Give proper control back to the state

Bard

Yes... another poll... this time it's a simple YES or NO... no room for "UNDECIDED" or "DON'T KNOW/CARE" - if you fall into one of those categories... DON'T VOTE!

--

The question is: do you agree with the following statement? (YES or NO)

"The Government, on behalf of the state, should buy back the telephone network infrastructure, including telephone lines and exchanges, from eircom plc., - infrastructure that the Irish public originally paid for through taxes, etc.,- effectively making eircom 'just another telecom company' who would then have to rent this infrastructure from the state in exactly the same way as Esat or any other licensed operator."

G'wan... YES or NO?

hmmm

No

1. All they have to do is impose effective regulation
2. Public Monopolies tend to provide awful service anyway
3. It's not worth a third of what it was sold for
4. Someday they're going to have to lay off a third of their staff, and I don't want to be the one paying their redundancy.

SkepticOne

I voted yes for the following reasons.

1. If we are forced to have single 'last mile' infrastructure (and it looks like we are for the forseeable future) then it shoud be under democratic control.

2. The existing infrastructure being exploited by Eircom was never built with the intention that it should be used for the benefit of private interests.

3. When it was being built up, no other organisation was allowed to build up competing infrastructure. Eircom got a complete monopoly on a plate.

4. What is being proposed is not an Eircom under public ownership but just the state-built infrastructure. Eircom would still have good access to this infrastructure (greater than they are giving others now) but would not be able to block others from doing so.

Bard

You got my meaning in one, SkepticOne.

I, for one, don't believe that, in a country of this small size, the basic telecommunications network should be out of state hands.

P R O F A N I T Y

No
i hate to inform you guys of this, but eircom was alot worse under the goverment, Zero investment. adsl trials didnt start untill it was sold.

The goverment have no intention of investing in this type of thing,
4 billion pounds could build one excellent fibre ring connecting every major irish city and split it up so we could all have cable internet

seamus

And that's exactly what I've been thinkin since the whole blackout talk started. Eircom having control over the local loops is like stena line having say over who sails on the Irish sea - it's fúcking ridiculous. Because Eircom own them, they can do whatever the fúck they like with them, and no-one can stop them, what were the government thinking when they let eircom have the loops?!!

This is a cause for more worthwhile than the blackout(which is still the best idea at the moment). Could you imagine - all telco's paying standard tax for use of the lines, which in turn is used for their upkeep and upgrading, and everyone in Ireland eventually gets cheap, uncapped ADSL(maybe even T1!). I'm salivating here at the prospect. This is definitely something we should fight for!!!

SkepticOne

Originally posted by P R O F A N I T Y
No
i hate to inform you guys of this, but eircom was alot worse under the goverment, Zero investment. adsl trials didnt start untill it was sold.

Not quite true. ADSL trials were started in 1998, a year before privatisation. In my experience, Eircom was much the same in recent years prior to privatisation. Again, what is being proposed is not the nationalisation of Eircom but just the infrastructure. If Eircom, Esat or whoever wants to invest in ADSL they would be able to do so on a fair basis. The nationalised infrastructure would simply be controlled by a state body but OLOs could come along and install innovative products without being blocked or delayed because they represented competitive threats to Eircom.

The goverment have no intention of investing in this type of thing, 4 billion pounds could build one excellent fibre ring connecting every major irish city and split it up so we could all have cable internet

There are several fibre rings in Dublin but they have nothing to do with residential internet access. You have to get a leased line to access them.

P R O F A N I T Y

Hmm yes but they were just piss takes, like ennis.

the situation here for internet access has changed, its gothen alot cheaper compared to what it was and is set to get abite cheaper again will a new dual billing system for internet calls.
still not good enough.

I fully agree, with the *idea* behind this. i think it was koreo (or japan) that bought al lthe exchanges back from private hands and supplied broadband. it worked great and now they are the e hub of asia. But i just dont believe the goverment would have any interest in providing a service level like they did.

