Smart 3G decision next Tuesday

Solair

bealtine wrote:

I fail to see the reason why Meteor was not simply allowed to upgrade their network to 3G. (Licensing issues aside)

Let's not forget it's ComReg we're talking about!:D

bealtine

Solair wrote:

Let's not forget it's ComReg we're talking about!:D

Exactly, this regulator seems to be destroying the telecommunications industry with its illogical decisions, based on perhaps the phases of the moon?
Heavy handed regulation on the little guys and little or no regulation for the big boys...

People broadcasting mass get the full treatment of the law...and blatant disregard for the laws by others are utterly ignored...

Almost all decisions seem to have an underlying and hidden motivation. Perhaps it is consolidation of monopoly??

ednwireland

why does everyone see smart as the good guy they owed 40 million euro for f**ks sake. if i ran eircom i would have done the same they had no hope of getting paid issued numerous warnings to smart etc etc. yes comreg are a shower but smart have brought this on themselves pure and simple. see loads of companies burn through cash at a phenomal rate even worked for one and the basic problem is directors beleive their on hype they obviously didnt have products that made enough money to support their business strategy. i for one ont lose sleep over smart going to the wall

bealtine

ednwireland wrote:

why does everyone see smart as the good guy they owed 40 million euro for f**ks sake. i

Gosh that is terrible, imagine owing 4 million or so...

Now I get worried when I think about eircom and them owing a mere 4 BILLION or so.
So what was that bit again about "products that made enough money"?

Liam Byrne

ednwireland, you've taken the "zeros mean nothing" to new levels.....if there's a digit before them that doesn't apply, so owing "40 million" is not the same as owing "4 million".

As bealtine said, owing money is not an issue in business, as long as you owe it to the right people (banks, investors, venture capitalists)....Smart's mistake (even though they had no option) was that they owed it to the one competitor who was scared ****less to see them doing a decent job on competition and could (and was willing to) pull enough strings to do more than just ensure they got paid; eircom were more interested in closing Smart and losing that money than merely trying to get paid.

Recent news reports disputed eircom's figures, saying Smart were in credit.....but even aside from that, remember (again) that eircom didn't do the job they were to be paid for - LLU and number portability.

If a builder only does some of the things you ask him, do you pay him in full, or do you hold out in the hope that he'll finish the job properly ?

bealtine

Liam Byrne wrote:

Recent news reports disputed eircom's figures, saying Smart were in credit.....but even aside from that, remember (again) that eircom didn't do the job they were to be paid for - LLU and number portability.

eircoms's play was transparent, create a rumpus about Smart, make them look like losers and then get their 3g license and as a benefit make the LLU process look decidedly dodgy.
Hopefully (in their estimation) this play would stall LLU for a long time to come.

Solair

Well I suppose that's what you get for setting up a toothless regulator with no imagination