Kevin Myers takes on eircom

damien

He didn't use the word bastard this week, but he does imply it.

An Irishman's Diary

"Welcome to eircom net flat rate," carolled the letter from Eircom. "Dear Customer," it continued, "Thank you for your interest in net flat rate, the Internet access service that lets you surf the Internet for one easy-to-manage flat monthly fee" writes Kevin Myers.

Well, it's good to know that Eircom, our monopoly supplier of landline connections, thinks we really should be on the internet, and is determined to assist us in the process. There's nothing on earth like a kindly monopoly - apart, that is, from an unkindly one: the outcome is pretty much the same.

Last December, I had trouble getting onto the net - and then when on, had difficult staying on it. You know what I mean. You're just about to log on to the Naughty Nadia lesbian-frolic website promising all-girl explicit action involving Nadia, Simpering Suzie and assorted nude starlets, when suddenly the only thing going down is the internet connection. All right, so maybe the action actually involves the Folsom Prison Sex Offenders' Wing with latex face-masks and artful camerawork - but there's no way of finding out until you actually get there.

There could be two explanations for my inability to get online. One is that the Pope is worried about my immortal soul, and has got a Virtual Papal Nuncio on my internet link, cutting it when he thinks my interests might be getting too prurient. The other is that there's a problem on the landline connection provided by Eircom.

Previously when I'd reported problems on the line, Eircom insisted there was no fault in its system and the problem therefore must be in my telephone wiring at home. It cost me €200 to pay an engineer to show it wasn't. The fault was Eircom's. A lengthy one-way correspondence from me to Eircom then followed, in which the company did not even reply. Naturally, being a monopoly.

Finally, after threatening legal action, I was told that Eircom had reimbursed my €200, not with a cheque, but covertly, with an unannounced refund into my account. Which is not quite the same thing.

So now I was faced with an Eircom gavotte again, but I had no choice, because I was sure Nadia would refuse to start without me on line, and poor Suzie would be freezing her thingummies off standing there in the nip.

As it happens, the Eircom chap who took my call was perfectly courteous. He did a test - God knows how: probably licked his finger and stuck it out of the window - and said that my line seemed to be working, but he'd report it to the engineers.

A couple of days later, a cheery engineer rang me to say that there was a serious fault on the line, to which he had applied a temporary repair. He would do a more permanent job after the holiday season.

January, and the internet connection went down again (with poor Nadia and Suzie and the girls, presumably cold and hungry and hanging around starkers - what with Christmas and so on, I'd completely forgotten about them). So I rang Eircom again, and spoke to a very nice young man called Alan who said initially that there seemed to be no fault on the line. He would check with the engineer, and get back to me, which he did. Yes, he had gone through the file and found the report of a temporary repair. He'd get moving on the matter immediately.

An internetless week or so went by. Suzie got bored and eloped with a couple of identical she-twins from Burma. But Nadia - metaphorically stout girl that she is - continued to bide upon my arrival by internet, staring avidly towards the eastern horizon, like a shawled woman on the harbour side, awaiting her overdue trawlerman husband. And she waited in vain. No me arriving by internet.

Back to our trusty 1901 complaints number, which initially involves you having a conversation with a computer, which told me confidently that it had just checked my line - presumably by licking Bill Gates and sticking him out of the window - and there was nothing wrong with it. But finally I was put through to a human and rather unpleasant complaints person. I outlined the history of the case; he denied flatly the existence of the first temporary repair, and the phone-call from the engineer.

But it's there on my file, I cried. No it's not, he said, in the monopolist's you get-back-under-your-stone sneer. OK, I sighed, defeated. So, could you just get it checked out? Well, if we find there's no fault, we'll charge you, he continued. That's fine I said (and now, finally, we're getting to the point of this endless column); just as long as I can get onto the net.

No, he yodelled in odious triumph, that's not part of the deal. Eircom is not legally obliged to provide you with a connection that can link you to the internet - only to provide you with a line which can carry voice messages. Other electronic signals don't count. If you can't get on to the net, that's not our problem.

A week later, no improvement. I rang again: this time a curt Eircom she-person brusquely repeated the current Eircom mantra for AD 2005: Eircom is not legally obliged to provide its customers with an internet-compatible service. So of course, being a monopoly, it doesn't. "Welcome to Eircom net flat rate, but if you actually want to get onto the net, sorreeee." Meanwhile, in Folsom, Pervert 456a in his Naughty Nadia mask stands forlornly gazing eastwards, faithful unto death. . .

