ComReg: FIA is 28.8k

damien

This is the IrelandOffline 2003 USO Submission. There's some good stuff about datarates in that if anyone wants to look at it.

Sponge Bob

AndrewMc wrote:

I agree that Eircom should report, perhaps on a quarterly basis, the total number of lines upgrade, the number of lines about which complaints were received, and the time taken to resolve those complaints.

Careful about the wording Andrew. A fault is NOT a fault until Eircom log it which they will refuse to do as long as you can ring them from that line .

Remember poor oul Kevin Myers and especially the Farming Independent story below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=210345

That guy only logged a fault on the 5th attempt . The other 4 fault reports were not logged as faults at all .

Then theres the issue of a fault near a depot with 20 engineers in it and a fault 30 miles away with one engineer covering the area and yer man maybe 50 and getting arthritic. Should we expect the same clearup rate ?

It is partially Because of unrealistic Comreg Install and Repair timing targets, easily achieved where the staff is available, that the copper in rural areas is so rank. Nothing excuses waiting a year for a line though, on that I agree with them. However In at least 100 exchange areas around the country the failure rate for DSL exceeds 75% of lines . In some 30 exchange areas 100% of lines fail .

I am old enought to remember the 6 and 7 year waits for a line . These disappeared by 1985 or 1986 but the 2 and 3 year wait have become quite the post millenial fashion accesory and dinner table topic .

shoegirl

Sponge Bob wrote:

I am old enought to remember the 6 and 7 year waits for a line . These disappeared by 1985 or 1986 but the 2 and 3 year wait have become quite the post millenial fashion accesory and dinner table topic .

I can beat that. I called CMI (now part of Chorus) to ask about their upcoming cable internet service in 1997. They said it wasn't ready yet, but gave me free dialup access for a year. A year later I called again and they said it was still in the pipeline.

8 years later I am still waiting . . .

viking

Found some interesting quotes in my regular read of parts of eircom's (28th July 2004) SEC filing... read it through:

"Under European Union directives that have been implemented into Irish law, ComReg is required to promote the availability of specified telephony services to all users in Ireland, regardless of their geographical position, at an affordable price. We are the only telecommunications provider in Ireland obligated to provide these services, known as universal service obligations ("USO"), and we are required to do so whether or not the price at which we must provide them generates profits for us. Our USO require us to provide basic voice services, standard fax and low-speed data services and reasonable access to public pay phones and directory enquiry services as well as services adapted for disabled users. In addition USO services are required to be provided at geographically averaged prices throughout Ireland.

We are not reimbursed for any of the cost of providing these services. There is a statutory provision that permits ComReg to establish a fund that would allow us to recover part of the costs of meeting our USO if ComReg determines that the net cost of meeting our USO is an unfair burden on us. We intend to seek the establishment of such a fund in the current year. However, if such a fund is not established and if the losses we incur from satisfying our USO increase, our operating profit will be negatively impacted.

....

Our obligations have been extended to include service to people with disabilities and to provide geographically averaged prices throughout Ireland, which has always been the practice. Previously, we provided these services on a voluntary basis.

[and again they mention the "fund"]
There is a statutory provision that permits ComReg to establish a fund that would allow us to recover part of the costs of meeting our USO, if ComReg determines that the net cost of meeting our USO is an unfair burden on us. We intend to seek the establishment of such a fund in the current year on foot of a detailed and independent study of our net Universal Service Obligation costs."

Why has there been no mention of the fund from ComReg?
Who puts the money into this fund?
Why have ComReg proposed to allow eircom recoup the cost of basic service provision from the user when install costs go over 7k rather than using this "fund"?

Gareth

damien

I believe that other countries use this idea of a fund, so they're just copying that. I don't recall in any of the FOI docs we got on FIA any mention of a fund, but then ComReg pretty much send us blank sheets as everything was deemed commercially sensitive. *Reads more of his book on regulation*

damien

Ofcom had a recent USO consultation too. You can read it and all the replies here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/uso/

The site is so easy to navigate and find the information you require.

The Wales Broadband Stakeholders Group sent in a one page submission. This is how they plainly put it:

Our submission is therefore very simple: put broadband and mobile access into the USO now, and move the Obligation back into HMG to support regulatory and selective measures to encourage competitive, Universal Broadband Access for all.

