob wrote:

4 weeks sounds very good father D , but not as good as the 2 hours claim.

Certainly not

Sponge Bob wrote:

was it "Consumer Friendly" like Comreg told the EU ?

I guess so. I sent the form in to Blueface. IIRC Eircom rang me to confirm the port and asked why I was leaving (boy was that fun!). No grief or bouncing around.

Sponge Bob wrote:

was the original number on a Tandem or an RSU ....ie a big exchange or on a smaller one 'out the country' like me

Citywest (big, I guess)

Sponge Bob wrote:

How long did the Esat BT- eircom portion take or was it 4 weeks after that ??

Switching from EsatBT to Eircom was painless enough (just switching CPS effectively). But Eircom suggested that it might take 6 weeks or so. About 3 weeks later I get a nice big Eircom bill because I was paying regular rates. About 2 weeks after that I get a letter from Eircom saying that my calls have been moved from EsatBT to them. Felt that was a bit out of order. Should have gotten a phone call from them to say the switch was complete.

Sponge Bob wrote:

Did you have to pay the fee twice, once for Esat BT- eircom and once for eircom - NTL/Blueface

There was no port from EsatBT to Eircom so no fee. Blueface absorb the fee as long as you stay with them for 6 months I think. Happily I'm with them (and phoneline-less) over 1.5 years.

Curiously, EsatBT sent me a letter last week saying that I had recently logged into my account on their site and changed billing preference to 'paper' and that unless I changed it back, I'd be losing my €2.50 discount which they would start charging me in 21 days. Nice to see their billing system is still up to scratch.

Go figger ...

lucernarian

Sponge Bob wrote:

Now back on topic, why are eircom allowed to invent a reverse LLU process / winback offeensive with no comment from Comreg on whats happening?

I understood the topic of this thread was Damien's appearance on PrimeTime on Tuesday night.

Tom Young wrote:

Opinion: Telephones are linear devices, including mobiles to some extent. They are complicated by point to point network operation and functionality. Complicated by signalling and numbers.

The Internet on the other hand, where access is available is a ubiquitous set of interconnected technologies joined by relatively structured set of non-linear addresses i.e., IP addresses. Uncomplicated, fairly dumb (IMO) and relatively point to multipoint, or even multipoint to multipoint, if access is available...
Regulation of this space would detract from transfer of technology neutrality mantra's which are originating in Brussels.

You speak of purely technological structure and hierarchy while I am looking at it from the customer's standpoint. If data is sent through a circuit or through packets, that's well and good. It does not mean that customer service standards have to be compromised. There should not be a situation where 47,500 telephone lines can be rendered next-to-useless instantaneously without warning. It shows disregard to consumers and the regulator.

LLU is like a stunted plant. It seems companies are not travelling this route in Ireland because bueraucratic proceedures are impeding (critical) aspects of it. Companies can make all sorts of dubious claims about their products, the Govt. can support inadequate technology and refute any criticism of this, it takes eircom the best part of 2 years to come to the same conclusion as BT and extend range of ADSL and BT Ireland can feck about with their billing system. Where does the book stop?

Is the National Consumer Agency to be given comms expertise in dealing with the practical problems or is the regulator with the supposed expertise meant to follow up in a "liberalised" market?

I don't think it has to be honest. I believe ComReg's main aim now is restoration of service.

Indeed it may well be, but with which provider? Now there may be nothing sinister to it at all but why were eircom allowed to go into a winback frenzy as soon as the story broke? Why were telephone sales reps allowed to proclaim ST's bankruptcy?? This is the behaviour of some swindlers and should not be condoned, most people would agree, but is this what we should expect if the regulator is using the powers at their disposal?

dub45

To_be_confirmed wrote:

......................There should not be a situation where 47,500 telephone lines can be rendered next-to-useless instantaneously without warning. It shows disregard to consumers and the regulator.

...........................

In this whole debacle it seems to me that this is the most serious point.

I dont dispute Eircom's right to pursue debts in any appropriate manner but cutting off so many people (and dont forget disrupting their own and other companies customers access to those people too) is outrageous.

