Why is ComReg needed? Why do we need a regulator?

damien

There's been suggestions in another thread that ComReg should be abolished and the DCMNR and the Competition Authority should take over the work of the Regulator.

Instead of asking for reasons to axe ComReg, I'd like instead to get reasons for retaining the Regulator. Why is ComReg needed? What is it there to do that no other organisation cannot do.

Genuine and constructive answers only please. Any abusive comments will be moderated harshly. Thanks.

crawler

The arguement breaks down into Light touch regulation, heavy regulation or no regulation at all.

Regardless of the type of regulation adopted - if a regulator has no binding powers then all it can do is administration and fee collection.

If this is the reason for regulation, then regulators are simply self funding operations that add no benefit to the consumer, industry or the economy.

There is also a difference between controls and regultion - for example licensed spectrum needs to be controlled, for obvious reasons, in particular military and aviation protection. However it could be argued that the 3G price inflation was caused by the auctions conducted by regulators for the spectrum....that said a mechanism was required.

The other side of the coin would say - well if there was no regulator, what would happen? Industry groups would form and come to eircom or similar with a common voice, they would seek someone to act in terms of a mediator - who is that person or body?

Maybe the term regulator is the wrong word - maybe the body needs to be a controller/mediator but then would this automatically class them as a regulator?

One way to overcome this would be to write controls into statute so that all would have to abide or face legal consequences and let market forces take care of all the commercial stuff....

My head swims when I spend too much time thinking about it....

Maskhadov

Com reg is turning into a bit of a farce. This LLU has been going on for too long now and there is still no end in sight. Mean while we fall further and further down the rankings.

I dont have broadband and would dearly like it over a darn modem. Eircon is making clowns of the entire country and the government got it savagly wrong in privatising it all those years ago.

lucernarian

Perhaps ComReg is the body in the most suitable position for acting as mediator in disputes between various bodies, e.g. Smart Telecom and Eircom. They are an independent body and have no political interest/less susceptible to lobbying.

I see the main point of ComReg as an "impartial decision-making authority". If it actually had the powers of proper decision-making - instead of consultations and asking eircom nicely to give them a small document that serves as a boot in the face for competition then we would have a more useful ComReg.

I think we need more ministerial intervention in the form of directives in ComReg to aid them implement government policy, while not tainting their impartiality. I expect nothing off Noel Dempsey but we must be prepared for the off-chance of a competent Minister for Communications, doing his job, in the future.

Slutmonkey57b

the purpose of a regulator in any section of the economy is to provide detailed technical guidance and decision-making as to the correct way of implementing products and services, particularly interconnection. Whether the regulator is financial, communication, or manufacturing, it needs to have enough technical expertise to produce "last word" analysis, and draw up real-world solutions for how any given industry should work to serve the consumer.

The enforcement of the regulator's directions should be done by the DCMNR, or whatever minister is responsible. Without an effective regulator, the legislature is left at the whims of the market operators and vested interests.

Where comreg has failed has not been in its lack of powers necessarily, but its confidence in itself to come up with the "final answer" documentation in the face of pressure from vested interests.

Sponge Bob

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Perhaps ComReg is the body in the most suitable position for acting as mediator in disputes between various bodies, e.g. Smart Telecom and Eircom. They are an independent body and have no political interest/less susceptible to lobbying.

They have no interest in anything and nobody listens to them , how can they mediate in those circumstances. ?

I see the main point of ComReg as an "impartial decision-making authority". If it actually had the powers of proper decision-making - instead of consultations and asking eircom nicely to give them a small document that serves as a boot in the face for competition then we would have a more useful ComReg.

They are institutionally incapable of making any decision of note , save that Universal = 94% or that the Internet was functional at 0k for over 2 years or that the '3' Network had Significant Market Power when it had no customers .........kind of Comreg decisions .

I think we need more ministerial intervention in the form of directives in ComReg to aid them implement government policy, while not tainting their impartiality. I expect nothing off Noel Dempsey but we must be prepared for the off-chance of a competent Minister for Communications, doing his job, in the future.

He needs to abolish them and create a small division within the competition authority instead. Give the Spectrum licencing bit to DCMNR and create a small body to administer it.

Comreg is quite simply beyond redemption and not worth saving. It is an Institutional Failure. If it was MY Dog I'd simply shoot it .

lucernarian

Originally posted by Sponge Bob
They have no interest in anything and nobody listens to them , how can they mediate in those circumstances. ?