Sponge Bob

Has anyone told Kevin about the USO and his entitlement to "Functional Internet Access"

damien

kmyers@irish-times.ie

There you go. Send us a copy of the mail

It might be good to email Kevin and give him encouragement, god knows he needs it after his recent can of worms. He may revisit this issue again too and give other peoples stories.

nahdoic

luckily he'll be able to check his email from work

cos heaven knows he wouldn't be able to do it at home.

Danno

At long last, someone has put this on the airwaves.

If you have a problem like this with your phone line and eircom insist that you don't, then strip the phone wires at the entry point to your house, connect two ESB wires to them, flick the switch and watch the "CARRIER BOX" on the pole go into 4th of July mode.

Then ring eircom, ask them to check you line!

Two to three days later, without phone service, an eircom dude will arrive, fit a new line and, hey, while he is up on the ladder rummaging through the CARRIER BOX, ask him nicely with a €20 or a €50 to connect YOUR line to a spare pair in the box.

Voilla, watch your 14.4kbps go right up to 44.0k or even 45.3kbps!

Its amazing what you can do!

DISCLAIMER: Putting live electricity on the phone line may cause undesired results such as fire, personal injury, etc etc... be sure that all internal wiring and phones in your house are disconnected first and that you have a switch mode for the electricity and that it is off when joining the phone/ESB wires.


If asked by eircom, "Gosh there was a bad clap of thunder the other night...."

LOL!

scojones

I'm going through a similar situation at the moment. Eircom were supposed to send an engineer out to my house, but low and behold he hasn't visited me yet... they did a test on my line for BB, and they said they got back some weird results and an engineer will be visiting me within 5 - 10 working days. He must be using a bicycle...

When I use dialup, I often get weird connection speeds, anything from 3.9K - 49.9K, 16.8 seems to be the average. I only got the phone line for dsl... all my neighbours have it and the line is new enough. I dunno, I've gone off topic... I hope I don't get treated as badly as kevin.

cgarvey

Pat on the back mail sent to Kevin ... I loved the "the current Eircom mantra for AD 2005" bit.

.cg

dahamsta

I'm amazed they gave him that refund at all. I had to go all the way up to Dr. Phil to get anything off the bastards.

jwt

Right somebody on the committee had to say it so here goes............


IOFFL does not condone, recommend or in any way encourage any viewer, reader or user of this board to connect mains electricity to your or anyone elses telephone line. Especially as the majority of eircom engineers, who are most likely to get zapped by said connection, are for the most part decent helpful human beings.

That said, if anyone knows how to zap that bloody silly talking computer please send me a pm

dahamsta

jwt wrote:

That said, if anyone knows how to zap that bloody silly talking computer please send me a pm

Connect mains electr... oops

damien

jwt wrote:

IOFFL does not condone,blah de blah blah

Oh, so I did a bad when I co-opted him on to the Committee as Junior Vice-President of the Space Monkey section ?

Saw wee.

po0k

It's amazing what a 3-phase connection will do to a computer when wired to the serial port...

Fair play to Myers.

jwt

Adam

Love your sig

The word oxymoron comes to mind

Oh, so I did a bad when I co-opted him on to the Committee as Junior Vice-President of the Space Monkey section ?

We have a space monkey section???? Nobody told me!



John storms off in a huff muttering about the unfairness of life and how he was never asked to be in any of the "cool" gangs......I'll show Them space monkeys...hah!

dahamsta

jwt wrote:

Love your sig

The word oxymoron comes to mind

Ah well, at least you win a prize for being the first to respond to be my ad. Which orifice would you like it inserted in?

colin300

Has anyone told Kevin about the USO and his entitlement to "Functional Internet Access"

I went looking up on this has this ever been answered and if it has could someone tell me the answer?

jwt

To date ComReg has not specified what "Functional Internet Access" is. To be fair no other regulator in Europe has either. Oftel (UK) got closest by issuing a recomendation but never actualy implemented it legally.

We used to have a situation where telephone line had to be capable of sustaining a minimum data rate nominally to support faxes. But ComReg in their wisdom allowed this to slide to where we are now i.e it is not currently stated (some call it 0K others say that it is undefined) so there is no comeback if your line will not handle data.

If ComReg grabbed the bull by the horns and set a reasonable rate they could, at the stroke of a pen, remove all the woes associated with having a BB exchange nearby and failing the line test. (Setting a reasonable analogue rate >36kbs automatically defines a line capable of carrying BB) and help people wondering whats all the fuss about this internet thingy as they try to use it at less than 14kbs

John

colin300

Thanks but anyway if they did implent it and legally say that all lines have to be 36kb/s people still wouldn't be able to get broadband because of the length they are away from the exchange or would this matter if the lines were 36kb/s.
I know it is an odd situation but what gets me is the government puts loads of laws on us like the smoking ban and what have you but do nothing to stop eircom and there illeagal ways. Maybe one day we will actually have a regulator system like the UK they have a regulator for everything. We have maybe one or two.

jwt

colin300 wrote:

people still wouldn't be able to get broadband because of the length they are away from the exchange or would this matter if the lines were 36kb/s.

