Eircom leave Smart Telecom Customers with no service

|Referee|

Moriarty wrote:

The OLOs involved in unbundling (Esat, Leap, Smart) have been trying to get ComReg to force through changes of practice for the ordering/deployment of LLU since the middle of last year. The OLOs shouldn't have had to do this, as it's a fundamental requirement for large scale LLU provision that should have been one of the core factors dealt with years ago by ComReg. The agreements and systems which the OLOs were expecting from all the way back to last summer were meant to be signed and deployed by now.

As usual it all comes back to mary O rourke!

Blaster99

Praetorian wrote:

Why did they not complain in Jan, Feb, March or this month?

How do you know they haven't complained privately about this for a long time? Complaining to the media is rarely the first or the smartest thing to do when trying resolve a dispute.

Sponge Bob

Comreg have being reviewing LLU processes and charges since about 2003 so Smart may have assumed in 2003 when they first concocted an LLU strategy for themselves that the LLU process docs review and LLU pricing review would have been totally finished by the time they launched in 2005 .

Their assumption could have been incorrect ! Non ????? I am sure they complained to Comreg in 2004 on more than one occasion .

damien

As far as I know the current (and not the one that it's being changed to) process was agreed by the parties that attended the LLU forum way back when. I don't know who attended those though.

dahamsta

Moriarty wrote:

The OLOs involved in unbundling ([strike]Esat[/strike]BT, Leap, Smart) have been trying to get ComReg to force through changes of practice for the ordering/deployment of LLU since the middle of last year. The OLOs shouldn't have had to do this, as it's a fundamental requirement for large scale LLU provision that should have been one of the core factors dealt with years ago by ComReg. The agreements and systems which the OLOs were expecting from all the way back to last summer were meant to be signed and deployed by now.

Did someone mention hitting nails on the head?

Sponge Bob, after reading your post I went for a trawl through my mailbox, and by my reckoning LLU discussions go back to 1999/2000. Screw the prices, the fact that ComReg (nee ODTR) haven't come up with automated processes in that time is scandalous.

While we're talking about nails, that should be the one in their coffin.

adam

nahdoic

Here, here. Smart 100% right and i still say 'fair play' to them. Comreg 100% wrong.

LLU definitely does go back to 1999/2000 as we were talking about them at the very first offical IOFFL meeting!

And we'd still be waiting till 2010 if Smart waited for Comreg or eircom to get a fully practical and functional LLU process in place.

vinnyfitz

Am I missing something in this conversation?

This carry on is not about LLU it's about number portability which is being used to sabotage the LLU agreement that does exist.

Does anyone know did the negotiations in ComReg's LLU forum cover the topic of number portability? One of three things happened:

a. It was discussed and eircom gave the impression it would be no problem (if so and documented Smart should sue eircom immediatley)
b. It was discussed, Smart spotted the problem and ignored it (unlikely given the predictable customer fury and switching uncertainty)
c. It was not discussed at all (so Smart were a bit dumb not to ask but might be given a fool's pardon?)

Now, did Comreg, who chaired the Forum raise it? Has it been a sabotage strategy in other countries where LLU is more advanced? If so, ComReg should have known about it.

These are relativley straightforward questions. We need answers to them before IOffL could choose which of the three parties to condemn.

Anyway, how complicated is number portability really? The mobile companies can do it within 3 minutes. Why should it take eircom weeks and weeks?

viking

Did anyone happen to catch David McRedmond & Oisin Fanning on Newstalk yesterday (~12.30pm) discussing this matter? Perhaps we can get a transcript of the piece from Newstalk?

Anyway, how complicated is number portability really? The mobile companies can do it within 3 minutes. Why should it take eircom weeks and weeks?

It shouldn't but eircom's DB was never designed for LLU or GNP (Geographic Number Portability).

Eircom's internal systems use the telephone number as the identifier, therefore when the number is LLU'd and when a GNP order is placed on that number, because the number is marked as "off network" it means all associated services with that number (voicemail, diverts, LLU etc) are cancelled.

What does this actually mean? An LLU order followed by a GNP order = Cancelled LLU.

Its not possible at present for any OLO to offer an unbundled line and the previous telephone number to their customers, a new number must be taken.