Also, the fibre costs money to split, 4 billion i think then could have enough left over to split it. its not that easy to get a fibre leased line in dublin actually, i know esat do some but eircom mostly do a form of SDSL or HDSL (afaik) Colt i think do fibre leased lines but dont quote me on that.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by P R O F A N I T Y
Hmm yes but they were just piss takes, like ennis.

the situation here for internet access has changed, its gothen alot cheaper compared to what it was and is set to get abite cheaper again will a new dual billing system for internet calls.
still not good enough.

And they have stopped taking the piss now?

I fully agree, with the *idea* behind this. i think it was koreo (or japan) that bought al lthe exchanges back from private hands and supplied broadband. it worked great and now they are the e hub of asia. But i just dont believe the goverment would have any interest in providing a service level like they did.

It was the *idea" you were being asked to vote on, not the political feasibility.

Also, the fibre costs money to split, 4 billion i think then could have enough left over to split it. its not that easy to get a fibre leased line in dublin actually, i know esat do some but eircom mostly do a form of SDSL or HDSL (afaik) Colt i think do fibre leased lines but dont quote me on that.

Yes. So it makes sense to use the local loop infrastructure rather than install expensive leased lines to homes.

sceptre

Originally posted by hmmm

4. Someday they're going to have to lay off a third of their staff, and I don't want to be the one paying their redundancy.

The poll's specifically talking about the infrastructure - not the company. So the redundancy issue wouldn't be one for the government.

(unless you meant that the money paid for the basic infrastructure would be funnelled into a big redundancy payout, in which case, I misunderstood your post)

hmmm

Originally posted by sceptre

The poll's specifically talking about the infrastructure - not the company. So the redundancy issue wouldn't be one for the government.

You need people to run and upkeep an infrastructure

SkepticOne

Originally posted by hmmm
You need people to run and upkeep an infrastructure

Very true and Eircom would probably foist their former TE staff on civil service grades into this thereby absolving them of the problem of redundancy. This would have to be combatted. Nevertheless, since we are almost all Eircom customers in one form or another, either directly or indirectly, and since Eircom have the monopoly, this redunancy cost will be fully passed on to us anyway.

sceptre

Originally posted by hmmm


You need people to run and upkeep an infrastructure

Guess I didn't misread your post then. Of course you need people to run and upkeep an infrastructure. But if Eircom aren't maintaining a resource they no longer own, any redundancies are an issue for that private company that the state no longer owns. If Eircom are maintaining a resource that they no longer own they are still a private company and any redundancies are an issue for that private company that the state no longer owns. Still irrelevant then - it wouldn't afect a state that has just bought back the actual phone lines and exchanges, leaving Eircom in the position of an OLO.

Obviously after this potential redundancy, many ex-Eircom staff would end up working for any company the state might form to maintain the network (unless Eircom did win this maintenance contract) (I doubt the government would be dumb enough to actually bring them into the civil service) but the remainder would be Eircom's problem.

And for Eircom engineers that failed to find employment we as a state would be stuck with paying benefits (I'm not debating this point, you're entirely correct here)

P R O F A N I T Y

Originally posted by SkepticOne

And they have stopped taking the piss now?It was the *idea" you were being asked to vote on, not the political feasibility.
Yes. So it makes sense to use the local loop infrastructure rather than install expensive leased lines to homes.

I disagrea, better to spend 4 billion building a new a modren infacture then and old and out dated one.

it makes sense to provide boardband now over it, but not to buy it.

So no, i dont support the idea of spending 4 billion of and old broadband system, only to have to spend millions more to develope it when you can have a new one at a faction of the cost.

hmmm

I don't know where this buyback thing is coming from. Eircom are required to give competitors access to the last mile. Required - we don't need to 'own' it, the EU has said it should be supplied at cost to competitors. The problem is that our regulator has very little bark and no bite.