Have a look at Northern Ireland, BT are able to give people BB miles away from the exchange and ADSL2 and ADSL+ improve the reach of BB as well.

Just goes to show what happens when the network is properly maintained.

eircom invests 50cents per Euro of network degradation
BT invests 95pence per Pound of network degradation

Despite this eircom insist that them investing an equivalent % of turnover to any other telco is perfectly fine. Funny how they never mention it as a percentage of the network degrading. I wonder how it compares as a percentage ot profit? Anybody?


John

colin300

I understand that ADSL2 increase the range but what I ment was from the current system eircom are imploying that only people in a 4.5km radius or something can get it.
Is it true though that in the second half of this year eircom are going to upgrade there network to ADSL2 or is this just rumours?

Mr_Man

The Eircom extension to adsl will only add 300m to the distance from the exchange which will be bb enabled. If your lucky enough to live within that 300m then you'll be happy, for most others however it will make little difference.

M.

colin300

Yes but I have a neighbour and he cant get BB and in esence I am further away from the exchange then him but then again i made eircom give me a new line after about 5 years of trouble.Is there a chance that people on lower standard lines being able to be able to get BB with the new system?

Sponge Bob

Yes there is a chance. His chances of getting DSL wth the new technology will not disimprove .

Urban Weigl

Mr_Man wrote:

The Eircom extension to adsl will only add 300m to the distance from the exchange which will be bb enabled.

ADSL2+ can also offer significantly increased speeds on the same loop length, compared to "standard" ADSL.

SkepticOne

I think it's about an extra 600m at a given speed. This gives about an extra 50kbits/sec for those far from the exchange at a given distance.

ADSL2+ also allows very high speeds for those who are relatively close to the exchange. But unless Eircom are planning on greater than 8mbit speeds this feature is likely to remain unused. They aren't using ADSL or RADSL to its full potential either.

Megatron

Mr_Man wrote:

The Eircom extension to adsl will only add 300m to the distance from the exchange which will be bb enabled. If your lucky enough to live within that 300m then you'll be happy, for most others however it will make little difference.

M.

When BT in the UK did the extend Reach Program, the 1mb Service used to be 3.3 Km's . it's now 8km's. and the 512 service was 5.5 km's now it's , well we will see if we can reach you.
Hell i even took a few calls from the orkey islands about thier broadband.

Eircom is and always will be useless. the broadband service is great, but if you have to reply on any of the services ( tech support, Billing, Customer care) you will be left feeling very unhappy.

SkepticOne

If you are not going to rely on the regulator, then the key is to have a mix of services by different companies in a given area. Then, if you are not getting what you want from one supplier you can switch to another.

In my area, a lot of houses are served by NTL cable modems. It is in Eircom's interest to maintain lines if they don't want business taken away from them by NTL. In Britain, NTL and other cable companies also do telephone services and cover something like 50% of the population. In these areas, there is further pressure on BT to maintain good lines.

In Ireland such competition only covers about 5% of the population so Eircom can take a hit in these areas. They don't need to change their policies and can concentrate on working the regulator so that no progress is made on a proper USO definition of functional internet access.

Two options, therefore, present themselves. Increase such competition by whatever means necessary or continue to lobby the regulator against Eircom.

jwt

I'd like to add to these two points.

1 If ESAT, Smart UTV or any other Telco owned the copper and had an effective stranglehold on the last mile, we would be lobbying against that Telco not eircom. There appears to be some confusion about that IOFFL is anti-eircom for the sake of being anti-eircom.

2 Competition. While the idea of competition is good, and where it actually happens it works, I have too often seen so called competition turn into cartels. Example when Bank of Scotland entered the Irish market media and financial pundits were overjoyed at this new and dynamic company “rocking the boat”. However once BoS had grabbed a market share they were comfortable with , it was service as normal once more. O2 and Vodafone, Tescos and Dunnes the list goes on.

Regulation doesn’t work as well as open competition. However it does works a lot better than cartels, duopolies and corporate alliances etc.

eircom reaming as much profit as possible as eluded to by Skeptic here is as predictable as a shark attacking a bleeding diver. Not pleasant to experience but it’s the nature of the beast. However in modern societies we expect out Government and leaders to protect us from the ravaging of wild animals and so to we should expect to be protected from monopolies.