They are in the most suitable position for mediating, whatever about being capable of using that position, so to speak.

They are institutionally incapable of making any decision of note , save that Universal = 94% or that the Internet was functional at 0k for over 2 years or that the '3' Network had Significant Market Power when it had no customers .........kind of Comreg decisions .

The purpose of ComReg I believe is an "impartial decision-making authority". If they are not able to fulfill their purpose or whatever then action needs to be taken on ComReg.

I basically feel that I agree with the idea of ComReg in principle. They will inherently fail at being useful or making decisions if they have little power.

Point is, we don't need ComReg but we need a regulator. If Comreg had more power and ministerial influence then IMO we would see an improvement.

Tom Young

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Point is, we don't need ComReg but we need a regulator. If Comreg had more power and ministerial influence then IMO we would see an improvement.

Not sure this makes any sense. ComReg or any regulator needs to be free from day to day ministerial influence. Though policy guidance is issued annually or biannually.

Bob, TCA or Competition Authority is under the Department of Enterprise. While I agree the Competition Act is more sweeping and has the power to bring enforceable judicial actions, it is still subject to bureaucratic process.

For what its worth, ComReg are not the worst bunch. There are worse communications regulators.

To some extent mirroring the UK with a telecom adjudicator structure might have a place in the Irish market [This is a mediation function paid for by industry]. Do not forget though that the interests of the nation (where telecom/Internet/BB) are concerned many are clueless (some contribute infrequently to this board too).

At TIF Wednesday, it was interesting to note that Nolan called indirectly for political intervention, yet eircom are the first to comment, whinge, moan on the constitutionality and legality of policy directions (?). In addition to David McRedmond's supporting comment that GNP(type) LLU portability was only available in 7 EU member states.

The issue is clear in the framework even to a layman or CWU audience plant:

S. I. No. 308 of 2003, Article 26

OR

Article 30 Number portability USO

1. Member States shall ensure that all subscribers of publicly available telephone services, including mobile services, who so request can retain their number(s) independently of the undertaking providing the service:

(a) in the case of geographic numbers, at a specific location; and

(b) in the case of non-geographic numbers, at any location.

This paragraph does not apply to the porting of numbers between networks providing services at a fixed location and mobile networks.

2. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that pricing for interconnection related to the provision of number portability is cost oriented and that direct charges to subscribers, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use of these facilities.

3. National regulatory authorities shall not impose retail tariffs for the porting of numbers in a manner that would distort competition, such as by setting specific or common retail tariffs.

ComReg give the fixed market mobile portability equivalance, 8 hours is sweet as a nut.

Quote from ministers TIF speech:

No matter how good are the speakers at a conference like this, we all know that the real stuff happens over coffee, during lunch, in the corridors as conversations start and ideas spark.
It's important to register that offline potential. You will remember - from your history books, none of you are old enough to remember the reality - that during World War II, posters in Britain warned people against talking casually.
"Careless talk costs lives," was the line at the bottom of the poster.
The opposite applies here today, where careless talk could stimulate new ideas and possibilities.

dahamsta

• We need a regulator to implement regulations, obviously.
• We need regulations because otherwise we leave ourselves open to monopolies and other abuses.
• Telecommunications regulators should exist to regulate technical issues and spectrum, period.
• Competition regulation should be handled by the regulatory authority designated to handle it, the Competition Authority.
• Since telecommunications regulation is a large, difficult area, a special section should be created in the CA to handle it. It should work with ComReg, but on competition it should be authoritative -- it should be able to order ComReg to apply technical directives.
• There's no need to disband ComReg, it just needs to have a large portion of staff tranferred to the CA.
• The leadership of ComReg should be sacked because they're incapable of regulating. Saying they don't have the authority isn't enough, they've purposely and transparently deceived both their masters and the public, as evidenced by the quarterly reports.
• The organisation should be redesigned from the ground up.

Tom Young

Ken Shabby wrote:

• We need a regulator to implement regulations, obviously.
• We need regulations because otherwise we leave ourselves open to monopolies and other abuses.
• Telecommunications regulators should exist to regulate technical issues and spectrum, period.
• Competition regulation should be handled by the regulatory authority designated to handle it, the Competition Authority.
• Since telecommunications regulation is a large, difficult area, a special section should be created in the CA to handle it. It should work with ComReg, but on competition it should be authoritative -- it should be able to order ComReg to apply technical directives.
• There's no need to disband ComReg, it just needs to have a large portion of staff tranferred to the CA.
• The leadership of ComReg should be sacked because they're incapable of regulating. Saying they don't have the authority isn't enough, they've purposely and transparently deceived both their masters and the public, as evidenced by the quarterly reports.
• The organisation should be redesigned from the ground up.