If we had
- a strong regulator
- government commitment

we would have had LLU. After that Eircon are irrelevent, they can keep offering their mindless 'services' and the consumer could simply up and go to a competitor. Buying back the infrastructure is an expensive alternative to replacing the ODTR with something useful.

nahdoic

Originally posted by hmmm
No

1. All they have to do is impose effective regulation
2. Public Monopolies tend to provide awful service anyway
3. It's not worth a third of what it was sold for
4. Someday they're going to have to lay off a third of their staff, and I don't want to be the one paying their redundancy.

I voted no. Totally agree with hmmm here.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by hmmm
I don't know where this buyback thing is coming from. Eircom are required to give competitors access to the last mile. Required - we don't need to 'own' it, the EU has said it should be supplied at cost to competitors. The problem is that our regulator has very little bark and no bite.

I don't think the buyback would ever really happen. The government will never spend billions of public money communications infrastructure, either buying back the current stuff or creating new infrastructure so the discussion is a bit academic. However, I believe the current infrastructure is grossly undervalued. If the government were to build such infrastructure it would cost far more than what Valentia is paying for Eircom.

I believe it is the infrastructure that Valentia is interested in and they are taking advantage of the downturn in telecoms stocks and the weakness of the current board to get hold of it. The weakness of the current board and staff are also dragging the market capitalisation down below that of an unencumbered Infrastruture

I've never been a fan of regulated monopolies. The monopoly is always one step ahead due to greater access to information. It also has the ability to lobby powerfully. One of the points they argued with the IrelandOffline delagation, was that it was unfair that they were the only telco being regulated and that they were continually being held back due to red tape etc. It is likely that they are doing the same with politicians.

I am certainly in favour of more power to the regulator given that the current setup with one company owning the local loop is unlikely to change. But I also think that the infrastructure should never have been privatised in the first place. I think that the situation will always be lopsided for the forseable future.

Oak3

yes.

Kix

No. Effective regulation is what's required. Spend a fraction of the money a buy back would cost and achieve the same result.

K

disConnected

Well, I voted 'yes', although I am not completely sure, as most state owned companies/operations are run quite inefficiently.
Oh while we are at this point: Has anybocy heard anything from Mary O'Rourke lately?

Shinji

It's a Railtrack-esque situation. The British government has learned the hard way that giving private companies control of vital national infrastructure is utterly ludicrous, because then you get this horrific conflict between shareholder value and profits on the one hand, and the good of the nation and the provision of a service on the other.

The basic infrastructure - the railways, the roads, and wires in the ground - should all remain state-controlled. Then they're not meant to turn a profit, only to provide a service for the people of the nation. The services which RUN on those rails, roads or wires should be private enterprise based in order to foster healthy competition and secure private investment in public systems.

It's a very simple system. Britain screwed it all up over a decade ago; Ireland as per usual followed blindly on the telecoms issue, and is now paying the price. The opportunity exists for the government to undo their mistake before it's too late. Eircell is gone, spun off into a proper private enterprise, just as it should be. Now remove the infrastructure from Eircom, demote them to the role of telecommunications provider, and get the country's telecoms infrastructure back on the road.

(Not, of course, that I expect any cosy complacent Irish government to have the balls to do this...)

hmmm

I would imagine the prospect of Aer Lingus going bankrupt is of more importance to her right now

dahamsta

I'm not sure what to think to be honest with you. There are so many pro's and con's with both, it's hard to make a decision. Or, to put it another way, in true Irish tradition - NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO WE'RE SCREWED!

I'm going to leave my vote for a few days...

adam

pork99

Yes I agree - good idea - most effective way of creating a "level playing field" for competing OLOs

therefore it will never happen, its now eircom's train set - no one else gets to play

rickoshea

The Government would not be allowed to buy Eircom. The privatisation of the telcos was instigated by the EU. No government is allowed to give financial aid to any public sector (or former public sector) company, unless such aid is also offered to private sector companies.

