Comreg Publish Narrowband Market Analysis and Start (Another) Bloody Consultation.

spongebob

There is no really good news in these docs that were slipped out Last Week with no fanfare from Buttsy, not surprising that Buttsy is it ? Meanwhile a PR release came out afterwards with some selective facts on LLU such as a spurios headline claim of a 45% reduction in charges when its more like 2% or even an increase in certain cases.

Retail Narrowband Access Markets ( a mutant USO review thats heavy on the Competition Speak gobble of 80 pages)

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0494.pdf

Retail Fixed Calls Market (heavy gobble too 90 pages)

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0495.pdf

These are consultations, should one fancy reading the gobble and answering it. Comreg reserve the right to misrepresent and to wilfully ignore your submissions of course so do put them in the public domain before you submit them in there. Comreg slipped them out firly sharpish with no spin form Buttsy once they suspected that IoffL may continue in existance ....in order to reduce the debate period and the controversy when they do fúck all as usual .

Responses due in 6 weeks.

As the first of those links seems to contain a statement on page 11 of 81 that indicates that Comreg recognise that they are obliged to ensure "Functional Internet Access" for all customers so lets ask them some simple questions

Why do we not have it since it became law in July 2003 ?
Why does Comreg do nothing for those who pay for a Universal Service and get no "Functional Internet Access" as part of the package , and as mandated by law.
How can an obligation to supply "Functional Internet Access" by met with the removal of a risible 2.4k limit and its replacement with nothing for over a year now , least of all an apology from you incompetents ?
Why is Comreg now "Considering" the Law, some 14 months after they blatantly broke it ? The law is not a la carte in Regulator land is it ?

This mumbo jumbo would be funny were it not for the piteous state of the network which Comreg wants to 'analyse' in Competition terms. It is a vile decrepit overpriced piece of **** lads and that mainly happened on your watch .

If I (stupidly) put Comreg in charge of a DOG POUND for a night it would be taken over by CATS by morning.

Comreg would then declare that the Cats had significant market power and would go analyse that for the next year. They would hire Lawyers and Legal executives specialising in Feline Sociology, PR persons who liked Cats ,a PA to the PR persons (who was also partial to a pussy) and probably a PA to the PA to the PA as well . These people would collectively spend an age in interminable and meaningless meetings and would produce a ream of consultations and whatnots on Cats .

Given their tenous grasp or reality and of their having a duty to the Irish public the salient fact that they originally started off by LOSING A ****ING DOG POUND to a BUNCH OF CATS could not be admitted could it

Lets have another consultation , don't do anything useful !

M

De Rebel

This is dreadful stuff. As a small country, with a small market, and an antiquated telecommunications infrastructure do we really have the time and resources for all this highly academic first principles type research.

We had problems all those years ago when the ODR came into being. They needed to be fixed. We still have the same problems today, compounded by o'reilly's shenanigans at eircom, and they still need to be fixed.

GET ON WITH IT.

The really frightening thing is the prospect of Brennan moving into Communications. At least Dermot Ahern showed the good judgement to cut through this waffle, call a spade a spade and issue a directive. Brennan will thrive on this stuff, and then call in Ovum to advise him on its implications, and someone else to advise him on the suitability of the Ovum report, and string it all out by years.

The copper is rotten. The prices are high. The internet is slow. The nation is still largely Off-Line.

GET THE FCUK ON WITH SORTING IT OUT.

machalla

Aren't COMREG a civil service body? Or am I wrong here? If they are then why should we be the least bit surprised that their behaviour mimics a lot of civil service activity? Depressing stuff.

AndrewMc

De Rebel wrote:

Based on what I said above about not wasting time re-defining the already defined, are there clear definitive statements from elsewhere that we could quote them? Not paragraphs of endless academic hot air, a simple list of countries where functional internet access has already been defined. And give that to ComReg.

I get the sinking feeling that if we say "28.8k" now for example, it won't be changed for a decade. Should we suggest an annual review that is not allowed to decrease? Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Universal Service EU directive (2002/22/EC) states:

2. The connection provided shall be capable of allowing end-users to make and receive local, national and international telephone calls, facsimile communications and data communications, at data rates that are sufficient to permit functional Internet access, taking into account prevailing technologies used by the majority of subscribers and technological feasibility

Could we not state that currently the "prevailing technology" is 56k dial-up, and in a few years it's DSL? Eircom would have to admit publicly that, "well actually, no, we haven't even managed to get 56k dial-up as the minimum prevailing technology". If they say it is, they have to provide it to most/all.