Will never happen.

ComReg need to look after competition issues, TCA is too small.

A few contradictions in your posting. Also comprehension of what agencies are tasked with.

dahamsta

Tom Young wrote:

Will never happen.

Damien asked a question, I answered it. I didn't say that it was going to happen.

Tom Young wrote:

ComReg need to look after competition issues, TCA is too small.

dahamsta wrote:

There's no need to disband ComReg, it just needs to have a large portion of staff tranferred to the CA.

Tom Young wrote:

A few contradictions in your posting.

Would you like to point them out?

Tom Young wrote:

Also comprehension of what agencies are tasked with.

Would you like to educate me?

Tom Young

Ken Shabby wrote:

Damien asked a question, I answered it. I didn't say that it was going to happen.



Would you like to point them out?

Would you like to educate me?

No not really. I get paid to do that so will decline your offer on this occasion.

Gratuitous education is something that even the Irish government back paddled on.

Anyway Ken, you have now exercised your freedom of expression. I take it you too read and respect my freedom of and to express.

(Despite the fact that my knowlege is clearly superior)

Cabaal

Tom Young wrote:

(Despite the fact that my knowlege is clearly superior)

Obviously not,
You did'ent explain the contradictions in his post and yet you preclaimn your more superior*.....sure let me know how that logic works in the real world.
:rolleyes:

*Knowledge wise..apparently

damien

Careful now boys. Don't get personal. Tom, if someone points out another's argument is incorrect it is policy here on this forum for them to say why.

Tom Young

damien.m wrote:

Careful now boys. Don't get personal. Tom, if someone points out another's argument is incorrect it is policy here on this forum for them to say why.

We need a regulator to implement regulations, obviously.

** Competition, Law and Consumers are the stools of competition policy. Within a sector e.g. telecoms, you to have succinct and relevant regulations striving to foster adequate competition policy. Disjoins would result in failure, we need 'an independent telecom' or utilities regulator to implement regulations today.

Contradiction 1.

We need regulations because otherwise we leave ourselves open to monopolies and other abuses.

*** Lack of comprehension of requirement for a regulator. re: Comment 1.
Contradiction 2.

Telecommunications regulators should exist to regulate technical issues and spectrum, period.

*** Impossible. Sector specific competition issues and abuses are just that, sector specific. While the economics are similar the technologies are different as are the markets. Particularly where bundling, network symmetry and investment cycles are concerned.
Contradiction 3.

Competition regulation should be handled by the regulatory authority designated to handle it, the Competition Authority.

*** Scale is the issue, in Ireland 60 in the TCA, 120 in ComReg. Co-operation agreement in place, all New EU Regulatory Framework Article 7. procedures are co-signed and approved at the TCA at commission member level. See Government Whitepaper on better regulation, www.betterregulation.ie

*** NRF dictated interworking, in the framework recitals.

Since telecommunications regulation is a large, difficult area, a special section should be created in the CA to handle it. It should work with ComReg, but on competition it should be authoritative -- it should be able to order ComReg to apply technical directives.

*** Granted maybe. Differing independent ministerial agencies. Differing legislation, highly unlikely. (Competition Act, versus 2002 Communications Act)

There's no need to disband ComReg, it just needs to have a large portion of staff transferred to the CA.

*** See above.

The leadership of ComReg should be sacked because they're incapable of regulating. Saying they don't have the authority isn't enough, they've purposely and transparently deceived both their masters and the public, as evidenced by the quarterly reports.

*** Disagree. Will not provide opinion.

The organisation should be redesigned from the ground up.

*** Agree.

Now, sorry if my arrogance caused offence. But I know my s**t here.

Tom

lucernarian

I know that "ministerial intervention" and "impartiality" shouldn't really go hand in hand. I'm thinking though along the lines of the former health boards, where there was a certain amount of local authority participation. I think it's beneficial if a Minister for CMNR had a more substancial role to play in ComReg, albeit a minor role still. This would maintain for all intents and purposes impartiality while ensuring that the desires of the public and what is good for the economy can be voiced within ComReg through the Minister. I accept though, that this is a bit too idealistic.

