Give proper control back to the state

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
If anything, it is the ODTR who should go to court to force compliance with an order!

Too true. Isn't the arrogance of Eircom just astounding? How have they gotten away with this for so long? How have they hidden it from the public? God knows, I've been ranting about them for years now.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's like living in a dictatorship. Most people just go along with it because "sure, what can you do". Only a few, initally speak out. It's not as bad here as a dictatorship but the principle, I think, is the same.

cmkrnl

I have never read so much simple minded ****e in all my life. Despite all the assertion to the contrary there never has been any nirvana wr.t public ownership of any service in Ireland.

Tell me this now & tell me no more.

How did the average Irish taypayer exercise ANY recognised rights of ownership when TE (as it was) or any other semi state was publically owned in his/her name ? Going to the ballot box once every 4 years doesn't count.

Who paid the wages when TE was the most overmanned telco in Europe, at one stage over 3 x the employees of similar sized telcos in the world.

Who chose the great and good to sit on the boards of these so called semi states to act in the names of the public ? Ever wonder why they ended up as nice comfortable sinecures for failed politicians & TDs hell bent on parish pump interference. Why didn't anyone go to prison for Greencore ?

What gave the state the right to hand free shares as a bribe to already feather bedded employess at privitisation ? What entitlement had they in preference to all other taxpayers in the country ?

State ownership, despite jobs for life with index linked non contribitutary pensions etc has been no impediment to public sector unions & their members holding the poor f*ckers who pay their wages (i.e private sector taxpayers) to ransom with labour unrest that would be wholly unacceptable out in the real world.

Why is the state bailing out Cunni Lingus to the tune of £5bn, when based on past behaviour this money will be used to put privately owned competiton out of business.

Why weren't the board of Aer Rianta publically sacked for their asinine response to the unbelievable report a few months back ?

For answers to these & other questions, 66-80 wasters in Dail Eireann should be made to find gainful employment elsewhere......


greg

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
I have never read so much simple minded ****e in all my life. Despite all the assertion to the contrary there never has been any nirvana wr.t public ownership of any service in Ireland.

Nobody has been saying that there has been or will be a "nirvana". Please explain why a private monopoly owned by foreign financial interests is the way to go.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
State ownership, despite jobs for life with index linked non contribitutary pensions etc has been no impediment to public sector unions & their members holding the poor f*ckers who pay their wages (i.e private sector taxpayers) to ransom with labour unrest that would be wholly unacceptable out in the real world.

How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckers

Why is the state bailing out Cunni Lingus to the tune of £5bn, when based on past behaviour this money will be used to put privately owned competiton out of business.

Because they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.

Why weren't the board of Aer Rianta publically sacked for their asinine response to the unbelievable report a few months back ?

What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.
[edit: put in some question marks]

cmkrnl

Originally posted by SkepticOne
How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckersBecause they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.
[edit: put in some question marks]

cmkrnl

How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckers

Why shouldn't it be for the benefit of the consortium, its "their" business after all, they own it. Govts have it within their means to regulate "certain" industries in the benefits of the consumer. It just requires the political will to set up the independent means to do so. "Independent" is the word here. Something outside political control. It was the FTC that broke up AT&T, scared the bejesus out of IBM & a lot more other companies that were not acting in American consumer interests.

You do not want it anywhere near the slimey hands of the scrotes who are only interested in protecting the 2nd/3rd marginal seat in some constituency.

Because they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.

The notion of a so called "national flag carrier" would be laughable if not for the financial burden it places on the taxpayers purely in the interests of political ego. Are they stupid enough to assume that airlines will stop flying into Ireland just because there is no "flag carrier". Its the same parish pump BS that mandated a Shannon stop over for trans atlantic traffic, whilst wilfully ignoring the loss of european hub traffic to airports such as Manchester, Schipol & CDG. Millions of pounds of business lost just to secure some marginals round the shannon estuary.

What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

If it was a private monopoly it would be illegal under EU competition rules. But that's is no suprise to the hard trodden Irish Consumer as derogation after derogation (in the so called "national interest") from the benefits of the Single market have been implemented in the interests of one pleading vested interest group or another. VRT, external access to the Insurance Market etc just to name one or two.

That so called elected representatives allowed themselves to be \[ab\]used by Aer Rianta to block the independent development of Baldonnel as a second runway for Dublin is a complete disgrace but no suprise. Competition scares the crap out of them.

Did you read the report ? Of the proposed £1bn of expenditure on Dublin only approx 1/5th was justified in any business sense. The rest was just an act of self-agrandisement. The bluster & personal attacks on the author of the report by the board of Aer Rianta were utterly disgusting.

The state has no business "owning" airports, airlines, hotels, hospitals etc. It has business "regulating" these facilities & ensuring competition, but ownership never.

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.