There have been the odd 'loans' made by Governments but they have to get permission from EU to do it.

But there must be a way around this. Maybe if the government set up its own telco and 'leased' the lines from Eircom. If this leads to a situation where most of the Eircom's revenue depends on the public telco, then they are caught by the b0ll0cks!!!

Not that simple I know, but there must be better ideas along these lines out there..

Shinji

The Government would not be allowed to buy Eircom. The privatisation of the telcos was instigated by the EU. No government is allowed to give financial aid to any public sector (or former public sector) company, unless such aid is also offered to private sector companies.

Actually this isn't strictly true. There's nothing that I know of to prevent the government from taking over and maintaining the infrastructure - I could be wrong here, but as long as they make access to the infrastructure available to all comers at even prices, it's well within EU directives. The EU calls for free competition in the telecoms market, which doesn't necessarily mean private ownership of the copper...

Bard

Originally posted by rickoshea
The Government would not be allowed to buy Eircom.

Buying Eircom is not in question here. If you read my first post properly you'd know that.

SkepticOne

If I might be so bold as to generalise about some of the 'No' answers. There seem to be two main categories.

1. Those who think effective regulation is the key.
2. Those who believe the Government can't or would not buy back the infrastructure. (this is more dealing with the feasibility rather than the desirability of the proposition.)

Personally, I would be very happy if (1) were to arise. The need for the government to purchase the infrastructure would be greatly diminished.

There does not seem to be anyone who believes that the key lies in giving more power to Eircom over its own infrastructure and cutting out all this regulatory "red tape" that is holding back Eircom from providing better services to its customers. This is Eircom's line but it is surprising that noone agrees with it. There's normally one or two

NeilF

Originally posted by SkepticOne
If I might be so bold as to generalise about some of the 'No' answers. There seem to be two main categories.

1. Those who think effective regulation is the key.
2. Those who believe the Government can't or would not buy back the infrastructure. (this is more dealing with the feasibility rather than the desirability of the proposition.)

Personally, I would be very happy if (1) were to arise. The need for the government to purchase the infrastructure would be greatly diminished.

The biggest problem is that everything the ODTR does can be appealed to the courts, holding everything up. The market moves so fast that by the time the courts are finished no one cares about the outcome anymore. Meteor was tied up in the courts for a good while, was it not?

As the telcos, in general, don't seem to have any sense of fair-play in respecting the decision of the ODTR I think she needs almost dictatorial powers to make them see sense. After all, is the ODTR not more knowledgable to make the decisions than a judge?

If anything, it is the ODTR who should go to court to force compliance with an order!

dahamsta

If anything, it is the ODTR who should go to court to force compliance with an order! [/QUOTE]

Too true. Isn't the arrogance of Eircom just astounding? How have they gotten away with this for so long? How have they hidden it from the public? God knows, I've been ranting about them for years now.

I Told You So.

adam

Giblet

I think it's a matter of making this ordeal more of a public affair.
Maybe then people would know what is happening,
And maybe then *something* will happen.
I think it's shocking that nobody* has a say in the running
of our nations biggest companys, especially one that effects
everyone.


*besides the obvious cretins

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
If anything, it is the ODTR who should go to court to force compliance with an order!

Too true. Isn't the arrogance of Eircom just astounding? How have they gotten away with this for so long? How have they hidden it from the public? God knows, I've been ranting about them for years now.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's like living in a dictatorship. Most people just go along with it because "sure, what can you do". Only a few, initally speak out. It's not as bad here as a dictatorship but the principle, I think, is the same.

cmkrnl

I have never read so much simple minded ****e in all my life. Despite all the assertion to the contrary there never has been any nirvana wr.t public ownership of any service in Ireland.

Tell me this now & tell me no more.

How did the average Irish taypayer exercise ANY recognised rights of ownership when TE (as it was) or any other semi state was publically owned in his/her name ? Going to the ballot box once every 4 years doesn't count.