SeaSide

vinnyfitz wrote:

a. It was discussed and eircom gave the impression it would be no problem (if so and documented Smart should sue eircom immediatley)
b. It was discussed, Smart spotted the problem and ignored it (unlikely given the predictable customer fury and switching uncertainty)
c. It was not discussed at all (so Smart were a bit dumb not to ask but might be given a fool's pardon?)

There is a basic presumption that a customer should be able to retain their number. This should be the start point. This is the case when it comes to mobiles and CPS/WLR.

dahamsta

vinnyfitz wrote:

This carry on is not about LLU it's about number portability

...which is part of the unbundling process, and always has been. This is the point: If Smart didn't spot it, they shouldn't be in the business. But ComReg had to have spotted it, because if there's one thing they're not, it's stupid.

Has it been a sabotage strategy in other countries where LLU is more advanced?

I was thinking that yesterday in relation to the UK, and although there were plenty of hoo-hahs over there, I don't remember this being one of them. However it's worth bearing in mind that only one company did any significant unbundling over there (until recently anyway), and even that was quite limited. They could have been "doing an Esat" on it.

vinnyfitz wrote:

Anyway, how complicated is number portability really? The mobile companies can do it within 3 minutes. Why should it take eircom weeks and weeks?

Like viking said, Eircom's systems weren't designed for it, so implementing it will require a hack. And they'll probably drag that hack out as long as possible.

adam

eircomtribunal

An important thing to keep in mind is: Our telephone numbers are not in any way owned by Eircom.
P.

damien

dahamsta wrote:

...which is part of the unbundling process, and always has been. This is the point: If Smart didn't spot it, they shouldn't be in the business. But ComReg had to have spotted it, because if there's one thing they're not, it's stupid.

To repeat what I said earlier: I believe the current LLU process was agreed by all parties, who at the time were EsatBT and eircom.

After possibly consulting with the current LLU stakeholders(BT/Leap/Smart), ComReg fired two directives at eircom around the end of January this year to sort out the LLU issues (GNP, automation etc) as well as to attend a meeting with all the stakeholders in regards to VOIP. ComReg is a reactive more than proactive body (to use your phrase Adam) so only brought these directives about after they were requested. They seem to see themselves as a facilitator in that regards.

We saw a further directive about attending the VOIP meeting come out around Feb 2nd which eircom complied with. The LLU directive expired Feb 14th, ComReg sent out a new one that evening but around the same time eircom sent in a request to Dempsey to start the appeals process. This is where it goes into a very grey and legal area and an area the High Court should sort out come April 28th and which I don't want to comment on further until then.

Perhaps Smart thought that the GNP and Automation directives would have been adhered to on Feb 14th and so their customers would have been sorted by then when it came to retaining their numbers and not being without service. It would be good to know that if Smart are telling the press they are being roadblocked by eircom that they are also lodging complaints with ComReg and the DCMNR.

What also would be nice to find out from Smart/BT/ComReg is when were requests sent in asking for Automation / GNP. If these issues only came to light recently and were sent on to ComReg then I don't think ComReg can be blamed for this really.

We know how ComReg work as do Smart and BT and Leap. They will only go and facilitate the fixing of a process if they are told it needs to be fixed. If they decide to tell eircom to change the LLU process without getting requests from the OLOs they could be seen as interfering and no doubt eircom would sue them.

vinnyfitz

Thanks for all those clarifications. I am better informed now.

So, basically Smart did know this would be a problem but decided to press ahead anyway. Perhaps they wanted to steal a march on BT? Perhaps they calculated that Eircom footdragging was part of the picture but that untill they put on the pressure through consumer demand it would never be faced up to. Perhaps they were under pressure from their investors to roll out some good news fast?

Who knows? Either way I find this quote from their release yesterday pretty surprising:

Oisin Fanning says that over 80% of the customers who have signed up to Smart Broadband say they are more than happy to take a new telephone number. This means we can get these customers up and running with broadband as soon as possible. Some customers, however, cant take a new number as they may work from home or want to retain their current number.

80% are more than happy to take a new number? Yeah right!

dahamsta

damien.m wrote:

To repeat what I said earlier: I believe the current LLU process was agreed by all parties, who at the time were EsatBT and eircom.

