Whats the difference between the ODTR and Oftel

yellum

After reading this story on the Register -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24135.html about how Oftel in the UK will make BT cut their FRIACO charges , I'm wondering what the differences between the ODTR and Oftel are, and what is needed to be done by the Government here to make the ODTR more like Oftel

Fergus

A big difference is that OFTEL has concurrent jurisdiction with the Office of Fair Trading over the Competition Act the in UK, which means OFTEL can seek penalties for non-complying parties of up to 10% of turnover for three years, and/or imprisonment.

See this doc on the OFTEL site.

"1.5 In the telecommunications sector the Director General of Telecommunications (‘DGT’) and the Director General of Fair Trading (‘DGFT’) have concurrent jurisdiction to apply and enforce the Competition Act."

"2.20 If a person fails to comply with a direction, the Director General may seek a court order compelling him to do so. Non-compliance with such an order is a contempt of court punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

2.21 Infringement of either of the prohibitions may result in a financial penalty of up to 10 per cent of an undertaking’s turnover in the United Kingdom for each year that the infringement lasted, up to a maximum of 3 years."

aidan_dunne

And it's those kinds of power that the government here need to give the ODTR so they can actually do their job properly and regulate the telecoms industry fairly and competitively. However, in this country there is, and always has been, a history of big businesses (such as Eircom) giving politicians favours, backhanders and what not in order to retain control of monopolies, get planning for different things, etc. You just have to look at all the tribunals the past few years to see that. In America, if a politican gets caught doing those kinds of things, there's absolute uproar. In Britain, whilst being more reserved than the yanks, if a political scandal breaks the offending politician goes in front of parliament to face strict questioning, is usually made to apologise publicly and, in most cases, ends up having to resign. What happens here, though? A politician denies everything, gets the support of his party leader and continues on as if nothing has happened. Or, in the case of someone like Liam Lawlor, stubbornly refuses to comply with the tribunal, does a week or two in jail in total comfort, comes out again and when told to comply with the tribunal basically sticks two fingers up at the entire country and says, "F**k all of you. I'll do what I like!"

So, getting back to my point, looking at the re-drafted Comms Bill, with it's 'flat-rate' fine instead of 10% of profit, we can see another example of a company (Eircom) lobbying government officials and politicians in order to get a bill changed to their advantage. And I think that as long as there is this kind of corruption within government, we'll continue to be shafted.

The politicians are supposed to be our public representatives. They are supposed to get the average Joe Soap a fair deal. However, as long as the likes of Eircom continue to hand over bulging brown envelopes to our so-called 'public representatives' we never will get a fair deal. The government needs to give the ODTR the powers to do it's job properly, just like OFTEL in the UK, and it needs to do it NOW! And not with the sh!tty, watered down version of the Comms Bill it's trying to pass at the moment.

Rant over!