Eircom Scam

murcielago

Eircom Flotation Scam

It was legal according to the legal regime curently in force, and some investors did make money. But, commercial and financial malpractices only become illegal after there has been public outcry. Already the Eircom debacle did stop the government from repeating the same manoeuvre with other state owned bodies. For example, instead of attempting to float (no pun intended) Aer Lingus the government has chosen to sell off to some scrap merchant or asset stripper. And what is happening with the ESB? Time and space prevents me from developing an explanation as to why the Eircom flotation was a scam. But, all those who lost money having invested for the long haul do know there was something wrong although unable to pinpoint exactly what it was. They need leadership other than the Ross-Dunphy variety. They do have a sense of grievance with Eircom and with the vultures O'Brien and O'Reilly et al who hastened demise of Eircom as a company with dispersed ownership and fought over the remains. Neither of these gentlemen took on the role of white knight to align themselves with the ordinary shareholders against the Norwegian and Dutch telecom firms not forgetting McSharry, Kane and Spring and many others down to the untrained and arrogant field technicians/engineers and 'customer care' people.
It is part and parcel of every scam that some investors get profitable and indeed generous returns on their investments. We had Shanahan Stamps and Dr Singer in Ireland where some early investors received big gains. Years before that the USA had Mr. Ponzi (aka Ponti).
The Eircom affair has had three major negatives. Firstly, it has put a brake on any attempt to turn Ireland into a nation of small stock or shareholders making it more difficult in turn for innovative firms to raise capital. Secondly, a large pool of customer shareholders in Eircom should have influenced the company to become a market (customer) orientated one. Some changes of attitude did become noticeable although not immediately. It is extremely difficult to change attitude and so the lapsed time to date is not sufficient to demonstrate the proposition in practice. Finally, Eircom is exposed to the loss of a pool of shareholding customers who could be expected to have a sense of ownership and loyalty to the company - a powerful marketing tool with which to beat actual and potential competitors.
But disillusioned Eircom customers will not jump into the lap of a competitor unless value for money is perceived to be better or at least equal. At present there is no real alternative countrywide quality service available for Eircom SoHo customers. ESAT is the main challenger. But ESAT appears to be a firm dominated by a sales mentality while diregarding everything to do with the provision of a quality service. And ODTR does not appear to have the interest, the know-how or resources to impose quality standards on its licensees. The ODTR does not provide a level playing field by enforcing quality standards. Price in isolation is the dominant issue in messages to IOFFl. Of course there is a market for a stripped down product at a correspondingly low price. Many who could not afford an expensive product would be prepared to put up with inconvenience, offpeak availability only and slow downloads etc., thus increasing the total market size. An OAP accepts the non availability of free public transport during peak hours.
Ryanair is an example of a profitable low cost no frills airline providing value for money for thousands of customers. There is no deceit or pretence about the service offered. But some who travel by air will prefer a higher price competitor because of the perceived extra quality offered. This is something that the ESAT people do not appear to understand. The provision of a low cost service while charging conventional high cost prices is known as a shoddy goods strategy.
Three roles for IrelandOFFline follow.
1) Monitor and fight for proper quality specifications for all ICT services. Expose those that deliver an inferior product irrespective of the price charged. By inferior read a product that does not meet agreed and published specifications. A discussion of this nature has already begun in relation to ADSL. But why should anyone have to pay full price for an inferior telephone line?
Eircom should provide free or reduced rental when not able to provide a proper (DACS free and v90 compatible) telephone line. ISPs should guarantee a minimum down and upload speed facility and minimum standards for connections and diconnections and for 'out-of-order'. The ODTR should write the relevant specifications into the licences, monitor compliance and investigate complaints from customers.
2) All else being equal IOFFL could mount a campaign on behalf of aggrieved Eircom shareholders to change their custom to Eircom competitors. The prospect of a well planned campaign of this nature could have the effect of attracting an established and reputable international telecommunications provider into the Irish market.
3) Insist on better training/education for those who work on the technical side of ICT.