And a few others that didn't unbundle in the end, as you know. I've had reports from inside those meetings, from several sources. Some of the stories I heard - hearsay I know, but this isn't a court of law - were hilarious, some were absolutely scandalous. It was politics though, not regulation. ComReg were "facilitating", as you said.

More importantly, that agreement was an age ago in the timeline of technology. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I doubt we'll ever get those answers. Someone would have to lose their job, and none of these scumbags will let that happen. They're all guilty, if one goes down they all go down.

adam

Blaster99

Why is that so surprising? Most people use mobile phones these days. I couldn't care less if my landline number changed.

dahamsta

And you're the template that Ireland's built on Blaster99.

I'd say that about half the people I know with BB would prefer to retain their existing landline. That's not 80%, obviously, but I'd say a good portion of Smart's first batch of customers would be in Blaster's category vinnyfitz. That'll change as the numbers increase (if they do), but if Mr_Man's numbers are anything to go by there's plenty of time yet. Even 5000/month is a crap figure.

adam

damien

dahamsta wrote:

Even 5000/month is a crap figure.

I would think that 5000 is a very very generous figure. Remember each order for LLU is manually sorted. Then you have another manual order for GNP. The current processing speed is down to the number of employees eircom has processing this.

dahamsta

I meant that generally Damien, i.e. it should be automated and the automated system should have a much higher capacity.

adam

damien

dahamsta wrote:

I meant that generally Damien, i.e. it should be automated and the automated system should have a much higher capacity.

Ah right, deffo. If the Bistream process can take 3-4000 a week the LLU system should be able to do the same.

Blaster99

dahamsta wrote:

And you're the template that Ireland's built on Blaster99.

Am I? Interesting. I was however merely suggesting that the 80% figure isn't all that surprising. But it is truly pointless topic to debate, but that wouldn't be a first for you I suppose.

jwt

Blaster99 wrote:

Am I? Interesting. I was however merely suggesting that the 80% figure isn't all that surprising. But it is truly pointless topic to debate, but that wouldn't be a first for you I suppose.

?????

Did I miss something in this thread?


John

vinnyfitz

Err it was me who raised the hare about 80% and I suspect Adam is right that while a relatively small proportion of early adopters may be wedded to their land-line number a large chunk of the first 100,000 that Smart grandiosely target would get cold feet if they thought they would have to abandon their much loved number.

By the way, assuming Mr Man is right about 5,000 a month it will take Smart quite a long time to connect the first 100,000.

Since Smart did their spinning on Friday morning it is not unreasonable to expect some relatively informed media comment in the Sunday papers tomorrow. Today's bits were thin though I note the Times mentions that Dempsey has yet to convene Hugh Mohan's ComReg appeals panel. Apparently

Eircom said the issue could be dealt with quickly if the Minister convened the panel".

Why do I have my doubts about that?

Will ComReg have provided comment for the Sundays I wonder?

Mr_Man

That figure came directly from Smart's CEO in a TV interview I saw just after they had announced their 2mb/€35 offer.

HTH

M.

jwt

vinnyfitz wrote:

By the way, assuming Mr Man is right about 5,000 a month it will take Smart quite a long time to connect the first 100,000.

emm 20 months maybe?

vinnyfitz wrote:

Since Smart did their spinning on Friday morning it is not unreasonable to expect some relatively informed media comment in the Sunday papers tomorrow. Today's bits were thin though I note the Times mentions that Dempsey has yet to convene Hugh Mohan's ComReg appeals panel. Apparently

I'm wondering how long Dempsey can ignore this and pretend nothing is happening. we'll see.

vinnyfitz wrote:

Will ComReg have provided comment for the Sundays I wonder?

Expect lots of talk without actually saying anything.

Meanwhile in the background they'll be running around trying desperately to find someway of passing the buck without actually passing the buck in any meaningful way to anyone else. That way they don't risk upsetting anyone important*





John

*Consumers are insignificant little people who should be seen not heard

dahamsta

vinnyfitz wrote:

By the way, assuming Mr Man is right about 5,000 a month it will take Smart quite a long time to connect the first 100,000.

I was going to mention that but after my last mathematical display I decided not to! Let's see if I can avoid embarassing myself this time: It would be 20 months, right? A quarter shy of two years. And that's just Smart.

Mr_Man wrote:

That figure came directly from Smart's CEO in a TV interview I saw just after they had announced their 2mb/€35 offer.