The key phrase is “Significant Market Power”. That is why a regulator is required.

SMP

In general, market power is defined as the ability of a firm to independently raise prices above market levels for a non-transitory period without losing sales to such a degree as to make this behaviour unprofitable.
Factors frequently considered in determining whether a firm has market power include:
• Market Share
• Barriers to Market Entry
• Pricing Behaviour
• Profitability
• Vertical Integration

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

I'd like to add to these two points.

1 If ESAT, Smart UTV or any other Telco owned the copper and had an effective stranglehold on the last mile, we would be lobbying against that Telco not eircom. There appears to be some confusion about that IOFFL is anti-eircom for the sake of being anti-eircom.

In case this clarification was due to my wording "continue to lobby the regulator against Eircom", of course I meant whoever holds the copper last mile too.

eircom reaming as much profit as possible as eluded to by Skeptic is as predictable as a shark attacking a bleeding diver. Not pleasant to experience but it’s the nature of the beast. However in modern societies we expect out Government and leaders to protect us from the ravaging of wild animals and so to we should expect to be protected from monopolies.

I think a combination approach needs to be adopted by the regulator if the situation is to move forward.

1. As you say, open competition works better than regulation, but this competition takes time to develop and in the meantime the consumer needs protection. Hence, regulation is necessary here. The USO

2. Regulation is also necessary against anti-competitive practices. Example's of these would be below cost selling or using the fact that ownership of infrastructure is ubiquitous to see off competition in local areas without passing the benefit on to all areas. BT's behaviour in Britain would be an example of this.

3. Interoperation. Related to point 2 above, incumbent companies should not be able to exclude newcomers from interconnecting with them. Nor should they be able to buy up all available spectrum (in the wireless arena) or buy up all available bandwidth in government funded projects such as fibre rings etc. Regulation is necessary here.

4. Cartel formation. As you point out, cartels are no good for the consumer. Unfortunately, I believe that the regulator has contributed to what, from the consumers point of view, is a vast cartel. This is the requirement that whatever Eircom does as a monopoly, other companies are entitled to a piece of this monopoly profit. This leads to the bulk of communications companies simply mirroring what Eircom does and deters them from open competition which, as you say, is better than regulation.

So, overall, regulation has an important role to play. Outside of regulation, however, there is an important role for Government, lobby groups and others to encourage genuine competition through whatever means are possible.

One mistake I believe the government has made is to involve ComReg in the area of getting broadband take-up numbers up. I believe this has made them approve things like free trials which do indeed encourage take up, but don't solve the underlying competitive issues and might otherwise be considered below-cost selling and anti-competitive.

jwt

SkepticOne wrote:

In case this clarification was due to my wording "continue to lobby the regulator against Eircom", of course I meant whoever holds the copper last mile too.I think a combination approach needs to be adopted by the regulator if the situation is to move forward.

Sorry SkepticOne, wasn't aimed at you in particular, had two conversations this week (its only Tuesday) where I was told that it was silly to be "picking on eircom all the time"

1. As you say, open competition works better than regulation, but this competition takes time to develop and in the meantime the consumer needs protection. Hence, regulation is necessary here. The USO

Agreed

2. Regulation is also necessary against anti-competitive practices. Example's of these would be below cost selling or using the fact that ownership of infrastructure is ubiquitous to see off competition in local areas without passing the benefit on to all areas. BT's behaviour in Britain would be an example of this.

3. Interoperation. Related to point 2 above, incumbent companies should not be able to exclude newcomers from interconnecting with them. Nor should they be able to buy up all available spectrum (in the wireless arena) or buy up all available bandwidth in government funded projects such as fibre rings etc. Regulation is necessary here.

An incumbent needs to be careful not do this by accident as well, however in the majority of cases it appears to be deliberate, yep Agreed

So, overall, regulation has an important role to play. Outside of regulation, however, there is an important role for Government, lobby groups and others to encourage genuine competition through whatever means are possible.

IOFFL is the QED of that comment

One mistake I believe the government has made is to involve ComReg in the area of getting broadband take-up numbers up. I believe this has made them approve things like free trials which do indeed encourage take up, but don't solve the underlying competitive issues and might otherwise be considered below-cost selling and anti-competitive.

Tricky one that, they are the people who have the power to make such trials legal and trials do appear to help ease the general public into BB. However up until quite recently the mantr of Telcos was "Theres no demand STUPID" which suited them down to the ground. One such example was cited where people attending a seminar (dont know where) were asked if they knew the price of broadband, if they didn't they were marked down in the survey as being not interested. (I'll dig out the post if anyone wants)

Further, given our massive reluctance to change providers of anything "Inertia" free trials are a good way for telcos to gain BB customers who arent likely to move.