That'll never work as the wonks who really run things i.e the civil servants @ the Dept of Finance, will quite happily starve these facilities of funds to finance the ministers pet projects elsewhere.


greg

Evil Phil

I voted yes.

A vital part of the countries infrastructure should not be handed over to a corperation. Its there to serve the public and the country and is not there to generate profit.

cmkrnl

Originally posted by Evil Phil
I voted yes.

A vital part of the countries infrastructure should not be handed over to a corperation. Its there to serve the public and the country and is not there to generate profit.

Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.


greg

Giblet

i dont think it's about profit but were the profit is going
there is *NO* reason we shouldnt have ADSL here now
the fact is were paying through the nose for the *service* were currently getting.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
Why shouldn't it be for the benefit of the consortium, its "their" business after all, they own it.

By the same token, shouldn't they be allowed to run it as they see fit, set prices and not have to deal with all the red tape?

Govts have it within their means to regulate "certain" industries in the benefits of the consumer. It just requires the political will to set up the independent means to do so. "Independent" is the word here. Something outside political control. It was the FTC that broke up AT&T, scared the bejesus out of IBM & a lot more other companies that were not acting in American consumer interests.

Fine, so you don't mind quangos interfering in the affairs of business provided they are not democratically accountable.

The notion of a so called "national flag carrier" would be laughable if not for the financial burden it places on the taxpayers purely in the interests of political ego. Are they stupid enough to assume that airlines will stop flying into Ireland just because there is no "flag carrier". Its the same parish pump BS that mandated a Shannon stop over for trans atlantic traffic, whilst wilfully ignoring the loss of european hub traffic to airports such as Manchester, Schipol & CDG. Millions of pounds of business lost just to secure some marginals round the shannon estuary.

I don't think that Aer Lingus should be propped up by government either. As you say, if they go under, there's plenty of competition out there to take their place.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl


Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.

I think it should make a profit and this profit should be reinvested in the infrastructure and not shipped out of the country.

dahamsta

Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.

I haven't "voted" here yet, but...

It's not voodoo at all. The infrastructure doesn't have to be run at a loss, or even at cost, it just needs to be run cost-effectively, and pricing has to be cost-oriented. Pricing is calculated not with an eye to distributing wealth, but with a profit required to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. It's called "plough back profits", and it's economics and business organisation 101. Leaving Certificate students learn it in Fifth Year.

[NOTE: This is how motor tax should be used, but it isn't, the government uses it to prop up less profitable ventures. This is precisely why I haven't voted yet. I'm not sure it's a good idea.]

I think the righteous indignation is a bit over the top to be honest greg. I get a bit righteous every now and then meself, but I do try and avoid insulting the intelligence of others. Do you want a hand down off that horse?

(I try, I didn't say I'm always successful. )

adam

SkepticOne

I'm by no means a fan of state ownership. It should be kept to a minumum where possible. In general, I believe that services should be supplied by competing companies. Where competition is very difficult to achieve then state control is necessary.

If there was several competing infrastructures, then I would not be arguing for state control. If I wanted, say, broadband Internet then I could phone around and get the best deal. It would be in the interest of these private companies to reinvest profits in improving services in order to get my business.

How likely is it that we will have competing infrastructures? It is a matter of opinion but I'm pessimistic looking around at what we've got at the moment (Chorus, NTL etc). Other companies don't seem to be queuing up to compete in Ireland either. It might be due to the small sise of the country or the economic downturn but I don't see things changing anytime soon.

So state control is necessary, IMO. This can be achieved through either direct ministerial control or indirectly through some government appointed body. Whether it should be direct or indirect is important but is not the issue here.

What is under discussion is whether state control should be through regulation or ownership.

My reason for favouring ownership is that it puts the various telcos on an even footing and stimulates competition. The "regulated monopoly" is too one sided and I fear that Eircom will always dominate when it comes to new services and can put barriers in the way of OLOs that the regulator has not yet anticipated.

dahamsta

After much thought and review of the responses posted above, I finally voted 'no'. This was in fact my initial response, but I wanted to be sure.

It's my view that the only real way to tackle this is with a long-term solution. (As it is, "short-term" has probably worked out worse than if we'd implemented a long-term solution five years ago.) And I think that the only real, viable long-term solution is with legislation. If you repurchase the comms infrastructure, you're still going to have to introduce legislation to control the organisation tasked with controlling it. It's also going to cost the country a bloody fortune - one we can ill-afford at the moment; and more importantly one we shouldn't have to expend.

Consequently, I don't think that giving control of the comms infrastructure back to the State is a viable option - at least for the State - and Eircom should be allowed to retain control. However, and this is a very important however, they should not be allowed use the infrastructure to generate profits bar for the maintenance and expansion of said infrastructure. Furthermore, maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure should be strictly regulated, and even subsidised if necessary.