Ah. The estimates I've seen peg it at about a thousand. I've seen reports of 500. Oisin seems to have a problem with numbers, perhaps we should club together and buy him a nice calculator?

adam

damien

vinnyfitz wrote:

Since Smart did their spinning on Friday morning it is not unreasonable to expect some relatively informed media comment in the Sunday papers tomorrow.

I'll be buying the Sunday Times anyway ...

Sponge Bob

Remember LLU was first spoken of c. 1999 (correct Adam).

This Phase 1 LLU was deployed by ESAT in 2002 , it took 3 years .

Phase 2 LLU with price and process mods was first spoken of in 2003 and is not yet live , its in the courts still but expect this year .

Many of the reports Adam heard would have been from participants who decided that phase 1 was cack and phase 2 not a lot better so they never unbundled .

Phase 3 LLU will be discussed, starting next year , and will deploy in the wild about early 2008 with price and process mods too. We know because the price runs out about then .

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0491.pdf

Smart better hang in there till 2008 I would think. .

vinnyfitz

Slightly surprisingly, I did not see anything about this in the Sundays - Tribune, Post or Times...

damien

It was in the Indo though:

Smart accuses Eircom of 'sabotaging' its broadband service
JANE SUITER and EDDIE LENNON

SMART Telecom has accused Eircom of deliberately sabotaging the introduction of its broadband internet service, despite intensive TV and media promotion.

Despite using magician Keith Barry in glossy TV adverts and offering the first 100,000 customers free line rental for life, Smart has connected just 600 people and it blames rival Eircom for stalling its new customers.

Chief executive Oisin Fanning said that some 28,000 people have now signed up for the service and he hoped all of these would be "live" by the end of July. However, headmitted that a maximumof 100 a day are currentlybeing switched between the two services.

Other sources disputed these figures, saying Smart has signed only a "handful" of people. Customers who sign up supply their direct-debit details but no money is taken until the service is running.

So far, customers in 15 exchanges from Walkinstown and Crumlin to Dublin's city centre and Whitehall have access to Smart equipment.

All other Dublin exchanges will have the equipment installed by the end of June and these will then be followed by Cork, Waterford, Galway, Limerick and Athlone. Smart has licences to go into 64 exchanges across the country. Mr Fanning hit out at Eircom saying the telecoms operator was blocking consumers from switching to Smart Telecom.

"We have to email a separate spreadsheet to Eircom for every customer we want to change over. There is no reason for that and we should be able to switch over thousands of people at a time as happens with the other business products," he said.

He also hit out at what he called Eircom's continual attempt to stifle competition by threatening to leave Smart customers without any telephone service.

"We are providing competition and the simple fact of the matter is that Eircom don't like it. Why else would they bother trying to stifle us at every turn and put unreasonable obstacles in our way?"

Smart customers have to give up their old phone number and according to Fanning 80 per cent do so. "Customers really shouldn't have to put up with problems being invented by Eircom in a bid to stall us," he said. "This is just a farcical scenario and one which needs to be addressed urgently." Smart is offering a two megabyte service at €35 a month - half the cost of the service offered by rivals where line rent also has to be paid.

The ongoing judicial review between the telecom regulator and Eircom is also likely to slow the process. The final hearing is set for Thursday week but it is still unclear when the decision will be handed down. The regulator wants to make it easier for people to move from Eircom to rivals such as Smart.

Consumer watchdogs have also hit out at Eircom's tardiness in providing broadband for many customers. Dermott Jewell, chief executive of the Consumers Association of Ireland, said: "It defies the whole logic of trying to get a fast internet connection if the provider can't respond efficiently and fast enough. The failure to provide broadband services does not seem to be given equal prominence to Eircom's hard sell and marketing spin."

Sponge Bob

damien.m wrote:

It was in the Indo though:

"600 Customers"

Smart have only 4 or 5 live LLU exchanges so far , the fact that they connected an average of 120 customers per exchange in under a month is an achievement in itself.

ESAT have 40 live LLU exchanges and less than 4000 LLU customers connected to them , or less than 100 customers per exchange but thats in 3 years since they started (April 2002)

In relative terms Smart have done quite well , we all wish they could do better of course and wish them the best in scaling their unbundling to the agreed 5000 per month by ummm .....May 2005 I hope .