eircom board have approved the takeover

jwt

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0726/eircom.html?rss

Today was Tony O'Reilly's last outing as chairman of Eircom. At the meeting, he robustly rejected widespread criticisms that the company was the main reason why Ireland lags other European states in terms of broadband. He said the issue was highly misunderstood and Eircom had delivered national infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayer.

John

Urban Weigl

Not to mention the cheapest line rental in Europe...

eircomtribunal

Sir Anthony is gorgeous in that RTE interview:

"there has been criticism of broadband yesterday, there is ...broadband is not a very well understood phenomenon...450 000 people in Ireland prefer to use narrowband..."

Somebody should print the wise words of Sir BS.

P.

viking

I didn't know Ireland was "more broadband enabled than the United States of America"...

Wow

Foxwood

viking wrote:

I didn't know Ireland was "more broadband enabled that the United States of America"...

You can prove anything you want with the selective use of statistics!

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0607/

viking

Foxwood wrote:

You can prove anything you want with the selective use of statistics!

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0607/

I don't have my glasses with me today so perhaps its me but where is dear old Ireland in those graphs if we are "more broadband enabled than the United States of America"?

I do wonder what Tony meant exactly by "broadband enabled"? Ah well, not to worry, its his last day so I suppose he's entitled to a good sound bite at least...

</end sarcasm>

eircomtribunal

Foxwood wrote:

You can prove anything you want with the selective use of statistics!

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0607/

That little country of Luxembourg made a good recovery. Vivian R. is from there, but I don't know had she any influence.

Remember Sir O's henchman David McRedmond in that RTE interview with Shane McElhatton in Sept. 2004 about Ireland's broadband take-up:
"We are getting very close to the levels of Germany, the UK, Luxembourg, Portugal and we would expect to catch up with those countries fairly soon."
"Well, no, we believe that very soon we’ll be up there with… we’re already… we’re passed Greece, we’re passed Luxembourg, we’re catching up with the UK and Germany and we see ourselves moving up that table very fast."

But those f&*%¿s are in good company.

In her recent radio interview our regulatory impostor Isolde told likewise: "I would say overall we are making steady progress...we are creeping up the tables...if we keep making progress at that rate we will be catching up and we will be forging ahead..."

And if I searched, I would find similar mutterings from Noel, no doubt.

So, on second thoughts, Sir O is not so far off when he says that broadband is "not a very well understood phenomenon", mainly in the circles of the dudes we employ in ComReg and the DCMNR, one might add.

P.

Foxwood

viking wrote:

I don't have my glasses with me today so perhaps its me but where is dear old Ireland in those graphs if we are "more broadband enabled than the United States of America"?

Glasses won't help - Ireland isn't mentioned at all.

I've no idea what statistics Mr O'Reilly is using, but if anyone at RTE actually asked him, and if he bothered to answer, I'm sure one of his highly paid flunkys would supply a suitably crafted answer (that wouldn't have been challenged anyway).

It's a pity the RTE reporter didn't respond with "Pull the other one". Though it is a sign of the times that he even raised the issue.

clohamon

Does anybody know if eircom include all the surplus connections in broadband exchanges when they talk about the overall proportion of lines that are enabled?
You know, all the redundant extra lines that aren't connected to anybody at all.

wingnut

Eircom are VERY sly when it comes to calculating BB penetration. AFAIK they include all lines at enabled exchanges, even lines that cannot carry bb due to distance/quality issues. I'm open to correction but I believe this is the case.

Foxwood

clohamon wrote:

Does anybody know if eircom include all the surplus connections in broadband exchanges when they talk about the overall proportion of lines that are enabled?
You know, all the redundant extra lines that aren't connected to anybody at all.

They use whatever numbers they want, and won't release the actual numbers because it's "commercially sensitive information". Even if they tell ComReg the real numbers, Comreg won't release the information.

antoinolachtnai

This is the standard method by which DSL broadband penetration is calculated in the EU. The problem in the Irish context is that this underestimates the actual penetration by a much greater extent than it would in Germany, for example, where the population is more concentrated.

Blaster99

Population is population, whether in Germany or Ireland. Ireland and the UK have unusually long lines and this increases line failures, one of the main problems in Ireland. In the UK I guess they've fitted repeaters to make it work. I can't remember the numbers now, but the percentage of lines enabled ignoring line failures is quite high. The percentage of lines enabled that passes the eircom test is quite low.

eircomtribunal

antoinolachtnai wrote:

This is the standard method by which DSL broadband penetration is calculated in the EU. The problem in the Irish context is that this underestimates the actual penetration by a much greater extent than it would in Germany, for example, where the population is more concentrated.

