EU-wide telecoms rules set for delay

dahamsta

Via ENN. I think these might have been transposed already in Ireland, but I'm not sure.

EUROPE INTERNATIONAL NEWS: EU-wide telecoms rules set for delay By Daniel Dombey and Francesco Guerrera in Brussels
Daniel Dombey and Francesco Guerrera

Financial Times; Apr 29, 2003

New rules for Europe's troubled telecommunications sector look likely to be delayed for several months, despite industry's concern that further uncertainty could damage attempts to create a level playing field.

The EU's telecoms package, the product of several years of negotiations, is intended to give the European Commission the right to overrule national regulators, a key step towards ensuring a common approach in a fragmented European market.

But France concedes that it will miss the July deadline to pass the legislation into national law, while Germany and Belgium are also likely to be late. Perhaps the most serious delay will be in the Netherlands, which may not be able to pass the rules this year.

[...]

MDR

doh ! :rolleyes:

Dangger

This was mentioned here.

Aidan [Hodson] explained that the deadline set by the EU for the transposition of the new directives into Irish law was the final deadline and that the Department hope to be finished the transposition well before the deadline

I will investigate as to how the tranposition is proceeding. It would nice to be ahead of the posse on something!

dahamsta

I can't say I care either way about this legislation. The EU has consistently refused to tackle the problems in Ireland and other small European states, even in light of horrendously anti-competitive behaviour from both the incumbent and it's alleged competitors. Eircom's behaviour on PPC's (Partial Private Circuits) is a perfect example of this, but we've seen dozens of others where the incumbent has effectively stuck two fingers up at our regulators, and our regulators have effectively kowtowed to their arrogance by extending deadlines and adjusting products and services to suit the incumbent. In addition, there can be no denying that there are and always have been serious issues with price-fixing and operator collusion in Ireland.

I've seen this inaction first-hand, having complained personally to Erkii Liikanen about the issues in Ireland in 2001. The Commissioner's response was a letter pledging to investigate, and a second letter one and a half years later explaining that the issues I highlighted have been corrected. This is as much as saying that the Commission's method of dealing with issues in smaller European states is to wait as long as it takes for them to go away. The Commissioner would probably suggest that the legislation being discussed here is the solution to this problem, but this would be offensive to our collective intelligence. There are other ways to tackle these problems, such as handing them off to the Competition Commissioner, but Liikanen has personalised his relationship with Monti and precluded this.

Waiting for the European Commission to correct issues in our country is a waste of valuable time. Europe's bureacracies move at a continental-drift-like pace, and they still haven't realised that if they want to compete globally in the technology marketplace - in any marketplace these days, in fact, since technology is and should be the mainstay of modern business - they have to put on their running spikes and get with the program, with fast-tracked legislation and the ability to turn on a ten-cent piece. Their ignorance and inabilities thus far are exemplified by their inability to cope with the fast pace of modern-day telecommunications, the inner core of modern-day technology. Of course, this is also true at a local level, but tackling the problems at local level should be easier by definition. By default even, when you consider our current telecommunications competitivity.

IrelandOffline, it's members and other organisations and concerned parties would be much better off handling this at a domestic level, by talking to representatives both local and national, by petitioning the Ministers and Shadow Ministers responsible, by writing Bills and pushing them into the Houses of the Oireachtas. It's about time for a follow-up to the Communications Bill by now anyway, isn't it? Shouldn't that have been kick-started the day the Communications Bill passed, in all it's disgustingly naked, stripped glory?

adam

spongebob

Originally posted by dahamsta
I can't say I care either way about this legislation. The EU has consistently refused to tackle the problems in Ireland and other small European states, even in light of horrendously anti-competitive behaviour from both the incumbent and it's alleged competitors. Eircom's behaviour on PPC's (Partial Private Circuits) is a perfect example of this, but we've seen dozens of others where the incumbent has effectively stuck two fingers up at our regulators, and our regulators have effectively kowtowed to their arrogance by extending deadlines and adjusting products and services to suit the incumbent. In addition, there can be no denying that there are and always have been serious issues with price-fixing and operator collusion in Ireland.

The set of directives to be Transposed by the 25/07/03 is supposed to help fix this by giving the Regulators more powers and by doing so in a consistent way. The French govenment ..... who will miss this deadline....are probably trying to protect a prize turkey called France Telecom as they restructure its huge debt. We are farly on target even if the Comreg response to USO consultation (due in the past 2 weeks) has still not been issued.

I eagerly await this in the sincere hope that Comreg have formulated a clear and coherent picture of the rights of the citizen in the information age. Maybe I'll join you in the 'slough' if it goes pear shaped or if they refuse to recognise the importance of the USO in the package of directives once implemented.