The problem of misinformation and bizarre decisions needs to be tackled at least by compelling ComReg to adhere to basic standards of professionalism and best international practice. This would include giving out the correct information on broadband availability and using internationally used figures for broadband penetration (bb connections per 100 inhabitants).

The DCMNR would provide the basic standards and quality of service to be used by all operators, e.g FIA, a basic time limit for transferring Wholesale DSL connections and a guaranteed dedicated (not through DACS) copper phone line to every household on the mainland of the State. The DCMNR could also negotiate a small one-off payment to eircom for this although I think €650000 is not a severe sum for eircom to pay to give 20 odd people a proper phone line for example.

ComReg would be compelled to act on any company in breach of this, with the according powers backing this up.

But it all comes back to the fact that we shouldn't have to tell a regulator that universal means universal in the first place. They're expected to know these things as part of the job description. Which is why that we could do with some replacements in ComReg.

Sponge Bob

I just want Comreg to be abolished tomorrow . We owe the parasites nothing and they can do nothing for us. There are about 120 working in there and for what ??

Create a regulation group for SMP operators in the TCA, employ 20 or so
Create spectrum licencing group in new body under DCMNR , employ 15 or so
Create postal regulator employ 15 or so
Give Consumer authority money to hire 10 special telco customer adviser bods .

We would Halve the cost of the farce (anyway) and we COULD NOT BE worse off than we are with those parasites .

Or else send them on a seppuku weekend

dahamsta

Tom Young wrote:

** Competition, Law and Consumers are the stools of competition policy. Within a sector e.g. telecoms, you to have succinct and relevant regulations striving to foster adequate competition policy. Disjoins would result in failure, we need 'an independent telecom' or utilities regulator to implement regulations today.

It certainly looks like a sentence, but I'm afraid I don't speak Dilbert. Sorry.

*** Lack of comprehension of requirement for a regulator. re: Comment 1. Contradiction 2.

Again, until you explain /why/ I lack comprehension, I'm going to stick with what I've got. Thanks all the same.

*** Impossible. Sector specific competition issues and abuses are just that, sector specific. While the economics are similar the technologies are different as are the markets. Particularly where bundling, network symmetry and investment cycles are concerned.

Fair enough. Can you tell me the address of the regulatory authority for waste collection please? How about a phone number for the local newspaper authority? Actors? Particularly where the recycling sector, Drogheda area, and advertising agencies are concerned. Very sector-specific, those.

http://www.tca.ie/enforcement_decisions.html

*** Scale is the issue, in Ireland 60 in the TCA, 120 in ComReg. Co-operation agreement in place, all New EU Regulatory Framework Article 7. procedures are co-signed and approved at the TCA at commission member level. See Government Whitepaper on better regulation, www.betterregulation.ie

I addressed this. Twice. See posts 9 and 11.

*** Disagree. Will not provide opinion.

Shocker.

Now, sorry if my arrogance caused offence. But I know my s**t here.

Ignorance. Ignorance is the word you're looking for. As in rude. And I think you might have misplaced the word "my".

lucernarian

I don't see the effectiveness of setting up various divisions within other authorities, except to save money. I don't trust the government to hire completely new staff for these mini-ComRegs and I trust the Civil Servants even less not to kick up a fuss about the shenanigans of setting up numerous agencies.

But there's definetely a point to some layoffs here and there. The problems can't get any worse with less/no staff. I guess this is your point Sponge Bob?

My point is that we need a proper regulator to improve the situation. Things won't deteriorate with no regulator, but they won't get better unless there is a full and proper regulator.

Sponge Bob

To_be_confirmed wrote:

The problems can't get any worse with less/no staff. I guess this is your point Sponge Bob?

Tis indeed, no staff is what i had in mind.

My point is that we need a proper regulator to improve the situation. Things won't deteriorate with no regulator, but they won't get better unless there is a full and proper regulator.

But Comreg are an institutional failure with an embedded culture of incompetence . The eircom tail wags this mangy incontinent poodle of a regulator. They do not have the right to exist because , to paraphrase some of the counter argument, there must be a regulator , some regulation is required but Comreg won't do it no matter how many powers they are given and we therefore have no need of Comreg because they serve no useful purpose as an institution.

Nothing short of a serious threat to their existence will energise them in any way but as I feel that not even this will work so abolish them instead. Reconstitute the essential sectors within organisations that do not have this historic culture of failure and hand wringing incompetence.