If anything, the "lines connected to DSL enabled exchanges" measurement overestimates the actual availability.
(It is misleading to talk of penetration in connection with availability.
Broadband penetration is, in Europe, the number of "broadband subscriptions per 100 population", also commonly and not quite correctly given as a percentage figure.
With broadband penetration Ireland is second last of the EU-15; when Noel's "goal" of 400 000 by end of 2006 is reached, Ireland will still be at second last place in the EU-15. In the EU-25, where we are at place 18: with 400 000 users by end 2006 we could beat Lithuania and "progress" to place 17.)

ComReg are under ministerial direction of March 2004 to bring Ireland to at least the average EU-15 "enduser broadband availability". While the target date of "by mid 2005" has passed, the target no doubt remains. ComReg have misinformed the DCMNR in the required reporting on foot of the direction, that Ireland is on target with broadband availability.

Broadband enduser availability in Ireland is probably still at second lowest place in the EU-15.
And the digital divide, which not to let happen was also a target set for ComReg in that March 2004 directive, is especially significant in Ireland.

In the 07/09 phone book, comprising Counties Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal, only 40% of residential tel numbers pass the eircom DSL test. (60% of the business tel numbers).

Lines originating from enabled exchanges, as a percentage of all lines (not DSL-capable lines and not customers), is a misleading indication of (enduser) broadband availability – this is exactly the reason why Eircom and the fake regulators we employ in ComReg use the figure. While Eircom is free to use or make up any figures it likes, ComReg is not in that position.

P.

leoc

eircomtribunal wrote:

Somebody should print the wise words of Sir BS.

Try this for a start: his speech at Eircom's 2004 AGM.

Hacketry

Here's some interesting quotes from the Knight of Eircom on the regulatory regime in Ireland and broadband:

http://www.enn.ie/frontpage/news-9750129.html

antoinolachtnai

I think those quotes stand on their own and do not require any further comment.

eircomtribunal are correct, the figures are an underestimate not an overestimate. My mistake.

However, comreg use those figures not because they like them, but because that's what the Commission mandates to allow consistent reporting across Europe. (Not trying to defend this decision, just explaining why.)

eircomtribunal

leoc wrote:

Try this for a start: his speech at Eircom's 2004 AGM.

But I would also say that eircom is its own harshest critic. Yes, the broadband take-up rate is among the fastest in Europe, but we need to grow even faster to climb the European league table. Currently the rate is nearly the highest in the EU, is accelerating and soon will see Ireland catch up on our European neighbours. When the 100,000 target is achieved, ahead of schedule, management will announce a new ambitious target...

The new "ambitious target" is to have 500 000 broadband subscribers by end 2007, which equates to a penetration rate of 11.9/100 (subscriptions per 100). Add in other connections (cable, wireless) and we might show Slovenia the dust, provided its broadband penetration rate stagnates at the 2005 level, that is.
The EU-15 average of end 2005 is at 14.9/100 .
The EU-25 average of end 2005 is at 12.9/100 .

And nobody should forget that Noel/DCMNR have tailored their "new" target of 400 000 by end 2006 according to the eircom 500 000 end 2007 "ambitious target".

And Noel lied to the Dail on the occasion of answering a written question by TD Broughan:

From Dail, written written answers; 28 Sept 2005

574. Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the position regarding the Government’s current target for broadband take-up in 2005, 2006 and 2007; if, and the way in which the Government’s broadband targets were downgraded for 2005 and 2006. [25453/05]

Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. N. Dempsey): In late 2004, I set a Government target of 400,000 broadband subscribers to be achieved by end-2006. Subsequently, broadband subscriber numbers have grown by 73%, in the nine months since I set that target, to reach almost 174,000 by the end of July 2005.

No downgrade of broadband targets has taken place. The target set in late 2004 represents a significant, but achievable challenge, which requires the broadband service providers in Ireland to quadruple their number of customers from a base of 100,000 customers when I set the target."

The previous target, set by D. Ahern specifically for ComReg to achieve (the DCMNR for themselves insisted they had set themselves higher targets!*) was to have a penetration rate of at least the average EU-15 rate by mid 2005 (equates to 12/100 or nearly 500 000 broadband connections by mid 2005!).
So how can, setting a 400 000 goal for the end of 2006 not be a downgrade of the government's broadband targets?

* Ahern in the March 2004 ComReg directive consultation paper: "The overall more challenging government target [top decile of the OECD countries] is being addressed by a multi-pronged approach not just regulation and includes public and private sector initiatives to expedite rollout and take-up of affordable broadband."