Mossy Monk

so should i expect to see double the speed then. currently it is 14.4k

w00t times a million :rolleyes:

damien

We're just polishing off our submission now. Deadline is tomorrow at 4pm. Meanwhile we sent this out to the members today to ecnourage more submissions to ComReg.

ComReg currently has a consultation in progress relating to the Universal Services Obligation (USO) document. The USO defines a bare minimum of services which eircom are required to provide to everyone across country.

The consultations generally get answered by large companies and ComReg rarely hear from the consumer, apart from the IrelandOffline submissions. We would greatly urge you to email in your thoughts about the USO to ComReg. The email address is: marketoperationsconsult@comreg.ie and comments must be in by Wednesday April 6th at 4pm.

Below is a detailed summary of what IrelandOffline is submitting, but a very very short summary of what we are submitting is that :

Universal is Universal and cannot be 93% or 94% of people getting Universal service and the rest going without. Everyone and not a chosen few should be entitled to a line capable of proper dialup speeds and being able to carry broadband too. Irish consumers pay the highest line rental in Europe, some €8 per month more than the EU average and paying this entitles everyone to having a proper universal service that will give them a line capable of carrying broadband.


USO Consultation Summary:

At the moment Universal Service basically consists of a phone line capable of providing a basic voice service for phone calls. There are a number of changes suggested in the current consultation which are of interest to both the general consumer and specifically internet users.

ComReg are proposing to introduce a "functional internet access" minimum data rate of 28.8kbit/sec for all telephone lines. As we are sure you will agree, this is a less than stellar minimum requirement for internet access. In our official submission, we will be suggesting a range of minimum requirements based on the length (and, therefore, the capability) of the telephone line starting at 48kbit for lines with a length of less than 1km, working down to a minimum of 33.6kbit for lines longer than 5km from the exchange. We realise that dialup internet itself seems like an outdated technology, but getting a decent minimum data rate defined will have benefits for broadband internet access as well. A "clean" telephone line which is maintained to meet basic dialup standards will be far more likely to be of sufficient quality to provide broadband services as and when they become available in your area.

ComReg further smudged the issue of functional internet access by not requiring that this be provided universally. They have instead set targets for eircom to reach, so that by June of next year only 94% of lines will even meet the paltry minimum data rate of 28.8kbit. This is unacceptable, as these should be minimum services that everyone in the country should be able to avail of.

ComReg have also brought up the use of the infamous "carrier systems", otherwise known as DACS boxes or line splitters. These are devices which are attached to lines by eircom which split one telephone line into two more separate lines, so that they don't have to bring a new line from the exchange to each customer. These work ok for voice traffic, but they seriously impact on analog modem connection rates and rule out ever being able to get broadband on your phone line. ComReg have rightfully decided that the use of these devices should be avoided.

IrelandOffline will be making their official submission to all of the issues raised in the consultation, but we would urge everyone to send in their own thoughts and comments on the above to ComReg as well. A five page detailed essay is by no means essential and all comments on the issues no matter how short will be important. To submit a comment, send an email to marketoperationsconsult@comreg.ie with it clearly marked as "Reference: Submission re ComReg 05/17" no later than 4pm tomorrow (Wednesday April 6th).

damien

and of course the email address is busted.

Lots of people getting bounces.

damien

Email address is now working again. It was allegedly working before lunch.

Sponge Bob

Hear No Evil :eek: !!

damien

Final few hours now folks.

AndrewMc

Quick query about the "threshold" before I send mine off. Personally I think the threshold idea is a disaster (and I'm saying so, too), but I found what seems to be a contradiction in the ComReg document between point 4.4:

"the proposed threshold would apply only to the costs associated with connecting an individual customer to the eircom network using infrastructure that is not used, now or in the future, for the provision of service to other customers."

and point 4.7:

"Where agreement is reached between eircom and the customer on the total cost to eircom for the provision of access, installation should be provided at the standard connection charge, plus the incremental amount over and above the defined threshold figure. Where the consumer agrees to meet such charges, a timeframe for installation should be agreed with the consumer. Alternatively, if the consumer wishes to wait until network expansion occurs in their area he or she should be provided with a record/reference number for their order and an indication as to when service will be provided in the future."

If the threshold doesn't apply to infrastructure to be used "now or in the future" for other customers, why would they want to "wait until network expansion occurs in their area"? Shouldn't the costs be the same in either case?

damien

This is IrelandOffline's reply. We are very grateful to Mike Meegan and SpongeBob for helping out on this.