Informed responses only please. And, would the knows-it-all brigade please hold your fire? There is, after all, an insistent demand for new ideas and approaches. Encourage rather than inhibit involvement and reasoned debate. IOFFl belongs to all of us and especially those who agreed to participate in those early days following upon what most considered to have been an offensive ACT letter. In retrospect, however, the ACT letter was entirely within the culture we have become accustomed to experience from some of the whiz-kids' presumptious contributions to IrelandOFFline, and from our dealings with Eircom P(liers) & S(crewdriver) 'engineers' - aka P--- & S--- engineers/technicians - some of whom have risen to become desk-bound mouse pushers in both Eircom and Esat perhaps. May Allah protect us from the current crop of technical people who masquerade as 'experts' not forgetting those who train/educate them.

Boston

ill wait and see what 80p has to say on this before commenting

Fooger

The problum really arises (i believe ) from the delay in the goverment to pass through the telecommunication bill which would have givn the ODTR the power to do exactly what you have just stated but it was delayed to artifically inflate the price of eircon so the ordinary shareholder would benifit basic crappy logic those politicians have. So now we have a tele comms company unable to afford dsl and will have to be forced by the ODTR when the bill finally does appear

but then again i could be completly wrong as there is far more informed and smarter ppl here

MS

May Allah protect us from the current crop of technical people who masquerade as 'experts' not forgetting those who train/educate them.

ROFLMBO! geeeeeeeees do i know how that feels
DAMN! OK OK !! its NOT! ment as an INSULT to IOFFL! OK!

Looks like you though hard and well mate. I have some views on this too but i might just put them the wrong way and offend someone so


MS

jd

Originally posted by murcielago
Eircom Flotation Scam

May Allah protect us from the current crop of technical people who masquerade as 'experts' not forgetting those who train/educate them.

or even worse sales people or marketeers who "masquerade as 'experts' " .
They generally call thmselves consultants..
jd

murcielago

<or even worse sales people or marketeers who "masquerade as 'experts' " .
<They generally call thmselves consultants>

Everybody knows about sales people who masquerade as marketing experts - consultants or otherwise. So it is not an issue with yours truly and does not require exposure.

The problem with ICT technical people in Eircom, Cork Multi Channel aka Chorus, Esat, FAS trainees etc. is that they preternd to have a level of expertise that they do not if fact possess. When questions should be asked of them and pursued they should not be left go by default for fear of embarrassment or surly answers. The ideal is to have an organisation where each person's skill including limitations are recognised. When members of one skill group seek to dominate and disparage others the organisation as a whole suffers. Esat in the aftermath of the ACT letter was an excellent example of the right hand not knowing what its mate was doing. Generally, I have no desire to disparage techies - they do perform an important function. The issue is one of balance. Meanwhile the techies tend to live and work in a culture that is intolerant of the 'suits' - a status to which they themselves aspire. I have worn a suit. At other times my work attire was a white coat. I have worked side by side with chemical and bio engineers, electronic engineers and so on. I find offensive and counter-productive much of what I have seen in IOFFL and ie.comp.
There is a need to focus attention on the need for a better and a more rounded training/education for techniciens and 'engineers' in the ICT industry in Ireland. Some Eircom techniciens have themselves complained to me about their lack of skill updating. A certain Esat installation person told me his only qualification was one of competence to drive a van and to find his way around in unknown (to him) territory. He got one day of induction mainly concerned with form filling. But his card gave him the title of 'engineer'.
Incidentally, IOFFL has made an important contribution to the education of some of its own key people. Let the work continue.

dahamsta

or even worse sales people or marketeers who "masquerade as 'experts' " . They generally call thmselves consultants..