There is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't work out to Eircom's advantage, as a properly maintained infrastructure, and one that is expanding, is good for the service business, which is where Eircom should be concentrating their business anyway. And if Eircom don't like that, then *they* should consider making an offer to the government.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Consequently, I don't think that giving control of the comms infrastructure back to the State is a viable option - at least for the State - and Eircom should be allowed to retain control.

Do you not mean that Eircom should retain ownership but ultimate control of infrastructure should remain with the state? The next quote seems to imply this.

However, and this is a very important however, they should not be allowed use the infrastructure to generate profits bar for the maintenance and expansion of said infrastructure. Furthermore, maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure should be strictly regulated, and even subsidised if necessary.
adam

Is there any difference between strict regulation and control? BTW, I am in favour of strict regulation.

<edit: I realise this looks like nit-picking, but for the sort of regulation that is required, the regulator is basically "running" the infrastructure. Maybe I've misunderstood, though>

dahamsta

It's not nit-picking SkepticOne, if you don't fully understand what I was trying to say, others will too. I'd prefer to be perfectly clear when getting my point across.

So, the question was, do I agree with the following statement, 'yes' or 'no':

"The Government, on behalf of the state, should buy back the telephone network infrastructure, including telephone lines and exchanges, from eircom plc., - infrastructure that the Irish public originally paid for through taxes, etc.,- effectively making eircom 'just another telecom company' who would then have to rent this infrastructure from the state in exactly the same way as Esat or any other licensed operator."

I'm answering 'no', because, viability concerns aside, it means the government will have to do two jobs: 1) They'll have to learn how to promote comms usage in Ireland effectively, to the benefit of the State and it's inhabitants, and; 2) they'll have to manage, improve and extend the comms infrastructure.

The government has already demonstrated without doubt its absolute incompetence with the former, even with all the rhetoric spouted in the last few years about "hubs" and whatnot. But the fact remains that, sooner rather than later, they're going to have to pull their socks up, yank the finger out of whatever orifice it's currently inserted in, and learn.

It's my opinion that lumping the comms infrastructure on top of that - vast, it has to be said - amount of knowledge they have to accumulate will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The government has a chance now to learn from their mistakes. It's not too late to pull back, look at the problems and resolve them quickly and efficiently, and drag Ireland back to a competitive stance in Europe. I honestly believe that, I think it's possible.

But today's case in the Court 6 goes against that. Three weeks is too much leeway to give Eircom to "inform" the other organisations of the court case. Jesus, I'll run up there in my car to tell them if necessary.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
I'm answering 'no', because, viability concerns aside, it means the government will have to do two jobs: 1) They'll have to learn how to promote comms usage in Ireland effectively, to the benefit of the State and it's inhabitants, and; 2) they'll have to manage, improve and extend the comms infrastructure.

and

It's my opinion that lumping the comms infrastructure on top of that - vast, it has to be said - amount of knowledge they have to accumulate will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The government has a chance now to learn from their mistakes. It's not too late to pull back, look at the problems and resolve them quickly and efficiently, and drag Ireland back to a competitive stance in Europe. I honestly believe that, I think it's possible.

But the alternative, that you are suggesting, will involve two jobs as well. 1) Promotion as above, 2) Detailed regulation of the infrastructure. Presumably, in cases of dispute, the regulator would have final say and Eircom would not have recourse to the courts etc. Now I maintain that this detailed regulation is a form of control which would require deep knowledge of telecommunications as would be the case with state ownership. Effectively, the state is running the infrastructure although it is owned by a private company.

This is the point I was making earlier.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea - it's certainly a lot cheaper than buying back the infrastructure. The only problem is that you are dealing with an organisation whose interests might be quite different to the state and would be scheming about how to get around state (regulatory) directives.

cmkrnl

By the same token, shouldn't they be allowed to run it as they see fit, set prices and not have to deal with all the red tape?

That would be general idea, IF there was proper competition.

Fine, so you don't mind quangos interfering in the affairs of business provided they are not democratically accountable.

IIRC the FTC is part of the justice department, not a quango. You can't say it's not democratically accountable,


greg

cmkrnl

Originally posted by SkepticOne

I think it should make a profit and this profit should be reinvested in the infrastructure and not shipped out of the country.

Still doesn't explain whats going to pay for investment if profits made & used as seen fit. Ireland already spent the first 40 odd years of its existance going down the whole import substitution route, much to the detriment of both the consumer & industry.


greg

cmkrnl

It's not voodoo at all. The infrastructure doesn't have to be run at a loss, or even at cost, it just needs to be run cost-effectively, and pricing has to be cost-oriented. Pricing is calculated not with an eye to distributing wealth, but with a profit required to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. It's called "plough back profits", and it's economics and business organisation 101. Leaving Certificate students learn it in Fifth Year.