Who paid the wages when TE was the most overmanned telco in Europe, at one stage over 3 x the employees of similar sized telcos in the world.

Who chose the great and good to sit on the boards of these so called semi states to act in the names of the public ? Ever wonder why they ended up as nice comfortable sinecures for failed politicians & TDs hell bent on parish pump interference. Why didn't anyone go to prison for Greencore ?

What gave the state the right to hand free shares as a bribe to already feather bedded employess at privitisation ? What entitlement had they in preference to all other taxpayers in the country ?

State ownership, despite jobs for life with index linked non contribitutary pensions etc has been no impediment to public sector unions & their members holding the poor f*ckers who pay their wages (i.e private sector taxpayers) to ransom with labour unrest that would be wholly unacceptable out in the real world.

Why is the state bailing out Cunni Lingus to the tune of £5bn, when based on past behaviour this money will be used to put privately owned competiton out of business.

Why weren't the board of Aer Rianta publically sacked for their asinine response to the unbelievable report a few months back ?

For answers to these & other questions, 66-80 wasters in Dail Eireann should be made to find gainful employment elsewhere......


greg

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
I have never read so much simple minded ****e in all my life. Despite all the assertion to the contrary there never has been any nirvana wr.t public ownership of any service in Ireland.

Nobody has been saying that there has been or will be a "nirvana". Please explain why a private monopoly owned by foreign financial interests is the way to go.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
State ownership, despite jobs for life with index linked non contribitutary pensions etc has been no impediment to public sector unions & their members holding the poor f*ckers who pay their wages (i.e private sector taxpayers) to ransom with labour unrest that would be wholly unacceptable out in the real world.

How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckers

Why is the state bailing out Cunni Lingus to the tune of £5bn, when based on past behaviour this money will be used to put privately owned competiton out of business.

Because they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.

Why weren't the board of Aer Rianta publically sacked for their asinine response to the unbelievable report a few months back ?

What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.
[edit: put in some question marks]

cmkrnl

Originally posted by SkepticOne
How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckersBecause they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.
[edit: put in some question marks]

cmkrnl

How will the Valential consortium be any different? Aren't we just substituting one vested interest with another? Effeciancies will be made, people will be sacked but this will be purely for the benefit of the consortium. There is no incentive for them to pass on the savings. We will still be be poor f*ckers

Why shouldn't it be for the benefit of the consortium, its "their" business after all, they own it. Govts have it within their means to regulate "certain" industries in the benefits of the consumer. It just requires the political will to set up the independent means to do so. "Independent" is the word here. Something outside political control. It was the FTC that broke up AT&T, scared the bejesus out of IBM & a lot more other companies that were not acting in American consumer interests.

You do not want it anywhere near the slimey hands of the scrotes who are only interested in protecting the 2nd/3rd marginal seat in some constituency.

Because they are the national flag carrier. I'm not saying I agree with it. British Airways are a private company but they may also get the same treatment.

The notion of a so called "national flag carrier" would be laughable if not for the financial burden it places on the taxpayers purely in the interests of political ego. Are they stupid enough to assume that airlines will stop flying into Ireland just because there is no "flag carrier". Its the same parish pump BS that mandated a Shannon stop over for trans atlantic traffic, whilst wilfully ignoring the loss of european hub traffic to airports such as Manchester, Schipol & CDG. Millions of pounds of business lost just to secure some marginals round the shannon estuary.

What is to stop them being sacked? If it were a private monopoly, they would have contracts that would require the paying of millions for them to be sacked. In any case, to keep the shareholders happy, all they would have to do would be jack up landing charges to twice their current amount. Bad for the country but great for revenue (and the country will survive).

If it was a private monopoly it would be illegal under EU competition rules. But that's is no suprise to the hard trodden Irish Consumer as derogation after derogation (in the so called "national interest") from the benefits of the Single market have been implemented in the interests of one pleading vested interest group or another. VRT, external access to the Insurance Market etc just to name one or two.