Q.1. Do you agree with the considerations which ComReg has outlined regarding the setting of a threshold? Please state why. If you disagree please give reasons. If there are any other considerations which should be taken into account by ComReg in setting a threshold, please provide your reasoning.

Since we don't have access to the "confidential" information provided to ComReg by Eircom we are not in a position to determine whether the setting of a threshold is reasonable. ComReg says that the threshold amount should be set to impact on relatively few cases. This figure is estimated at 0.13% of applications.

Our concern is that what is "relatively few" in theory will turn into quite a large number in practice as it something that can be easily exploited by the USP.

We do not agree with a threshold when eircom makes so much from installations of land lines and the income from the ComReg sanctioned highest line rental in the EU. A threshold is not necessary. All installations should have the same basic charge.

Q.2. Do you consider that in order to provision a connection to the eircom network a €7,000 threshold is reasonable in the context of the Universal Service Obligation regarding the provision of access at a fixed location? If you disagree, please propose an alternative along with your reasoning.

Again without access to the costing model that eircom has created, a proper answer cannot be given. It is a disservice for respondents to have to make guesses instead of informed opinions. The individual consumer is in no position to argue with the USP when the regulator will allow it to keep its costing model secret under the "confidential" excuse. A customer has the right to know how they are charged.

As we stated in answer to Question 1: We do not agree with a threshold when eircom makes so much from installations of landlines and the income from the ComReg sanctioned highest line rental in the EU. A threshold is not necessary. All installations should have the same basic charge.

Q.3. Do you agree with measurement of the connection costs as proposed by ComReg? Please specify any alternative measurement and outline your reasoning.

Yes, costs taken into consideration should only be those associated with the individual customer and costs associated with the USP's normal network build out should not be taken into consideration. We would question whether this is possible in practice however.

We agree that costs should be based on the the least cost technology regardless of what the USP uses in practice.

We note, however, that if a fixed connection fee were to apply to all customers, it would be in the interest of the USP to build out the network in an efficient manner and use the best technology available to do the job.

Considerations of thresholds, varying connection fees, technologies and networks put the consumer at a disadvantage since the consumer does not have access to the appropriate information. Only the provider has this. The consumer is now totally dependent on the regulator who is in turn dependent on the provider for the information. This is not a desirable position for the consumer.

A Universal Service Obligation should mean that the customer should not need to know these things but rather that the burden is placed on the provider. A certain level of provision for a particular price should be available to everyone.

What appears to be proposed is that if the USP's estimate of costs exceed the threshold of 7,000 euros, that the consumer either pays the amount over this threshold or has the option to wait for network expansion. We believe this is likely to be exploited by the USP who may hold back on network expansion in order to maximize individual fees. What constitutes network expansion is not properly defined and this too may be exploited. Overall, we believe that the measures being proposed here represent a strong disincentive for the USP to build out its network in an efficient way.

Q. 4. What are your views regarding the setting of performance targets for meeting requests for connection.

A maximum time frame for meeting connection orders should be set for the USP. That 5% according to the table supplied are met after a wait between 26 weeks and 1 year is unacceptable. There will always be circumstances where the USP wishes to delay a particular order but this is precisely why specific time frames need to be applied and these need to be mandatory. Failure to make such a timescale mandatory opens the door to exploitation and discourages the building of a network from which orders can be met in a timely manner.

To encourage meeting timescales, the USP should be subject to fines if they do not meet the timescales.

Q. 5. What are your views on information to be provided to the customer; should these issues be addressed in some other way? If so state what other options you consider appropriate and your reasons and justifications for them.

Customers need to be informed in writing of the progress of their installation. This means monthly updates if necessary. The USP should also make available on its website on a quarterly basis the number of orders fulfilled within 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months.

Q.6. What are your views on a reasonable minimum data rate of 28.8 kbit/s being set as a minimum target speed?

IrelandOffline welcomes the fact that ComReg have finally decided to tackle the issue of Functional Internet Access which IrelandOffline has been pushing since ComReg failed to define it in the previous 2003 USO. We wish to make it clear that as a result of this lack of foresight, a large number of consumers are being told they are not entitled to data connections on their line. IrelandOffline wants this current USO to make up for lost time and give hope to the 1000s of disappointed consumers that are still suffering.