The telecoms infrastructure is as important as the roads infrastructure and for a company to have the power to disrupt it at a whim is simply outrageous.

I would hope that out of this mess there will be a resolution on the Government's part that such a thing will never be allowed happen again

wexfordman

Originally Posted by Tom Young
Opinion: Telephones are linear devices, including mobiles to some extent. They are complicated by point to point network operation and functionality. Complicated by signalling and numbers.

The Internet on the other hand, where access is available is a ubiquitous set of interconnected technologies joined by relatively structured set of non-linear addresses i.e., IP addresses. Uncomplicated, fairly dumb (IMO) and relatively point to multipoint, or even multipoint to multipoint, if access is available...
Regulation of this space would detract from transfer of technology neutrality mantra's which are originating in Brussels.

What difference does it make that a number is associated with a fixed line or not. Porting a number is not a physical job, whether it is a fixed line or a mobile, you are basically talking about managing call routing. when I ported my number from eircom to blueface, would you explain to me Tom where and how an eircom engineer had to "rewire" my eircom line in Cork all the way up to Blueface in dublin, and also how did they manage to fit the twisted pair from my line into the "hinternet"

6 months, 6 weeks, 6 days or 6 hours, all are too much when you simply want to mover your number from one provider to another.

Fixed line number portability is a joke, and anyone who says otherwise is obviously not up to scratch on what is happening in the real world. Thats okay for joe in the street, but a bit scary when somebody who is obviously some way knowledgable about the issue, is either totally unaware of what is going on in the real world, or else in total denial.

My port took about two months by the way...

Wexfordman

Tom Young

SB: Quote failed. Re: Last post above, the less heated one.

I have the details from the meeting that was held this week now. Eircom has placed the calling (CPS/WLR) category of customers into a "white label" status (I have to assume that this is some sort of ComReg directed or agreed, holding pattern, with access to local and national call categories with some 18XX numbers only, no mobile or international) with eircom taking the hit for the cost of this, further [Sorry but that's true for all you eircom haters].

Re: LLU, latest I have is that Smart still own the customer base but that if requested rejumpering will happen to "white noise" or no service in order that other operators can sell into the affected users, this of course includes eircom retail (I think!).

BS: Thanks for putting out a less abrasive post. Your right, I did give data on Portability. I never once suggested it worked efficiently. Unclear though it was, I pasted in a text selection from the EU Commission document. I know that portability is slow here, fastest at 8 days.

What was getting to me was that flat statements such as: 'it doesn't exist' do nothing. In industry that provides fuel for eircom to debate matters at length and not in fact seek to fix a offering which is now in effect 6 years of age and run over terribly antiquated MIS.

Under USO Directive and Act in Ireland consumers have the right, and operators the obligation to move numbers via portability, whether Geo or Non-Geo.

The problem is that in many cases operators are within their legal rights to block and/or delay as ownership of the number clearly assists with Credit and Collection issues of Creditors (Liability) issues which may exist on various ledgers. ....in otherwords Consumers signing contracts for a minium duration, trying to switch without paying ....it is a problem.

I might add that similar processes to block migration are available for xDSL resale if bought from eircom wholesale.


Someone posted below about how can 45,000 lines be left without service?

To answer succinctly the answer has to be because Smart Telecom traded recklessly.

To give you another answer would be remiss and invite criticism from eircom supporters and/or consumer champions. Its a no win situation to comment on one without the other, they are index linked.

From a corporate perspective eircom did the right thing (I don't like saying it) but I believe it to be true. ST were out of cash. I looking favourably on efforts reported in the media to have the company come back and survive this issue, but to what end? and who is to pay for this in civil and if appropriate criminal proceedings?

Re: 3G license. I can't see Kelly, J. in the High Court (based on the case only) awarding the license to ST, but then again ComReg didn't colour themselves in glory either.

This is terrible for the industry and the consumer.

Where the consumer agencies involved? I surmise no. ComReg has a co-operation agreement with ODCA for sector matters and its clear various discussions have had to take effect in order that the CPS/WLR Codes of Practice and various Selling and Cool Off regulations be relaxed (*To all operators*) during this period.

trekkypj

I saw the interview and, from a media point of view, it was reasonable and the remarks made were well judged. Well done Damien!