Good riddance, we do not owe these morons a living .

scojones

The question is not do we need ComReg, it's do we need Eircom.

dahamsta

sjones wrote:

The question is not do we need ComReg, it's do we need Eircom.

/Eircom/Noel Dempsey/

scojones

Ken Shabby wrote:

/Eircom/Noel Dempsey/

s/Eircom/Noel\ Dempsey/

dahamsta

sjones wrote:

s/Eircom/Noel\ Dempsey/

vi

Cork

So what is needed to have LLU and have better lines going into peoples homes?

Legalislation or Regulation?

bealtine

To_be_confirmed wrote:

T


The purpose of ComReg I believe is an "impartial decision-making authority". If they are not able to fulfill their purpose or whatever then action needs to be taken on ComReg.

*bump*

Herein lies to problem "impartial decision-making authority" is not how anybody in their right mind could possibly describe Comreg. They have become unfocused and too busy with the minutiae of the business of tecomms rather than focusing on the real picture. "how do we improve telecommunications in ireland?"

These are the people who have brought us nothing,
consistently ignored consumer concerns,
have ignored direct government directives,
delivered no measureable or quantifiable improvements in the quality of our telecomms services.
Play chicken with the telcos and then fold under the slightest pressure.

In fact Comreg are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
There can be no change or improvemnt while Comreg play smoked salmon lunches with our services and livelihoods (if you rely on telecomms that is)

Capt'n Midnight

sjones wrote:

The question is not do we need ComReg, it's do we need Eircom.

The rumour mill is that they are going to churn the company again. Who says you can't get blood from a stone :rolleyes:

And as others have pointed out the cost of funding Eircom to replace all that copper carbonate would be about the same as rolling out the system again. Am reminded of the £150m that Dublin gas got at a time when the company stock could have been bought for £2m

lucernarian

bealtine wrote:

Herein lies to problem "impartial decision-making authority" is not how anybody in their right mind could possibly describe Comreg. They have become unfocused and too busy with the minutiae of the business of tecomms rather than focusing on the real picture. "how do we improve telecommunications in ireland?"

These are the people who have brought us nothing,
consistently ignored consumer concerns,
have ignored direct government directives,
delivered no measureable or quantifiable improvements in the quality of our telecomms services.
Play chicken with the telcos and then fold under the slightest pressure.

In fact Comreg are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
There can be no change or improvemnt while Comreg play smoked salmon lunches with our services and livelihoods (if you rely on telecomms that is)

ComReg's purpose is to make sensible and fair decisions about comms. in Ireland. Unfortunately, we have a communications regulator that tolerated the fact that Eircom were under no obligation whatsoever to provide any internet connection to people.

Most certainly, there are fundamental failings within the system and perhaps the best solution for the country as a whole would be for a fresh start with a new regulator or better still, IMO, to simply have legislation dealing with communications in general and should there be a breach of it, the Dept. of Communications could take the offender to the high court. There would be far less staff needed to work a system like that.

bealtine

To_be_confirmed wrote:

ComReg's purpose is to make sensible and fair decisions about comms. in Ireland. Unfortunately, we have a communications regulator that tolerated the fact that Eircom were under no obligation whatsoever to provide any internet connection to people.
[snip]
to simply have legislation dealing with communications in general and should there be a breach of it, the Dept. of Communications could take the offender to the high court. There would be far less staff needed to work a system like that.

Nor provide anything better than 0k as a minimum internet dialup. This is the main reason we have such utterly crap lines in this country. If you (as a telco) could roll out the cheapest copper you could find isn't that exactly what you too would do? In a world where bean counters rule the cheapest bean is always best.
All praise to Comreg in their infinite wisdom on that one.
When given opportunities to put in place basic standards they shied away and gave us lots of maybes and ifs.

So if legislation were to be enacted, what should it say?

Set minimum standards of service?

Sponge Bob

In that case a proper definition of Functional Internet Access should be in the new misc telecoms bill

lucernarian

Sponge Bob wrote:

In that case a proper definition of Functional Internet Access should be in the new misc telecoms bill

I agree 100%. The thing to note is that we shouldn't really need to spell out to the Dept. of Comms. of all departments that there needs to be a connection rate >0 to use the internet. Would they take this step?

I will be mentioning FIA to the Dept in my submission on the bill.
EDIT: A pity there is no part of the bill where those kind of issues are dealt with, but I'll mention it anyway.