Nice as the theory is, the problem is that will never ever work in an Irish context for a whole host of reasons, political, social & financial.

[NOTE: This is how motor tax should be used, but it isn't, the government uses it to prop up less profitable ventures. This is precisely why I haven't voted yet. I'm not sure it's a good idea.]

Funny you should mention that, but that's one of the reasons why it would not work. Politicians bent on electoral bribery will see it as a nice fat goose to be plucked filling a pork barrel somewhere else.

Come soon to a car near you. Hideous CC based taxation, VRT & now on top Road Tolls. Its funny how politicians dont have to pay Benefit in Kind taxation on chauffer driven Benzes.

I think the righteous indignation is a bit over the top to be honest greg. I get a bit righteous every now and then meself, but I do try and avoid insulting the intelligence of others. Do you want a hand down off that horse?

Humour was bad this morning :-), Didn't intend it to be so strident :-). However the mind just boggles @ the naivety of those who assume that state ownership would actually change anything when only in the most recent past it has been proven otherwise.



greg

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl


Still doesn't explain whats going to pay for investment if profits made & used as seen fit.

I think dahamsta explained this fairly well.

Ireland already spent the first 40 odd years of its existance going down the whole import substitution route, much to the detriment of both the consumer & industry.

Although stopping money leaving the country might have been the reason for import substitution, that is not what is being suggested here.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
Humour was bad this morning :-), Didn't intend it to be so strident :-). However the mind just boggles @ the naivety of those who assume that state ownership would actually change anything when only in the most recent past it has been proven otherwise.

I believe it's naive to expect service to improve simply because you have privatised a telephone company. They might put out propaganda to that effect but you don't need to believe them.

I was in Britain around the time the water utilities were being being privatised. Sure enough, no improvement except for the chief executive who's salary increased. They might have sacked a few people. Same drinking water for the rest of us. To me it doesn't matter what sort of streamlining measures are brought in if it doesn't lead to improved service.

If Eircom were given free reign to do what they liked it would be a disaster for the country.

I believe in private enterprise but only if proper competition can be ensured.

dahamsta

[I don't agree with a lot of the stuff in greg's postings, but I'm finding myself arguing both sides here - for different reasons, I'm just trying to apply logic - and I'm confusing myself (I;m blond, go figure). Some other day perhaps. ]

But the alternative, that you are suggesting, will involve two jobs as well.

You're right of course, but although regulation will require in-depth knowledge of comms, it wouldn't require hands-on work and all its associated difficulties. They wouldn't have to deal with labour problems, security, hardware and assets, etc, beyond obvious regulatory exceptions (security). There's a big difference between enforcing rules and implementing them in the field. So, to correct my original statement, the government will be doing two jobs instead of three!

To be honest, I have to admit that my decision is swayed somewhat by the viability aspect though. I find it very hard to put the belief that this is simply not going to happen out of my mind, and this is part of the reason I took so long to decide. It's a "what if" of sorts and to be honest, although I'm a dreamer by nature - and maybe because of that - "what if's" don't do much for me. I don't really see the point.

The only problem is that you are dealing with an organisation whose interests might be quite different to the state and would be scheming about how to get around state (regulatory) directives.

Although in Eircom's case this is simply a nightmare, it isn't always a bad thing. When organisations dig for loopholes and try and get around regulation, it invariably leads to closed loopholes and stronger rules. Of course the proper answer is stronger rules from the off, and forward thought, but that's rarely possible. (That sounds twee and a weak defense, but it's not meant to be defensive, just informative. I could have just ignored it... )

If Eircom were given free reign to do what they liked it would be a disaster for the country. I believe in private enterprise but only if proper competition can be ensured.

But Eircom already have free reign. That's exactly what I want to try and stop, with legislation.

adam

SkepticOne

I largely agree with the post. If regulation can work in such a way that competitors are not at too much disadvantage, then I am happy to settle for it. The state-owned infrastructure is not going to happen.

Originally posted by dahamsta
But Eircom already have free reign. That's exactly what I want to try and stop, with legislation.

If they had free reign, there would be nothing to stop them raising their call charges by 50% making up some excuse that we would have no choice but to accept. So I think the little bit we have helps a lot. But there needs to be further discussion about how future regulation needs to be carried out though. I think major changes are needed in the regulatory philosophy. But that is for another day.

Bard

Originally posted by SkepticOne

If they had free reign, there would be nothing to stop them raising their call charges by 50% making up some excuse that we would have no choice but to accept.

We're not -that- stupid and gullible as a people, ... really!

They pretty-much do have free reign, really, - what stops them from ramping their prices to even more ridiculous levels is the slight shred of common sense that they do have.

I think major changes are needed in the regulatory philosophy. But that is for another day.

Agreed... and agreed.