I have no inside knowledge of the industry so I cannot say anything with authority unlike some here, but I can comment as an interested observer. So don't be too harsh if my views are based on somewhat inaccurate or speculative thinking... :rolleyes:

In terms of the debacle with Smart, I can't help but feel that as a former state organisation, although the company has been in private hands for the last seven years or so, it has changed hands numerous times, and in such a climate of uncertainty over the ownership of eircom, it is entirely possible that the company still retains an institutional bureaucracy from its state ownership days.

And with the constant changeover of top brass at Eircom, it really would not surprise me if little focus has been given to overhauling the structure of eircom and its systems for handling customer connections, local loop unbundling, repairs, broadband, exchange upgrading and so on. Smart suffered as a result of delays in connecting customers. This delay led in turn to Smart getting a poor reputation for getting connected, and customers in turn avoided the company.

I am not an eircom fanboy. I think they are overpriced as an operator and their methods of developing their infrastructure seem laughable. They need to sort out their networks properly and get some efficient systems in place.

Not buzzword solutions, but actual, human led, simple, honest to goodness straightforwardness in unbundling the local loop, improving connection times and ensuring that other companies are not obstructed by a bureaucratic nightmare, or persisting in using slow, backwards methods. It does them no favors to piss off the competition using bureaucracy because sooner or later a bigger shark will come in and make them pay for it by gobbling up market share with their own system, possibly via the MANs if they get going properly.

Eircom is a monolith IMHO and really needs to streamline its operation while it can. When competition finally kicks in, Eircom want to become efficient in the way it carries out its decisions, or it will be badly burned. Smart should have set its targets lower, but the demise of one company (if it happens) does not mean another will not come to challenge Eircom for supremacy in the telecoms market.

jward

I've already disclosed that I am/was (not sure which) a Smart Telecom customer.

I am not a fan of eircom but in the last couple of days these tactics have cemented that viewpoint.

1. I had a complete service until last Wednesday afternoon. Then I was shutdown. This was after ComReg had agreed an interim solution with eircom to provide a service for 2 weeks. eircom are therefore still disconnecting customers and ignoring the agreement.
2. An eircom sales person knocked on my door on Thursday. He knew I was a Smart Customer, and then also knocked on my neighbours door (also a smart customer). They are not supposed to know what provider I'm with as its against the regulations.
3. The same eircom sales person told us that we were being disconnected in 2 days. This FUD is being used despite the 2 week agreement in place. He also told us that it would take 4 weeks for another provider and eircom would connect us immediately. Unfortunately the last sentence is probably true.

I contacted ComReg to inform them of this. It seems there are a lot of similar complaints.

John

Liam Byrne

There's sod all money in *residential* services at the best of times and you need a massive customer base

....and there's SFA chance of going after a "non-residential" service if you have the added hassle of persuading the business to change their phone number and associated headed paper, business cards, phone book listing, ads, vehicle signage, roadside ads, and still risk losing business because someone has the old number.

When I was offered Smart, the rep asked if changing my phone number was an issue for me. Since this could have possibly put me off, she obviously wouldn't have asked unless she had to. Whether this is because it was impossible to switch without changing, or whether it is because it was infeasible timewise without changing, or whether there was just a worry on Smart's part the it wouldn't be completed in a reasonable timescale is irrelevant.....bottom line is that it's a question they saw as needing to be asked and is something that hindered their potential customer base from receiving the best + cheapest offering on the market.

Eircom's ads were also full of lies, saying the Smart customers needed to switch; SOME Smart customers did, but the rest of us lucky LLU customers who had changed our number DID NOT; therefore the eircom ads were misleading and false. ComReg's website also failed to make the distinction (odd for a neutral party) and they only corrected this when I brought it to their attention.

Eircom then ran ads saying "call our reconnection line or you will lose service"; so I rang eircom's reconnection line and, once I'd heard that the calls were being recorded for customer service improvements, proceeded to tell them EXACTLY what I thought of their misleading-by-omission adverts.