28.8k is not good enough anymore. IrelandOffline would like to see the quality of lines measured using Signal to Noise ratios. IrelandOffline believes all lines must be above 30db SNR. This should be verifiable with a proof of performance test. IrelandOffline also believe that this minimum measurement be mandatory and not a "suggested" minimum. Proper cabling must be run to consumers and ancient cabling must be replaced, without a cost to the consumer, to bring the SNR to the correct levels for the distances involved.

If the SNR for a consumer's line is below the minimum as suggested by IrelandOffline we believe that a consumer should be compensated by having to only pay 50% of the standard line rental price until the issues with their line is resolved.

Q.7. What are your views regarding non-binding performance targets for the overall network in respect of minimum data rates?

Non-binding performance targets will be abused just like the lack of definition for FIA was abused for the past 2 years when ComReg made FIA non-existent/ non-binding. Targets need to be clearly defined and need to be binding and need to be enforced with the use of fines.

To facilitate ease of administration, and to ensure the Universal aspect of the Universal Service Obligation is clearly understood by all stakeholders, eircom should have geographic USO completion targets thus:

30/06/06 All Of Dublin and Cork.
30/06/07 All Cities over 30,000 population and all of Leinster.
28/02/08 All of Munster Ulster and Connaught in addition to the above.

The above is in the interests of clarity to all stakeholders and to facilitate ease of administration and regulatory enforcement.

It is spread across 5 financial years and is fully funded by the ComReg sanctioned highest line rental in the EU.

Q.8. What are your views on the use of Carrier Systems Equipment? Should their future use be limited in the interest of DSL deployment? What should the position be where limiting new deployment might result in an applicant for service having to pay excess charges or in delaying the provision of a telephone line?

Modern carrier systems can support DSL. Ancient carrier systems must be retired and quickly. Carrier systems should only be used in emergency cases and when done so, the customer must be informed in writing and supplied with a guaranteed time-frame when this system will be removed. Carrier systems have been used to cut corners and cut costs which is a great disservice to consumers who have no choice but to pay the ComReg sanctioned highest line rental in the EU.

ComReg needs to direct eircom to publicly disclose the number of carriers used on their network. This information is not commercially sensitive and using the "commercially sensitive" excuse is not to be tolerated.

Q.9. What are your views on the guidelines to apply in connection with functional Internet access? Are there other issues which should be specifically addressed by the guidelines?

It must be mandatory that a consumer can request in an easy manner the capability of their line and an escalation process should be in place for the consumers line to be upgraded if it does not meet the minimum standards. The consumer should also be informed when the line will guaranteed to be upgraded. ComReg need to have a procedure in place also in case that the consumer and eircom are in dispute.

damien

This was our introductory text too:

IrelandOffline wishes ComReg to acknowledge that we have serious concerns, on the behalf of Irish consumers, that Comreg are now degrading the concept and value of "Universal Service" by inserting loopholes so that the USP is not obligated to provide basic services to the whole population

by not installing lines at a standard universal price
by not providing lines capable of taking modern dial-up speeds with a universal minimum speed.
by not providing lines that meet verifiable and measurable line characteristics

Based on the USO document, as presented, consumers have no recourse when their lines fail to meet minimum specifications.

It can be interpreted that ComReg has already redefined what Universal is by adding in get-out clauses, loop holes, non-committal and non-enforceable language thus allowing for the USP to choose its own interpretations of the USO.

We also would like to take this opportunity to remind Comreg that this is exactly what occurred with the last USO when the USP was able to tell consumers they " were not entitled to a dialup connection" on their phone lines. We would also like to remind Comreg that the concept of service, i.e. the provision of a service, is what this is all about and minimum and enforceable standards are required for the provisioning of any service.

SkepticOne

A very clear concise subission from IOFFL that is firmly on the consumer's side.

Here's my submission. My appologies to Damien and IOFFL that I didn't collaborate properly with IOFFL on the full submission. Unfortunatly the last month has been very busy for me.

Q.1. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH COMREG HAS OUTLINED REGARDING THE SETTING OF A THRESHOLD? PLEASE STATE WHY. IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE GIVE REASONS. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY COMREG IN SETTING A THRESHOLD, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR REASONING.