That so called elected representatives allowed themselves to be \[ab\]used by Aer Rianta to block the independent development of Baldonnel as a second runway for Dublin is a complete disgrace but no suprise. Competition scares the crap out of them.

Did you read the report ? Of the proposed £1bn of expenditure on Dublin only approx 1/5th was justified in any business sense. The rest was just an act of self-agrandisement. The bluster & personal attacks on the author of the report by the board of Aer Rianta were utterly disgusting.

The state has no business "owning" airports, airlines, hotels, hospitals etc. It has business "regulating" these facilities & ensuring competition, but ownership never.

Again what is being proposed is not the nationalising of Eircom but the nationalising of infrastructure with the remit that competition will be allowed over it. It is monopolies, private or public, that I'm against.

That'll never work as the wonks who really run things i.e the civil servants @ the Dept of Finance, will quite happily starve these facilities of funds to finance the ministers pet projects elsewhere.


greg

Evil Phil

I voted yes.

A vital part of the countries infrastructure should not be handed over to a corperation. Its there to serve the public and the country and is not there to generate profit.

cmkrnl

Originally posted by Evil Phil
I voted yes.

A vital part of the countries infrastructure should not be handed over to a corperation. Its there to serve the public and the country and is not there to generate profit.

Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.


greg

Giblet

i dont think it's about profit but were the profit is going
there is *NO* reason we shouldnt have ADSL here now
the fact is were paying through the nose for the *service* were currently getting.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl
Why shouldn't it be for the benefit of the consortium, its "their" business after all, they own it.

By the same token, shouldn't they be allowed to run it as they see fit, set prices and not have to deal with all the red tape?

Govts have it within their means to regulate "certain" industries in the benefits of the consumer. It just requires the political will to set up the independent means to do so. "Independent" is the word here. Something outside political control. It was the FTC that broke up AT&T, scared the bejesus out of IBM & a lot more other companies that were not acting in American consumer interests.

Fine, so you don't mind quangos interfering in the affairs of business provided they are not democratically accountable.

The notion of a so called "national flag carrier" would be laughable if not for the financial burden it places on the taxpayers purely in the interests of political ego. Are they stupid enough to assume that airlines will stop flying into Ireland just because there is no "flag carrier". Its the same parish pump BS that mandated a Shannon stop over for trans atlantic traffic, whilst wilfully ignoring the loss of european hub traffic to airports such as Manchester, Schipol & CDG. Millions of pounds of business lost just to secure some marginals round the shannon estuary.

I don't think that Aer Lingus should be propped up by government either. As you say, if they go under, there's plenty of competition out there to take their place.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by cmkrnl


Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.

I think it should make a profit and this profit should be reinvested in the infrastructure and not shipped out of the country.

dahamsta

Ah, explain these voodoo economics to me, if it doesn't generate profit, how do you finance investment in it ? Saying the "The govt will pay" is not a valid answer.

I haven't "voted" here yet, but...

It's not voodoo at all. The infrastructure doesn't have to be run at a loss, or even at cost, it just needs to be run cost-effectively, and pricing has to be cost-oriented. Pricing is calculated not with an eye to distributing wealth, but with a profit required to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. It's called "plough back profits", and it's economics and business organisation 101. Leaving Certificate students learn it in Fifth Year.

[NOTE: This is how motor tax should be used, but it isn't, the government uses it to prop up less profitable ventures. This is precisely why I haven't voted yet. I'm not sure it's a good idea.]

I think the righteous indignation is a bit over the top to be honest greg. I get a bit righteous every now and then meself, but I do try and avoid insulting the intelligence of others. Do you want a hand down off that horse?

(I try, I didn't say I'm always successful. )

adam

SkepticOne

I'm by no means a fan of state ownership. It should be kept to a minumum where possible. In general, I believe that services should be supplied by competing companies. Where competition is very difficult to achieve then state control is necessary.