I've seen this inaction first-hand, having complained personally to Erkii Liikanen about the issues in Ireland in 2001.

Your complaint would appear to fall into Commissioner Montis ambit rather than Commissioner Liikanens....Monti is the Competition Commissioner.

IrelandOffline, it's members and other organisations and concerned parties would be much better off handling this at a domestic level, by talking to representatives both local and national, by petitioning the Ministers and Shadow Ministers responsible, by writing Bills and pushing them into the Houses of the Oireachtas.
adam

IoffL has done all of the above in the past two years, as a part time organisation it has covered a vast number of angles both within and outside its core remit . Individuals connected with IoffL however loosely, have pushed politicans both nationally and locally as you know perfectly well in your own area Adam.

Your overall presentation of the issues is too downbeat IMO. You make it out that none of this has been done and that informed discussion and lobbying is at the starting gate, I think that reality is very different even if that reality is sub optimal.

M

dahamsta

Muck, just because I've been critical of IrelandOffline in the past doesn't mean I'm /always/ being critical of IrelandOffline.

The set of directives to be Transposed by the 25/07/03 is supposed to help fix this by giving the Regulators more powers and by doing so in a consistent way.

I was under the impression that the directives were intended to give the /European Commission/ more powers, most notably the power to intervene at local level. I guess it could be interpreted as something to threaten the operators with, but isn't that kind of taking power /away/ from local regulators? The I'm Telling Mom Directive? Perhaps there's more to the directives than I'm giving them credit for, in which case I'd love to hear about it in three short sentences; but if there isn't, my argument stands: We need better legislation at local level, and we need the existing legislation acted on strictly, swiftly and proactively.

Your complaint would appear to fall into Commissioner Montis ambit rather than Commissioner Liikanens....Monti is the Competition Commissioner.

Due respect Muck, without seeing the complaint you really shouldn't be speculating; you should know that I'm perfectly aware who Liikanen and Monti are and what they do; and you should know that there is and always has been a reluctance on the part of telecommunications regulators and competition commissioners to clearly define territories and rules of engagement, both at European and domestic level. It's only recently these problems have even been recognised, never mind corrected.

IoffL has done all of the above in the past two years

See my first sentence. I might add thay I specifically added mention of their members and other organisations and individuals to negate arguments like this. Obviously that wasn't enough to displace the standard IO sensitivity. The fact remains that local legislation and our regulators are too weak and need constant care and attention to make Ireland competitive on the global stage.

adam

MDR

Obviously that wasn't enough to displace the standard IO sensitivity.

Muck, just because I've been critical of IrelandOffline in the past doesn't mean I'm /always/ being critical of IrelandOffline.

Adam,

it is all too easy too assume your casting 'whatever' or 'whoever' in a negative light, because usually you are, don't be too quick to blame Muck for any pre-conceptions he (or others) may hold about your posts in general, as you have indeed had a hand in building them.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
I can't say I care either way about this legislation.

One wonders then, what your purpose was in posting the thread if it has no bearing, as you say, on the situation in Ireland. Your initial post expressed uncertainty as to whether or not the the EU directives were transposed, yet when the chairman undertakes to find out, you then go on a long explanation as to why these directives are not important. I'm just wondering why you did not say this in the first place.

Dangger

I can confirm that after contact with the DCMNR today they are still on target for the July deadline and they have formally transmitted drafts of the regulations to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government, whose job it is to finalise the legal texts of the regulations before they are signed into law by the Minister. The consultation responses have been evaluated and the drafts will be further revised in light of the responses.

dahamsta

MDR, the last time I looked Muck wasn't a committee member, so I wasn't referring to you guys in particular. SkepticOne, I didn't know I needed a reason to post relevant telecomms news here, neither did I realise I needed permission to post an opinion, one which I might add wasn't being critical of Dave Long or IrelandOffline.

Jeez guys, take a chill pill like.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
SkepticOne, I didn't know I needed a reason to post relevant telecomms news here, neither did I realise I needed permission to post an opinion, one which I might add wasn't being critical of Dave Long or IrelandOffline.

I was just wondering if you had a purpose in posting info that you later say you don't care about after Dave said that he would get more info on.

spongebob

Originally posted by dahamsta
MDR, the last time I looked Muck wasn't a committee member, so I wasn't referring to you guys in particular. SkepticOne, I didn't know I needed a reason to post relevant telecomms news here, neither did I realise I needed permission to post an opinion, one which I might add wasn't being critical of Dave Long or IrelandOffline.

Jeez guys, take a chill pill like.

adam

Quite

Going back to your previous post (the one that had the Committee standing up for themselves )........ let me say that I have frequently voiced my opinion on what should be done, this has frequently been at variance with the committees view but we get on fine anyway coz it ain't worth arguing over. Nor have I ever been on the Committee or at a meeting. Lets get technical instead.