In its introduction, ComReg state that Eircom, the Universal Service Provider is required to satisfy any reasonable request to provide a connection capable of allowing telephones, fax and functional Internet access. The two issues under discussion are what is meant by reasobable in relation to a request for connection and what is meant by functional in relation to Internet access.

ComReg state that, in response to decision notice D17/03, Eircom proposed that reasonable in relation to requests for access should relate to Eircom s own costs in supplying that connection. If the costs estimated by Eircom were above a certain threshold then, in Eircom s opinion, the costs above that threshold should be bourn by the customer making that request. If the costs are below that threshold then, Eircom proposed, that the standard fee of EUR 121.93 would apply.

What is not clear from Eircom s proposals (as reported by ComReg) is whether those requests with costs above the threshold should be considered unreasonable. Under Eircom s Universal Service obligation, Eircom as Universal Service Provider, are required to satisfy any reasonable request to provide at a fixed location connections to the public telephone network.

If the threshold proposal is to be regarded as the determinant of whether or not a request is reasonable , then this means that, based on Eircom s costs, a request is reasonable if it falls below a certain threshold for the cost of provision. If it is reasonable , it is covered by the Eircom s Universal Service obligation as a Universal Service Provider. If, on the other hand, according to this interpretation, Eircom s estimated costs for providing the connection are above this connection, then the request, presumably, is considered by Eircom to be unreasonable and, as such, it would not be covered by Eircom s Universal Service Obligation.

In commenting on this, ComReg states that they believe that in addition to Eircom s threshold proposal consumer interest should also be accorded a high degree of importance. From this, and other unstated factors, ComReg say that they believe, therefore, that the the number of cases where a higher connection charge is payable should be relatively limited although the reasoning is not given. ComReg s comments do not clarify the question of whether the threshold proposals constitute reasonable in relation to requests from users for connection. Do requests whose costs as estimated by Eircom exceed a particular threshold mean that the request is unreasonable?

The setting of such a proposed threshold puts the consumer at risk and goes against the idea of a Universal Service Obligation for the following reasons:

1. The definition of reasonable is not clear. Are connection requests that are estimated to be above the threshold considered unreasonable for the purposes of the USO or are they not?

2. If request above the proposed threshold are to be considered reasonable then some upper limit on how much the customer is going to be charged needs to be set. A Universal Service Obligation should set minimum or worst case standards below which the USP is in breach of its obligations. There is little point in such obligations otherwise.

3. If, on the other hand, requests whose estimated costs for connection are above the threshold are to be deamed unreasonable , then this definition of reasonableness is circular and unacceptable. It is a circular definition because the the estimated cost of connection is related to the USPs current investment in network buildout. Yet, in the normal understanding of a service obligation, meeting such an obligation may require a certain level of investment, hence the circularity.

Q.2. DO YOU CONSIDER THAT IN ORDER TO PROVISION A CONNECTION TO THE EIRCOM NETWORK A EUR 7,000 THRESHOLD IS REASONABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE OBLIGATION REGARDING THE PROVISION OF ACCESS AT A FIXED LOCATION? IF YOU DISAGREE, PLEASE PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE ALONG WITH YOUR REASONING.

ComReg say that the since inflation and other factors may influence the amount of infrastructure that can be supplied for a given amount of money that other factors should be taken into account to ensure that the proportion of customers impacting the threshold does not increase. ComReg estimate 0.13% of applications would exceed a threshold if it were set to EUR 7,000.

My objections to the principle of a threshold in answer to Q.1 apply also to the question of the specific figure of EUR 7,000. The definition of reasonable should be unambiguous and not based on the USPs current network.

Q.4. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS REGARDING THE SETTING OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR MEETING REQUESTS FOR CONNECTION.

ComReg proposes the following performance targets to be met following receipt by eircom of a request:

60% of requests for service to be met within 4 weeks
80% of requests for service to be met within 8 weeks
90% of requests for service to be met within 13 weeks
95% of requests for service to be met within 26 weeks
100% of requests for service to be met within 52 weeks

The purpose of a Universal Service Obligation should be to specify the worst case that a consumer will have to suffer. From these targets, it would appear that 5% of requests might take up to one year to be met. However, even more worryingly, the 5% figure could potentially apply to any request. From a consumer point of view, the USP is fully within its rights under these proposals to delay the installation of a connection for up to a year. The individual consumer has no rights until this year has passed.

