ECJ: Hey Belgian telcos - don't bother serving the huddled masses

bealtine

ECJ: Hey Belgian telcos - don't bother serving the huddled masses

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/12/no_belgium_you_cant_force_mobile_providers_to_pay_for_getting_connectivity_to_the_poor/

The operators said the directive doesn’t apply to mobile communication service and internet providers such as them, and in Thursday's judgement, the ECJ ruled that the term “at a fixed location” means the opposite of “mobile”.

clohamon

bealtine wrote: »

ECJ: Hey Belgian telcos - don't bother serving the huddled masses

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/12/no_belgium_you_cant_force_mobile_providers_to_pay_for_getting_connectivity_to_the_poor/

The operators said the directive doesn’t apply to mobile communication service and internet providers such as them, and in Thursday's judgement, the ECJ ruled that the term “at a fixed location” means the opposite of “mobile”.

Looks like nonsense to me.

Mobile phones and fixed line phones are substitutable services. They clearly compete on basic services eg telephony. The obligation is to provide the service 'at a fixed location' eg someone's home. There is no reason why that has to mean by 'a fixed line'.

The court simply asserted that

It must, however, be noted that the term ‘at a fixed location’ means the opposite of the term ‘mobile’.

...without any further explanation.

This gets mobiles off the hook of providing decent coverage, because not only do they not have to contribute to a USO fund but they cannot now be appointed as the USP themselves.

watty

clohamon wrote: »

This gets mobiles off the hook of providing decent coverage, because not only do they not have to contribute to a USO fund but they cannot now be appointed as the USP themselves.

No, it doesn't. That can be separately made mandatory and should be part of licence conditions.


Besides, giving a good quality 3G or 4G Mobile connection to every fixed user would cost several times the cost of fibre to the premises. Makes no economic, technical or logical sense.

Mobile has only the capacity for short usages typical of mobile use. Irish Mobile is overburdened by high line rental and high broadband costs driving people to Mobile. Fixed Lines down from 82% to 66%. It makes no sense people in Offices or home ALWAYS using Mobile instead of DECT + VIOP on Broadband or DECT on fixed line.

Why don't Mobiles have DECT? Because Mobile operators don't like it.

Also Data is below cost on Mobile. Three thus makes no profit. Too many fixed data users.

The judgement makes sense.

clohamon

watty wrote: »

No, it doesn't. That can be separately made mandatory and should be part of licence conditions.

True, but I assumed we were talking about the meaning of the USO directive. If the ruling is that mobile telephony and fixed-line telephony are not substitutable services then no mobile will ever be appointed a USP.

watty wrote: »

Besides, giving a good quality 3G or 4G Mobile connection to every fixed user would cost several times the cost of fibre to the premises. Makes no economic, technical or logical sense.

The standard of the USO is "a functional internet connection" not Fibre-to-the-Premises/Home. In Ireland that still means 28kb/s.

watty

clohamon wrote: »

The standard of the USO is "a functional internet connection" not Fibre-to-the-Premises/Home. In Ireland that still means 28kb/s.

But a guaranteed ALWAYS available 28kbps to EVERY home via Mobile is more expensive than FTTP, with a few 30Mbps Fixed wireless links for the odd hilltop farm with no ESB.

10,000 base stations vs 1000 base station is what genuine USO Mobile would need, with 100% availability.

Licence conditions should be stricter and enforced on Mobile. In Ireland we have neither.

clohamon

watty wrote: »

But a guaranteed ALWAYS available 28kbps to EVERY home via Mobile is more expensive than FTTP

I agree that it’s not a good idea to try and deliver broadband by mobile. The USO doesn't require broadband, let alone FTTP, and it doesn't 'guarantee' anything.

The whole point of the amended directive (2009) was to make USO technologically neutral. The judges have done the exact opposite of what was intended by the legislators - see the preamble to the directive.

"A fundamental requirement of universal service is to pro­vide users on request with a connection to the public com­ munications network at a fixed location and at an affordable price. The requirement is for the provision of local, national and international telephone calls, facsimile communications and data services, the provision of which may be restricted by Member States to the end-user’s primary location or residence. There should be no con­straints on the technical means by which this is provided, allowing for wired or wireless technologies, nor any con­straints on which operators provide part or all of universal service obligations."

If they’d read the communication from the commission of 2008 it would have been even clearer

"The wording "access at fixed location" refers to the end-user's primary residence (where several members of a household can share the connection), and not to a requirement for operators to use fixed technology; i.e., there should be no constraints on the technical means - whether wired or wireless - by which the connection is provided. On the other hand, universal service does not cover personal mobility (access at any location)."

The main objection of the Belgian mobiles seems to be that because their service confers an extra benefit over fixed line (ie mobility) that they shouldn't have to contribute anything to USO.

All of which is a bit academic. The judges have made their ruling, there’s no higher court, we’ll have to live with it, and ComReg will continue with the eircom comfort blanket.

clohamon

Comreg is unfazed by the ECJ decision.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg1589.pdf

ComReg’s view is that the ECJ’s statement that AFL means the opposite to mobile is not inconsistent with ComReg’s previous position that the obligation to provide AFL does not have to be provided using a specific technology.

The question for ComReg to consider is whether a particular type of technology is capable of delivering access at a fixed (i.e. not mobile) location.

... but still doesn't like mobile.

While current mobile services accessed by a mobile handset only do not, in ComReg’s preliminary view meet the requirements for access at a fixed location, AFL can in principle be provided by a mobile ECS provider.