Unless you're suggesting that these "masqueraders" are responsible for the stigma attached to the field, I don't think that's fair to consultants to be honest. I realise that you're probably not lumping us all in the one boat, but it is quite demeaning to people who consider themselves consultants. I call myself one - an Internet consultant to be precise - but I don't think I've ever masqueraded as anything but someone who likes and understands technology, or at least some defined subsets of the field.

I do sales, and marketing, and even the techie stuff for my company, but what I'm best at is consultancy - sitting down with people and explaining how things work, how to apply them to their circumstances effectively, or how to use them to improve their circumstances. I mean, look at our current situation - if the government had some decent (some might go so far as to say "unbiased", or even "honest") technology consultants, we wouldn't be in this mess. That relies on them actually listening of course...

Originally posted by murcielago

Murcielago as in the 2002 Lamborghini perhaps?

I find offensive and counter-productive much of what I have seen in IOFFL and ie.comp.

We do tend to get a bit picky and arrogant at times, and you're right, that's a problem. (I've tried to tone myself down of late, I hope I'm succeeding!) Unfortunately though - and I presume this is what you're suggesting we try to correct - that kind of behaviour has become endemic in the tech community. Take as an example the recent Blackout protest: a couple of people were disparaging this on the ILUG mailing list, and I posted a defense of our initiative, explaining in quite rigorous detail what it was about, and why we would very much like their support. And, as usual on ILUG, I was greeting with more snickering, arrogance, and absolutely fruitless arguments.

That annoyed me intensely, because these are the people who complain the most about what IrelandOffline is trying to correct. And this is an ongoing and quite serious problem IrelandOffline is faced with. If we could somehow get it through to these people that we're trying to help them, even if does appear misguided (which is always open for correction), we would be a far more powerful organisation, and so we would be able to push change faster. But no matter which approach we take, it simply has no effect. It's quite literally like talking to a wall. I really can't express how frustrating that is, for all of us, but particularly for the committee when we're trying to drum up support.

A certain Esat installation person told me his only qualification was one of competence to drive a van and to find his way around in unknown (to him) territory. He got one day of induction mainly concerned with form filling. But his card gave him the title of 'engineer'.

I presume you're suggesting that the problem is with the people who gave him the title, and not the engineer himself, yes? But even with that, I don't necessarily agree. Most of the Eircom engineers I've met and talked to (I always strike up a conversation) are competent and intelligent, and absolutely deserve their "engineer" titles. The same goes for the Chorus engineers I've talked to. It's been a while since I talked to someone from Esat - the last time I think was when they set me up for EsatClear - but he seemed clever enough at the time (although he didn't actually work for Esat).

The core of the problem as I see it is with middle management, and I'll cite two example to demonstrate that. Just recently, I've had both Eircom and Chorus engineers in my house, with ISDN and black box problems respectively. Like I said, I always strike up conversations with these guys, and I got two wonderful stories out of them on these occasions:

The Chorus engineer told me that the engineers, as a group, approached middle management recently and offered to go into the call centres and help train the staff, as they believed it would lower callouts dramatically, and so reduce the pressure they're under. They would do it in company time, but without finanical incentives. Middle management discussed it, and replied that their services wouldn't be required. That's illogical to the point of stupidity.

The Eircom engineer told me that Eircom wanted volunteers to go to Dublin to handle installations, because they had a serious backlog up there. They offered them a bonus as an incentive, as well as use of their vans to travel to Dublin. But the bonus would only bearly cover the higher cost of living in Dublin, and certainly not accomodation, and they had to be in Dublin by ten o'clock in the morning.

Of course, again, a lot of this revolves around the problems you're highlighting. Technicians are viewed as lackeys and almost below standard by "the suits". "The suits" are viewed by the technicians as absolute idiots that couldn't find their own arses with both hands. Personally speaking, I tend to side with the technicians. I think Ireland's comms marketplace demonstrates that amply.

Incidentally, IOFFL has made an important contribution to the education of some of its own key people. Let the work continue.