ComReg did nothing about those adverts (again, odd for a neutral); I emailed them asking why, as an LLU customer, they did not advertise that I and those like me were fine....the reply I got was farcical and trotted me out the standard reply that listed every type of customer and had no relevance to my specific query.

Smart's targets were too high for the current unpoliced market; that's a fact and it smacks of naievity........great targets, service and price if it could be delivered; they should have been more pessimistic in their planning. Fact is, though, eircom obstructed and screwed them every way possible and ComReg licked eircom's arse, thanking and acknowledging them for their help at every opportunity - despite repeated publications on the ComReg website that they (ComReg) are not happy with eircom's progress (lack of) rolling out LLU and GLUMP, or even enabling exchanges.

Yup, the Smart broke the light while trying to get this pregnant country's broadband to the delivery room, and the eircom taxi - sore at the thought that the Smart taxi was only charging half the fare, sat in wait and made sure it was driving in the other direction at that time.

The other eircom taxis came a-running to offer the shell-shocked Smart passengers escape from the nasty rain and wind and elements, offering them a slower, roundabout route to the delivery room at double the price, and making them ignore the fact that the Smart taxi was still running and still driveable......

I cannot for the life of me see how Tom Young reckons that eircom and ComReg have "helped" Smart......true, eircom overlooked the issues with the account, but surely that's the same as a builder who overlooks the fact that you haven't paid him in full after you point out to him that he hasn't done what he promised in the time that he promised ?

Tom Young

Well Liam, do the facts not speak for themselves?

I have a problem myself with the mishandling and value erosion that took effect when ComReg intervened after eircom turned off the Smart Telecom customer base.

My cited "helping" of Smart [even though I couldn't find that wording] was in fact operationally and through support in general for their business, and enhanced compeition. ComReg were open and did try to assist them as best they could, frankly I believe it was not in eircom's interests to terminate services, but they had too.

Do you realise the daily potential exposure simple phone calls can create? It can be literally hundreds of thousands of euro and I do not exaggerate at all with that statement.

If one looked at the creditors mix you might see/find that not only eircom were left with dirty and cold bath water once the baby had been removed.

You will note that my posts from October have perhaps given me more time to ruminate on these matters and indeed speak to Smart people who I note are still operating albeit in a scaled back fashion.

I don't know precisely what you are attempting to highlight here at all but in effect I can't really agree with you. Had the bills been paid and the business run properly we would have Smart as a viable and valid competitor.

If your sentiment is that you are sad that they are (give or take a few loyal and steadfast customers) scaled down, then I agree with you!

Tom

Liam Byrne

Briefly, I'll try to summarise what I'm attempting to highlight:

1) eircom facilitating Smart was in the context of being forced to facilitate competition - otherwise they would have done things quicker and more easily

2) ComReg have repeatedly complained about eircom not enabling LLU and GLUMP and all the delays and everything else required to give people a viable choice of operator, but that's all they've done - no sanctions were applied despite the same content in each of the ComReg reports

3) Smart had targets and a business plan that was optimistic, but IMHO could have been done if the obstructions - the need for businesses to change phone number, delays, etc - weren't there. Without that, Smart's targets were hopelessly optimistic, but if all was in order in that regard - and I speak as a still-satisfied Smart customer based on price, speed and service - I can't imagine ANYONE NOT wanting to switch; saving €50 a month on a better, faster service is a no-brainer.

4) Smart's debt to eircom was in the context of the process being incomplete; it's a bad business relationship to get into, but I don't have a problem with someone (Smart) withholding payment from a provider (eircom) because they do have the funds or have lost potential business based on the (in)action of that provider

5) ComReg were very grateful to eircom for "helping" in a situation which (a) arose partially due to the very things they highlighted that eircom failed on and (b) was dealt with inappropriately with the consumer losing out and emergency calls being unavailable and (c) demonstrated just how quickly eircom can act in relation to making/breaking connections in exchanges if needs be, as long as it suits them instead of a competitor

6) ComReg did not advise Smart's LLU customers correctly; I'd've expected eircom's ads to exaggerate the problem and attempt winback (illegally, apparently) but ComReg should have been neutral, and eircom should have been reported and fined in relation to the Data Protection Act and whatever other relevant legislation is available, instead of being thanked publicly for helping, instead of being made look like saints.