Originally posted by dahamsta
Muck, just because I've been critical of IrelandOffline in the past doesn't mean I'm always being critical of IrelandOffline.

True, lets not bother with them so. Lets talk about directives.

The set of directives to be Transposed by the 25/07/03 is supposed to help fix this by giving the Regulators more powers and by doing so in a consistent way.

I was being precise in describing their effect If , as seems likely in Ireland , they are transposed and become law. They are not desparately needed in Holland Belgium and France. You started the thread by pointing us to the FT saying that the Directives may be implemented later than seems likely here.

I was under the impression that the directives were intended to give the /European Commission/ more powers, most notably the power to intervene at local level. I guess it could be interpreted as something to threaten the operators with, but isn't that kind of taking power /away/ from local regulators? The I'm Telling Mom Directive? Perhaps there's more to the directives than I'm giving them credit for, in which case I'd love to hear about it in three short sentences; but if there isn't, my argument stands: We need better legislation at local level, and we need the existing legislation acted on strictly, swiftly and proactively.

The 5 Directives, 4 of which become Law in Ireland in less than 3 months are Significantly more powerful than the Communications Act 2002 when read collectively. The CA2002 set up Comreg but the Directives grant unto Comreg a strong set of teeth with which to regulate.......... the CA2002 is far weaker in this respect. Essentially the Directives specify the many areas in which Comreg has a mandate to regulate. That mandate becomes law shortly and is far meatier than a CA2003 could ever be.

Comreg has greatly enhanced..... once they declare that an Operator(s) has Significant Market Power in any or all of many (is it 18?) separate market segments within the overall Telecommunications field. They can then stop that operator from acting in an anticompetitive or antisocial manner and generally abusing its m,onopoly or near monopoly position. Eircom have SMP in 10 or so of these 18 segments. Sky in one. Voodoofone in 2 or 3 , Chorus and NTL in 2 or 3 others. The guilt may be shared in one or two segments such as Directory Inquiries or Mobile coverage because Comreg may decide that 2 or 3 operators in Collusion in a Market Segment are deemed to have market power when acting as a Duopoly. All sorts of permutations are feasible.

Even Sky will clearly fall within the Comreg regulatory umbrella. Sky has SMP in Digital Satellite Broadcasting, Comreg declares this to be so and can then regulate them.

Why do you think that Eircom have become less threatening in their dealings with Comreg. They can see that Comreg are in a run up phase to the Directives becoming law here.

The EU Commission may itself change the segments that must be regulated and may increase the basic standard of the basic entitlement within a given segment. For example, Analogue lines are currently in the USO. ISDN or Midband may be added as a USO service by the Commission . Comreg must then amend the USO and ensure that (funny this) Eircom consistently offers this product to all. I think that this is in Annex V of the USO document.

The USO consultation summary due any day from Comreg will indicate strongly to us whether they will flex their new muscles in a manner that is of practical benefit to the Irish SME/SOHO sector. So far it has been uncannily quiet on that front. Comreg gave them their price increase fro line rental in Feb/March, lets see what they want back for it now. Comregs enforcement of its current 4 year old USO is fairly risible as we all know. Biddy still tells us our lines are voice only when the USO says clearly it ain't.

Mindya Comreg got the finger out fairly fast on the issue of Eircoms expensive and compulsory ADSL modems just before the RADSL launch which shows how useful this Board is.

M

ceejay

It sounds like the directives will give ComReg some new teeth, that may well be longer, pointier, and generally sharper than the ones they may have now.

However, do we have any evidence or indication that ComReg will actually start using these powers? Without a will to hold eircom or any other SMP to their obligations, any number of directives are useless. I believe that so far ComReg has not shown much will to force eircom to do anything eircom doesn't want to do, and anything that eircom has changed has been done after much delaying. In short, I'll believe it when I see it, i.e. ComReg stopping eircom abusing their position in the market.

Don't get me wrong here, I think we've come a long way. I am just not convinced (yet) that the members of ComReg are willing to take eircom on, even if they have new powers, and bring the telecoms sector into the 21st century.

Ciarán.

dahamsta

You started the thread by pointing us to the FT saying that the Directives may be implemented later than seems likely here.

Well, I said that I thought that they might have been transposed here already, but moving on, thanks for the more in-depth overview of the directives. I'm genuinely still concerned with the willingness of ComReg to transpose these as is, and more importantly to implement them with a fist of steel - particularly with the current Chair - but hope springs eternal.

Dave, thanks for following that up and letting us know the outcome.

adam

sceptre

(I'm going to assume we're all happyish with the completion of the side discussion and are happy to limit the discussion to the original topic in the thread)