P.

eircomtribunal

antoinolachtnai wrote:

However, comreg use those figures not because they like them, but because that's what the Commission mandates to allow consistent reporting across Europe. (Not trying to defend this decision, just explaining why.)

ComReg are under ministerial direction not only to achieve at least average EU-15 end-user broadband availability, but also to report back on the progress with end-user broadband availability.
ComReg have deliberately misinformed the Minister/DCMNR about end-user broadband availability by reporting back early on, that Ireland was at the EU-15 average with broadband availability. (I have seen the reporting).

While it makes sense for comparative reasons to use consistent criteria, I am not aware of a Commission mandate in this regard. And I doubt very much that the Commission would approve of national regulators using misleading data under the excuse of such a mandate. So even if such a mandate exists (and I'd be interested to be led to it), ComReg should then explain that number of lines originating from enabled exchanges misrepresents end-user availability for Ireland with our high percentage of lines incapable of carrying DSL etc.

P.

eircomtribunal

Food for thought in this article from down under, where they compare their imcumbent telco story with the Irish one.

Would an Irish-style split work for Telstra?

P.

Sponge Bob

This is the first time I noted that Biddy has Eircom retail (not just 1901) and Pierre has the infrastructure .

From that article

Under the Irish deal, 94 per cent of Eircom shareholders voted to support a potential "structural separation" that would see Eircom's employee share ownership trust take control of the retail arm of the business and the network infrastructure put into a Babcock fund.

and note

http://www.smh.com.au/news/BUSINESS/Babcock-amp-Brown-Capital-may-split-eircom/2006/07/27/1153816308893.html

Mr Topfer signalled that splitting eircom into a separate wholesale business and a retail business could be on the cards sooner rather than later.

but then they realised that the poodle would moult all over them and scratch itself interminably so they tried to row back

A Babcock & Brown spokesperson later said BCM would not aim to split the businesses in the first couple of months, but may seek to do so in a one- to two-year period.

Looks like the real story leaked out in Oz so They will operate as a shadow split entity from the 18th of August this year. Biddy will control all aspects of retail.

There will be two CEO's , I wonder who will be the CEO of Wholesale which will own all the useful bits ???? Well Well Well. But I am NOT surprised.

juliuspret

depending on the gullibility of the regulator.

We do have the most gullible in Europe

SkepticOne

Many people (including a few on this forum who won't be named) have wrongly held the view that splitting the so-called wholesale and retail arms of Eircom would somehow do something for competition and benefit the consumer. Now that the new owners are going ahead with such a split we can finaly see the naivety of this view, which arises from a confusion between proper competition and reselling.

The good thing is that this view was not so widely held that the buyers were able to get concessions in return for going ahead with this split.

Sponge Bob

SkepticOne wrote:

The good thing is that this view was not so widely held that the buyers were able to get concessions in return for going ahead with this split.

The split seems to be a done deal between B&B and the ESOP though. Comrade Con Scanlon is now in full charge of Eircom Retail .....in effect . Talk about foxes and bloody henhouses

I suspect that what leaked out in Australia in the past few days may have been some analyst briefing by B&B or B&B Capital the owner of Eircom (wholesale as we know know ) and that Comreg was not supposed to hear AT ALL . There is also, of course, a distinct possiblity that the Comms Bill will now be held over a tad longer for mature reflection as we Irish would say .

SkepticOne

From the article linked by Sponge Bob:

"Mr Topfer has said Ireland is not large enough to have competing telecommunication infrastructure networks, and flagged he may urge the Irish Government to let eircom open up its network to competing telcos."

I think one would have be totally gullible to take this at face value. Maybe I'm an old cynic, but my reading of it is that competing infrastructure is the one thing Eircom fear most, and will do anything to avoid it inter alia splitting the company, encouraging competitors to stop competing and become resellers etc.

It is a shame, if true, that B&B obtained concessions for splitting the company, something that has no benefit to the Irish market and is likely to make things worse. It is something that they were likely to do anyway given that it allows them to concentrate on milking the market at the wholesale level and working the regulator.

SkepticOne

jwt wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0726/eircom.html?rss

Today was Tony O'Reilly's last outing as chairman of Eircom. At the meeting, he robustly rejected widespread criticisms that the company was the main reason why Ireland lags other European states in terms of broadband. He said the issue was highly misunderstood and Eircom had delivered national infrastructure at no cost to the taxpayer.

John

The problem here is that broadband provision is not in Eircom's remit. Eircom's only real responsibility is to look after its shareholders' interests. Of course it suits Eircom to have these questions asked as it allows them to give the sort of BS answer above and push for government subsidy of their monopoly.