If there was several competing infrastructures, then I would not be arguing for state control. If I wanted, say, broadband Internet then I could phone around and get the best deal. It would be in the interest of these private companies to reinvest profits in improving services in order to get my business.

How likely is it that we will have competing infrastructures? It is a matter of opinion but I'm pessimistic looking around at what we've got at the moment (Chorus, NTL etc). Other companies don't seem to be queuing up to compete in Ireland either. It might be due to the small sise of the country or the economic downturn but I don't see things changing anytime soon.

So state control is necessary, IMO. This can be achieved through either direct ministerial control or indirectly through some government appointed body. Whether it should be direct or indirect is important but is not the issue here.

What is under discussion is whether state control should be through regulation or ownership.

My reason for favouring ownership is that it puts the various telcos on an even footing and stimulates competition. The "regulated monopoly" is too one sided and I fear that Eircom will always dominate when it comes to new services and can put barriers in the way of OLOs that the regulator has not yet anticipated.

dahamsta

After much thought and review of the responses posted above, I finally voted 'no'. This was in fact my initial response, but I wanted to be sure.

It's my view that the only real way to tackle this is with a long-term solution. (As it is, "short-term" has probably worked out worse than if we'd implemented a long-term solution five years ago.) And I think that the only real, viable long-term solution is with legislation. If you repurchase the comms infrastructure, you're still going to have to introduce legislation to control the organisation tasked with controlling it. It's also going to cost the country a bloody fortune - one we can ill-afford at the moment; and more importantly one we shouldn't have to expend.

Consequently, I don't think that giving control of the comms infrastructure back to the State is a viable option - at least for the State - and Eircom should be allowed to retain control. However, and this is a very important however, they should not be allowed use the infrastructure to generate profits bar for the maintenance and expansion of said infrastructure. Furthermore, maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure should be strictly regulated, and even subsidised if necessary.

There is absolutely no reason why this wouldn't work out to Eircom's advantage, as a properly maintained infrastructure, and one that is expanding, is good for the service business, which is where Eircom should be concentrating their business anyway. And if Eircom don't like that, then *they* should consider making an offer to the government.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Consequently, I don't think that giving control of the comms infrastructure back to the State is a viable option - at least for the State - and Eircom should be allowed to retain control.

Do you not mean that Eircom should retain ownership but ultimate control of infrastructure should remain with the state? The next quote seems to imply this.

However, and this is a very important however, they should not be allowed use the infrastructure to generate profits bar for the maintenance and expansion of said infrastructure. Furthermore, maintenance and expansion of the infrastructure should be strictly regulated, and even subsidised if necessary.
adam

Is there any difference between strict regulation and control? BTW, I am in favour of strict regulation.

<edit: I realise this looks like nit-picking, but for the sort of regulation that is required, the regulator is basically "running" the infrastructure. Maybe I've misunderstood, though>

dahamsta

It's not nit-picking SkepticOne, if you don't fully understand what I was trying to say, others will too. I'd prefer to be perfectly clear when getting my point across.

So, the question was, do I agree with the following statement, 'yes' or 'no':

"The Government, on behalf of the state, should buy back the telephone network infrastructure, including telephone lines and exchanges, from eircom plc., - infrastructure that the Irish public originally paid for through taxes, etc.,- effectively making eircom 'just another telecom company' who would then have to rent this infrastructure from the state in exactly the same way as Esat or any other licensed operator."

I'm answering 'no', because, viability concerns aside, it means the government will have to do two jobs: 1) They'll have to learn how to promote comms usage in Ireland effectively, to the benefit of the State and it's inhabitants, and; 2) they'll have to manage, improve and extend the comms infrastructure.

The government has already demonstrated without doubt its absolute incompetence with the former, even with all the rhetoric spouted in the last few years about "hubs" and whatnot. But the fact remains that, sooner rather than later, they're going to have to pull their socks up, yank the finger out of whatever orifice it's currently inserted in, and learn.