It may be below-cost selling and anti-competitive but if its an option available to all telcos and relative to their total turnovers relatively small money, is it really a problem? Do the means justify the end I wonder?

Regarding ComReg and takeup numbers, I wouldn't have a problem with that if the numbers of take up were used as a performance measurment of ComReg. With set targets (real ones) in writing (as opposed to sound bites) and penalties when they failed to achieve the required targets. Might concentrate the minds a little.

And in the midst of all this Minister Dempsey sits, with ComReg taking the blame, eircom as the big bad wolf (not disagreeing mind you) and the DCMNR batting the ball between ComReg and the industry.

Meanwhile the Oireachtas report, Forfas report and reports ad nauseum all point the way towards BB success in Ireland.

By and large I'm with you SkepticOne

John

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

Tricky one that, they are the people who have the power to make such trials legal and trials do appear to help ease the general public into BB. However up until quite recently the mantr of Telcos was "Theres no demand STUPID" which suited them down to the ground. One such example was cited where people attending a seminar (dont know where) were asked if they knew the price of broadband, if they didn't they were marked down in the survey as being not interested. (I'll dig out the post if anyone wants)

Yes, Eircom argued that there was little demand for broaband and that the Government should spend money stimulating demand. IOFFL argued that any money the Government spent stimulating demand would have no effect since increased demand would only result in higher prices in the monopolised market. IOFFL argued that demand was already there but it wasn't being met due to high prices and lack of availability. And the reason for the high prices and lack of availability was lack of competition.

On the issue of free trials and anti-competitiveness:

Further, given our massive reluctance to change providers of anything "Inertia" free trials are a good way for telcos to gain BB customers who arent likely to move.

It may be below-cost selling and anti-competitive but if its an option available to all telcos and relative to their total turnovers relatively small money, is it really a problem? Do the means justify the end I wonder?

This depends on the goal that is set. If the goal is simply rectifying Ireland's low ranking on the broadband scales then, yes, free trials and such may get Ireland up a couple of notches.

It is correct that free trials are an option open to all telcos, but it needs to be remembered that a free trial for Eircom is a relatively small undertaking relative to its overall turnover. However to a small company specialising in just broadband it is a very large undertaking particularly at the early stages. IIRC, the first free trial by Eircom came a few months after the award of the FWALA licences. In principle the same is true for companies operating other technologies. I know that Smart's new offer will only be a small part of their business but what if a company was to compete only in the area of consumer level DSL. Eircom could put an end to this with a free trial prior to the launch of the rival service.

Regarding ComReg and takeup numbers, I wouldn't have a problem with that if the numbers of take up were used as a performance measurment of ComReg. With set targets (real ones) in writing (as opposed to sound bites) and penalties when they failed to achieve the required targets. Might concentrate the minds a little.

My worry with this would be that the regulator would then take superficial measures that would bump up the numbers in the short term while digging Ireland into a deeper hole by ignoring the real problems that have led to the situation in the first place. The real solution may involve Ireland staying low in the penetration numbers while the level of competition is brought up to that comparable to other countries like Sweden and South Korea.

For example, while most people will welcome Eircom's long rumoured but recently announced rollout to a further 200 exchanges, it would have been in the country's interest as well as the interest of those communities to have had wireless services in place beforehand. The consumers in towns like Kinnegad (if the issues with the county council are resolved) and Ballyhaunis which has services from Last Mile) are in a far better position than others on that list of upgrades. If someone is on a pair gain or splitter (which Eircom is now calling a digital carrier system) then they can see if they have line of sight to a transmitter. Neither is perfect but between the two a far greater proportion of the population can get broadband and they don't depend on a regulator that isn't interested.

It had been argued that Eircom would never upgrade those towns and that whoever got there would have the local monopoly but this has proved not to be the case. I think someone said that if Eircom upgraded Kinnegad than they would be insulting the community since previously they had set an unrealistic trigger level after a campaign to get broadband to the area had already been established. This is true.

However if Eircom get to a town first, then it is far less likely that a wireless operator will then arrive. Eircom are large and have a monopoly to protect so they can take the hit. Small companies can't. But those in those small towns with only Eircom providing services are in the worst position of all if their line doesn't qualify. They are now fully dependent on some form of USO functional broadband definition that may never come. It need not have been this way and there may still be a chance to help some communities.

Cork

Pheonix magazine has an interesting article in its current issue.

It more or less says Eircom is over valued and LLU will be a massive threat to that particuler company.