If eircom were serious about diverting competition, they would make the service cheaper, better and more available (7k instead of 5k); inertia would then make people stick with eircom if there was no good reason to move.

cgarvey

What's with the 3 month revival?

1) Agreed
2) Smart, had they done their homework, did/would/should have known about this
3) see 2)
4) Business/Law doesn't work on that basis, thankfully. Smart weren't missold anything. There was nothing incomplete in that sale agreement, was there?
5) Eircom were under no obligation to offer free calls (local/national just, I think) or any phone provision. That's what the thanks was for (and is due for).
6) Agreed. However, Smart grossly misinformed their customers too (I know of a good few LLU customers who were given advice as though they were CPS customers). Smart, also, never informed customers until well after they were disconnected.

eircom are serious about competition (as they've demonstrated), but why lower prices when you don't have to (for regulatory reasons or viability reasons). There's no incentive for them to reduce prices, they're doing just fine now (especially given that most competition is either BitStream, with its tight margins, or LLU with its high margins).

Now, don't take me as a fan of eircom, I'm not. It's just I don't think they are to blame here. They're serving their shareholders well, as any business should. It's the regulatory framework that's in force here (or the lack of it). Respective governments have continued to allow this to happen (without learning any privatisation lessons from abroad).

Liam Byrne

Fair points, cgarvey.....with the exception of the winback, nothing eircom did was illegal, and had the regulatory framework imposed sanctions on eircom it would have been a different story.

One caveat: if ComReg set a target for eircom's GLUMP and Smart "does their homework" and accepts it, and then ComReg are still waxing lyrical and writing reports 18 months later (just words, no sanctions or fines) that it hasn't been achieved, it's debatable as to who is at fault, isn't it ?

And regarding lowering prices - eircom has 2 DSL competitors: Magnet and Smart. All others can be limited and controlled directly by eircom's wholesale outfit.

So, in the absence of an unempowered regulator, the only thing eircom did that was REALLY dodgy was the winback; the removal of 999 calls was lousy and dangerous, but was within their rights, and the only REAL eye-opener is the speed at which they did it - pity they can't be as quick connecting as they are disconnecting.

But yeah, the main fault lies between ComReg and the Government; the issue is whether the so-called "regulator" has the power to act.

Smart don't meet the requirements for the 3G, they lose the licence; eircom don't meet the unbundling requirements set out by ComReg, SFA happens them.

Basically, ComReg needs more clout and the will to make a difference.

dahamsta

Liam Byrne wrote:

Basically, ComReg needs more clout and the will to make a difference.

A clout. ComReg needs a clout.

Tom Young

Liam Byrne wrote:

Fair points, cgarvey.....with the exception of the winback, nothing eircom did was illegal, and had the regulatory framework imposed sanctions on eircom it would have been a different story.

Can you explain what you mean here? As .cg pointed out the rules of company and contract law were obeyed. On winback this has been the bain of operator's existence in Ireland for years.

One caveat: if ComReg set a target for eircom's GLUMP and Smart "does their homework" and accepts it, and then ComReg are still waxing lyrical and writing reports 18 months later (just words, no sanctions or fines) that it hasn't been achieved, it's debatable as to who is at fault, isn't it ?

This is not correct at all. I personally feel investment in LLU in Ireland is a waste of time, as NGN is on the table now for a number of years. Forbearance might have been a good idea! but anyway, in business I could not justify investment in LLU and I have worked the figures.

And regarding lowering prices - eircom has 2 DSL competitors: Magnet and Smart. All others can be limited and controlled directly by eircom's wholesale outfit.

And do resellers of eircom's DSL Bitstream not compete with eircom retail at 11.5% margin on retail DSL, line share? I believe yes is the answer to this. 2 is a figure you might put against LLU? Or did you mean to type LLU, if you did then that would be possibly correct. I believe there maybe some others in the working group.

So, in the absence of an unempowered regulator, the only thing eircom did that was REALLY dodgy was the winback; the removal of 999 calls was lousy and dangerous, but was within their rights, and the only REAL eye-opener is the speed at which they did it - pity they can't be as quick connecting as they are disconnecting.