It's my opinion that lumping the comms infrastructure on top of that - vast, it has to be said - amount of knowledge they have to accumulate will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The government has a chance now to learn from their mistakes. It's not too late to pull back, look at the problems and resolve them quickly and efficiently, and drag Ireland back to a competitive stance in Europe. I honestly believe that, I think it's possible.

But today's case in the Court 6 goes against that. Three weeks is too much leeway to give Eircom to "inform" the other organisations of the court case. Jesus, I'll run up there in my car to tell them if necessary.

adam

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
I'm answering 'no', because, viability concerns aside, it means the government will have to do two jobs: 1) They'll have to learn how to promote comms usage in Ireland effectively, to the benefit of the State and it's inhabitants, and; 2) they'll have to manage, improve and extend the comms infrastructure.

and

It's my opinion that lumping the comms infrastructure on top of that - vast, it has to be said - amount of knowledge they have to accumulate will be the straw that breaks the camels back. The government has a chance now to learn from their mistakes. It's not too late to pull back, look at the problems and resolve them quickly and efficiently, and drag Ireland back to a competitive stance in Europe. I honestly believe that, I think it's possible.

But the alternative, that you are suggesting, will involve two jobs as well. 1) Promotion as above, 2) Detailed regulation of the infrastructure. Presumably, in cases of dispute, the regulator would have final say and Eircom would not have recourse to the courts etc. Now I maintain that this detailed regulation is a form of control which would require deep knowledge of telecommunications as would be the case with state ownership. Effectively, the state is running the infrastructure although it is owned by a private company.

This is the point I was making earlier.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea - it's certainly a lot cheaper than buying back the infrastructure. The only problem is that you are dealing with an organisation whose interests might be quite different to the state and would be scheming about how to get around state (regulatory) directives.

cmkrnl

By the same token, shouldn't they be allowed to run it as they see fit, set prices and not have to deal with all the red tape?

That would be general idea, IF there was proper competition.

Fine, so you don't mind quangos interfering in the affairs of business provided they are not democratically accountable.

IIRC the FTC is part of the justice department, not a quango. You can't say it's not democratically accountable,


greg

cmkrnl

Originally posted by SkepticOne

I think it should make a profit and this profit should be reinvested in the infrastructure and not shipped out of the country.

Still doesn't explain whats going to pay for investment if profits made & used as seen fit. Ireland already spent the first 40 odd years of its existance going down the whole import substitution route, much to the detriment of both the consumer & industry.


greg

cmkrnl

It's not voodoo at all. The infrastructure doesn't have to be run at a loss, or even at cost, it just needs to be run cost-effectively, and pricing has to be cost-oriented. Pricing is calculated not with an eye to distributing wealth, but with a profit required to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. It's called "plough back profits", and it's economics and business organisation 101. Leaving Certificate students learn it in Fifth Year.

Nice as the theory is, the problem is that will never ever work in an Irish context for a whole host of reasons, political, social & financial.

[NOTE: This is how motor tax should be used, but it isn't, the government uses it to prop up less profitable ventures. This is precisely why I haven't voted yet. I'm not sure it's a good idea.]

Funny you should mention that, but that's one of the reasons why it would not work. Politicians bent on electoral bribery will see it as a nice fat goose to be plucked filling a pork barrel somewhere else.

Come soon to a car near you. Hideous CC based taxation, VRT & now on top Road Tolls. Its funny how politicians dont have to pay Benefit in Kind taxation on chauffer driven Benzes.

I think the righteous indignation is a bit over the top to be honest greg. I get a bit righteous every now and then meself, but I do try and avoid insulting the intelligence of others. Do you want a hand down off that horse?

Humour was bad this morning :-), Didn't intend it to be so strident :-). However the mind just boggles @ the naivety of those who assume that state ownership would actually change anything when only in the most recent past it has been proven otherwise.



greg