I would also note that the proposed for connection falling within the first eight weeks would appear to be no better than the current situation that the USO should be attempting to remedy.

In discussing reasonable requests for connection, ComReg state in their introduction that a recurring issue of complaint relates to requests for connection that that 18% of requests take over two months to be met. Under the new proposals, 20% of connections can go unmet in the first 8 weeks.

If the idea of a Universal Service Obligation means the USP is required to deliver a basic minimum or worst case standard of service to all consumers, then an upper limit should be placed on the length of time a consumer should have to wait for a request to be met. This should be a lot less than one year as businesses and private consumers cannot be expected to wait this long.

Q.5. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMER; SHOULD THESE ISSUES BE ADDRESSED IN SOME OTHER WAY? IF SO STATE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS YOU CONSIDER APPROPRIATE AND YOUR REASONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THEM.

The consumer has no interest in Eircom s current network. What the consumer needs to know is how long a connection request is going to take to be met and how much it is going to cost. The consumer is in a very weak bargaining position with the USP and therefore needs to be informed of rights and minimum service levels/maximum costs allowable under the USO. These rights should state clearly:

1. What constitutes a reasonable request under the USO. This definition should not rely on current levels of investment since the consumer has no control over this.
2. The maximum length of time that the USP can spend meeting the request.
3. The maximum amount of money that can be charged.
4. That the line be capable of sustaining Functional Internet Access.

Q.6. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON A REASONABLE MINIMUM DATA RATE OF 28.8 KBIT/S BEING SET AS A MINIMUM TARGET SPEED?

28.8 kbit/sec was a standard speed in the mid-nineties for dial-up access. It should be set higher than this to account for the richer content on the Internet in 2005 and should be revised annually to take into account international developments in access technology as well as content.

Furthermore, the speed should not be a target but a binding obligation. If it is not, then the consumer has is deprived of a right to a minimum service level in the spirit of a Universal Service Obligation.

Setting the speed higher will encourage more investment in the network and thereby facilitate the rollout of broadband.

SkepticOne

Q.7. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS REGARDING NON-BINDING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR THE OVERALL NETWORK IN RESPECT OF MINIMUM DATA RATES?

As mentioned in answer to Q.6, non-binding targets are not what the consumer needs. In cases where the speed obtained is below the threshold speed (which should be higher than 28.8kbit/sec), the user should be made aware of their right to have the situation rectified and an upper limit on the time taken to bring the user up to speeds allowing Functional Internet Access should be placed as an obligation on the USP.

Again, this will encourage the USP to invest in the network and thereby facilitate the rollout of broadband.

Q.8. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE USE OF CARRIER SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT? SHOULD THEIR FUTURE USE BE LIMITED IN THE INTEREST OF DSL DEPLOYMENT? WHAT SHOULD THE POSITION BE WHERE LIMITING NEW DEPLOYMENT MIGHT RESULT IN AN APPLICANT FOR SERVICE HAVING TO PAY EXCESS CHARGES OR IN DELAYING THE PROVISION OF A TELEPHONE LINE?

The applicant should not have to pay to recieve something that the consumer is entitled to recieve. As mentioned in the answer to Q.5. Upper limits should be placed as obligations on the USP on the maximum time and the maximum charges meeting requests for lines and these lines should be capable of functional internet access. In Q.7 it is suggested that the minimum line data rate be set at higher than 28.8k. Above this rate a carrier system cannot be used.



Q.9. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE GUIDELINES TO APPLY IN CONNECTION WITH FUNCTIONAL INTERNET ACCESS? ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINES?

If a user is getting less than a particular data rate over the USP s network then a self-test is reasonable. ComReg should define more clearly what reasonable endeavours means in the context of the steps Eircom should take in meeting its obligations to provide connections capable of sustaining Functional Internet Access.

It has been suggested that upper limits to the time spent rectifying data rate problems should be placed on the USP.

Q.10. WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT REQUIREMENTS AND THE DRAFT GUIDELINES. ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED OR ISSUES WHICH SHOULD BE EXPANDED UPON? PLEASE PROVIDE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE TEXT?

The right of a user to certain worst-case or minimum levels of service should be made clear. Upper limits should be placed on how long an individual user should expect to wait for a connection request and how much they should pay. This connection should be capable of sustaining Functional Internet Access and the rate should be set higher than 28.8k to take into account technological developments in the last ten years.