ComReg could not intervene in a contractual matter, which it became. I mentioned before that many other creditors (liability takers) had been in the fray as well. 999 calls was never removed at all PERIOD from the CPS base and as far as I know the rejumpered lines had USO obligatgions intact re: 999/112. I have not evidence to suggest otherwise.

But yeah, the main fault lies between ComReg and the Government; the issue is whether the so-called "regulator" has the power to act.

I am not involved but I am aware of a serious lobbying effort from ALTO(?) to secure the Competition Powers for ComReg in the next miscellaneous provisions bill/act. It may well be a 1 line provision conveying powers to them.

Smart don't meet the requirements for the 3G, they lose the licence; eircom don't meet the unbundling requirements set out by ComReg, SFA happens them.

eircom already own the network, ergo are tied in. Smart required the network, 3G approached with incomplete finances and appeared before the commercial courts for review. I think Justice Peter Kelly's ruling speaks for itself. There is a vast difference between the haves and have nots.

Basically, ComReg needs more clout and the will to make a difference.

I agree and thanks to ALTO they will be getting this, from what I hear.

Though I have to admit that Adam and .cg have made some interesting and very coherant points.

Tom

Liam Byrne

Can you explain what you mean here?

eircom were not entitled to approach known Smart customers; reports here and elsewhere indicate that they did.

I personally feel investment in LLU in Ireland is a waste of time

So could Smart, at this stage, but if their "homework" and business plan took ComReg's indications of timeframes as realistic (which ComReg presumably originally did) then they DID do their homework. The timescale, unfortunately did not happen, and this was (is) the fault of eircom, as indicated in ComReg's repeated reports on the matter. With all due respect, whether or not you think LLU is a waste of time is not particularly relevant in the context of the bigger picture; I would not have broadband were it not for LLU and Smart, so I obviously don't think it's a waste of time at all!

Or did you mean to type LLU,

No, I did not. The only two DSL competitors who are not reliant simply reselling a core eircom service (rather than providing an alternative) are Magnet and Smart, but even they are reliant on getting the lines transferred, so their hands are tied, albeit to a lesser degree once they are finally transferred, but eircom are happier to facilitate resellers as they are getting most of the cash.

ComReg could not intervene in a contractual matter

Apparently not, but the problem was that they did not intervene SOONER, when it became apparent that non-compliance with ComReg requests by eircom was causing problems in delivery, and therefore putting a viable offering by Smart at risk.

There is a vast difference between the haves and have nots

Very, very true (and in fact the core problem - my point was exactly that. Smart piss off ComReg at their peril and lose out big-time, but repeated reports and requests by ComReg are ignored by eircom with no sanction whatsoever (and a clap on the back when they help out in a situation that they helped to manufacture.

Whether or not eircom "have" something shouldn't be an factor; if they ignore ComReg they should be treated the same as anyone else. If they're not doing what they should in relation to LLU and GLUMP, they should be penalised.

jward

Tom Young wrote:

Can you explain what you mean here? As .cg pointed out the rules of company and contract law were obeyed. On winback this has been the bain of operator's existence in Ireland for years.

They sent their winback team out specifically to Smart customers - including myself and my neighbour. Having knowledge of what provider you're using is against ComReg regulations and cannot be used by eircom.

Also, they disconnected me 2 days after the interim agreement. This is despite the fact that I was an LLU customer and was not the subject of the dispute. The eircom salesman knocked on my door a day later.

bminish

jward wrote:

They sent their winback team out specifically to Smart customers - including myself and my neighbour. Having knowledge of what provider you're using is against ComReg regulations and cannot be used by eircom.

Following the initial disconnection Comreg put up some pages on the askcomreg.ie site one of these pages, no longer linked but this page
http://www.askcomreg.ie/home/update.207.LE.asp
allowed anyone to put in any irish Phone Number, if they were a smart Customer the UAN is returned
there is no other verification that the person who put in the number is the customer but it is a method of checking if the number is smart number

Surely all sorts of data protection requirements are not being met here?

.brendan