I think the "technological feasibility" statement is the only wriggle-room they'd have, and they'd have quite an argument on their hands that decent dial-up isn't technologically feasible.

bealtine

I quote here what Ofcom have to say:
(excuse the length of the post I Think it's worth wading through)

Notice the way DACS are treated and how they should be banished
unless they are absolutely essential...

//

---

Annex B

Guidelines on functional Internet access

The requirement to provide a connection which permits functional Internet
access

1. A provider designated for the purposes of universal service ('the
Provider') is required under the specific universal service conditions to
provide telephony services at data rates that are sufficient to permit
functional Internet access.

2. This obligation relates to:

. a single narrowband connection only: it does not extend to other types of

connection, such as broadband or ISDN; and

. the connection itself, not to other matters outside the control of the
Provider,

such as an end-user's computer or Internet service provider.

3. These Guidelines clarify the circumstances in which Oftel is likely to
consider that the Provider is offering functional Internet access.

4. Oftel will consider that the Provider is providing functional Internet
access where it is able to demonstrate that it is making every reasonable
effort to ensure that lines achieve optimum performance, particularly
where the enduser intends to use the line for Internet access.

5. In forming a view on whether the Provider is making every such reasonable
effort, Oftel will look at:

. the data rate achieved by the connection;

. the measures taken by the provider in respect of pair-gain devices, such
as DACS;

. the measures taken by the provider in response to complaints about

unsatisfactory Internet access, which are not related to pair-gain devices;

and

. the provider's general management and business processes.

Data speed achieved by the connection

6. Oftel has considered the capabilities of networks, local line plant and
terminal equipment currently available. It has concluded that end-users
should be able to expect that single narrowband connections will support
data transmission at a reasonable speed.

7. Whilst Oftel is not mandating a minimum speed, Oftel is of the view that,
at the current time, a connection speed of 28.8 kbit/s is a reasonable
benchmark for functional Internet access. Over time, this rate may need
to be revised to reflect advances in networks and equipment, and changing
social and economic conditions.

Measures taken by the provider in respect of pair-gain systems

8. The following are an indication of the measures Oftel expects the
Provider to

take in connection with pair-gain devices, such as DACS. There may be other

scenarios not specifically addressed below; the following matters are

nevertheless likely to be relevant.

_ Where an end-user requests a second line

9. The Provider should establish whether the second line is intended to be
used for Internet access.

10. If the line is intended to be used for Internet access, the provider
should take all reasonable steps to avoid fitting, or using existing,
pair-gain systems.

Reasonable steps include:

. providing an unused line without pair-gain devices fitted;

. rearranging existing lines to provide a line without pair-gain devices
fitted;

and

. carrying out minor network infrastructure build to provide new lines
without

pair-gain devices fitted; and

. carrying out any other reasonable measures to provide a new line in

preference to the use of pair-gain devices.

_ Where an end-user complains about the performance of an existing line

used to access the Internet

11. Oftel considers that where a line is fitted with a pair-gain device,
such as DACS, the line is unlikely to achieve optimum performance.

12. Therefore, where an end-user complains about the performance of a line
used to access the Internet and the line is fitted with a pair-gain device,
the Provider should take all reasonable steps to provide the end-user
with a line without a pair-gain device fitted, for example by:

. removing the pair-gain system altogether;

. providing an unused line without pair-gain devices fitted;

. rearranging existing lines to provide a line without pair-gain devices
fitted;

. transferring the pair-gain system to a more suitable line;

. carrying out minor network infrastructure build to provide new lines

without pair-gain devices fitted;

. deploying an alternative, less detrimental pair-gain system where

possible; or carrying out any other reasonable measures to provide
a new line in preference to the use of pair-gain devices.

_ Where the Provider is carrying out modifications to its network

13. If, having exhausted other options, the Provider needs to fit existing
lines with pair-gain systems or transfer a pair-gain system to another line,
it should ensure that this will not adversely affect an existing user of
narrowband access to the Internet.

14. There are several methods open to the Provider to assess the use of
other lines, one of which is to examine call data records. Whilst Oftel
suggests this as an example of a reasonable method for checking the
use of the line, the provider should be aware of its responsibilities with
respect to the use of call data records.
The information gained from call data records must only be
used for the purposes of establishing whether narrowband Internet access is
used on a particular line. As detailed in Oftel's Statement on BT's
marketing
of Internet services and use of joint billing (19 May 2002), it must not be
used for any marketing purposes.

Measures taken by the provider in response to complaints about
unsatisfactory Internet access, which are not related to pair-gain devices

_ Investigation

15. Where the Provider receives a complaint from an end-user about
unsatisfactory connection speed, the Provider should take the end-user
through a series of self-tests, such as checking the data speed displayed on
the end-user's computer, and removing all other terminal equipment eg fax
machines, from the connection.

16. Further investigation, such as the Provider conducting a site visit to
test the connection itself, is required only where it is established that
the end-user is experiencing connection speeds which are persistently
lower than the benchmark of 28.8 kbit/s. The Provider is not required
to investigate further where the problem clearly falls outside its control,
eg there is a problem with the end-user's computer or Internet service
provider.

continued in Part II

bealtine

_ Minor problem with the network

17. Unsatisfactory Internet access may be caused by a minor problem, eg
interference, a problem with the final link (underground or overhead) from
the distribution point to the end-user's premises, or some other easily
repairable fault.

18. Where the Provider establishes that there is a minor problem, it should
take action at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the end-user's
connection
provides functional Internet access, in particular that it is capable of
achieving the benchmark data speed of 28.8 kbit/s.

_ More significant problems with the network

19. Oftel recognises that there may be circumstances where there is a
significant problem with the network and it is not reasonable and/or
proportionate to
expect the Provider to take action on the basis of a single complaint about
unsatisfactory Internet access.

20. The Guidelines address two examples of such a significant problem below.

There may be other scenarios not specifically addressed below; the following
examples are nevertheless likely to be relevant.

_ Distribution ('D-side') cables

21. These are the secondary cables that link a primary connection point
(known as a 'cabinet') to the final distribution point serving an end-user.
One D-side cable will probably serve tens of distribution points but a
particular distribution point is normally only served by one D-side cable.

22. Where the Provider establishes that there is a problem with a D-side
cable, it should log the complaint against that particular cable and, when
the threshold indicated below is reached, take action at the earliest
reasonable opportunity to ensure that functional Internet access,
in particular a benchmark connection speed of 28.8 kbit/s,
is provided to the affected end-users.

23. Threshold: where the Provider logs substantiated complaints regarding
10% or more of the working circuits terminated on a particular cable at a
particular distribution point or at a particular cabinet.

_ Main ('E-side') cables

24. These are the cables that form the first stage of the route from the
exchange building to the customer's premises. At the exchange end, they
terminate on the main distribution frame. The remote end terminates
in a cabinet. One Eside cable can serve several cabinets, and equally
a particular cabinet can be served by more than one E-side cable.

25. Where the Provider establishes that there is a problem with an E-side
cable, it should log the complaint against the particular cable and, when
the threshold indicated below is reached, put in place a work programme
to ensure that the problem is addressed at the earliest reasonable
opportunity. As indicated under 'General management and
business processes' below, the Provider
should advise Oftel of any such work programme.

26. Threshold: where the Provider logs substantiated complaints regarding
10% or more of the working circuits terminated on a particular cable at a
particular cabinet.

General management and business processes

27. Where it is not possible on any given line to remove pair-gain devices
or otherwise achieve a connection speed of 28.8 kbit/s in the short term,
the
Provider should be able to demonstrate that it is in the process of making,
or planning to make, improvements to its network (whether equipment, lines
or
other part) not capable of supporting 28.8 kbit/s.

28. The Provider should establish appropriate management and business

processes to:

. monitor the level of complaints from end-users on connection speeds for

Internet access and assess the underlying causes;

. monitor the use of pair-gain systems within the network;

. ensure that the impact of pair-gain systems upon Internet access

decreases over time;

. monitor the number of substantiated complaints regarding D-side and Eside

cables; and

. provide Oftel with regular reports concerning the above issues, including

details of any work programmes regarding improvements to its network

to deliver functional Internet access.

spongebob

<Bump>

The narrowband review , some of the data is posted here too. Responses to these consultations by october 13th

M

damien

Consultation has now been extended until: November 5th 2004

They must be waiting for our mailshot to the membership about this. Fair play !