I have to say that I agree with that, and that's not backslapping. Ultimately, although the tech community can really get on your wick at times, I have them to thank for my knowledge. I've learned volumes from the technicians who have taken the time to talk to me, and from the people on this very forum. And I think, I hope, that I'm passing that knowledge on. What's wonderful about it though, is that people are willing to use the knowledge they've garnered to help other people understand. I hope that as we progress, and we bring more people on-board, like SkepticOne and 80project today, it'll continue to filter down; and eventually back up to the people that matter - the politicians, middle management, etc.

Thanks for your post BTW murcielago. It obviously took a far bit of thought. I'll admit that I'm not quite on the same page as you at the moment, but that's because I've been hacking PHP code for the last few days and I'm not 100% with it.

adam

spongebob

....as set out by the ODTR no less in 1999 (around March ISTR)

It is called the Universal Service Obligation and covers the matters raised in the starting post on this thread.

"Eircom should provide free or reduced rental when not able to provide a proper (DACS free and v90 compatible) telephone line. ISPs should guarantee a minimum down and upload speed facility and minimum standards for connections and diconnections and for 'out-of-order'. The ODTR should write the relevant specifications into the licences, monitor compliance and investigate complaints from customers. "

Your entitlement is

2400 (who thinks they can have 56000) bps
line repair turnarounds are guaranteed

Only Eircom is subject to the USO, ESHAT have gotten away scot free in this regard as have the minor players.

Has the USO ever been discussed between IOFFL and the ODTR perchance? Tis getting a tad outta date.

M

M

dahamsta

2400 (who thinks they can have 56000) bps line repair turnarounds are guaranteed

Hmmm, I though it was 9,600.

Only Eircom is subject to the USO, ESHAT have gotten away scot free in this regard as have the minor players.

Esat don't provide the lines for the most part, so it's not really their problem. It's up to Eircom to provide quality on their network. I see your point though.

Has the USO ever been discussed between IOFFL and the ODTR perchance? Tis getting a tad outta date.

I don't think so. I've been noting the concerns being voiced on this topic recently though, and I'll be asking the ODTR about it RSN. Personally though, I view the roll-out of flat-rate services as a more important goal. It would only be a stopgap, but getting the bitrate regulations changed would be very difficult, because it would require massive investment from Eircom. So I think that a stopgap is better than nothing.

I think the best approach is to start a thread here on the subject in order to get all members views (again in most cases), so I don't miss anything. I'll do that tonight.

adam

spongebob

Adam and others.

While you are correct (and have my full support) in demanding access to a reasonable quota of KBPS at a fixed rate, it is also important to raise the floor as well as the ceiling....me looking firmly at floor here.

That is what the USO is

I think that 33600 minimum in this day and age will be adequate. At least that will cut out all the DACS boxes. There is a way around the DACS but it is not for publication here.

Regards
M

muchos_bongo

Originally posted by Muck
I think that 33600 minimum in this day and age will be adequate.

Hmmmm...........typical.

Having a 33.6K minimum is unrealistic. Why? Because 33.6K is the maximum baud that can be obtained on an analogue line. Speeds above this are achieved using compression.

A bit of research before a statement usually helps...

m1ke

well then whatever baud that means they can't scam people by putting them on a ****in dacs box. I mean, you pay for a phone line... you don't pay to share a line with the geezer wh olives beside you.

spongebob

....33600 is more than you get with a DACS , it will guarantee you your own pair to the exchange if you live within 25000 feet of it!

33600 is 14 times more than you are entitled to at present!

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by «Bo§ton»
ill wait and see what 80p has to say on this before commenting

Dont think I havent seen it 'till now- Its just been hectic in Chez 80p in the last day or so:)

Murice has some relevant points...
Re: any tie in with agrieved €ircom sharholders- I fail to see any relevance. As a general point, trading in shares is gambling- I know I have had a potfolio since I was 7 years old, when my old man bought me Smurfit Shares. Over the years I had success and some other regrets- but one thing my Dad always told me was that in principle its gambling, but just a little safer:)

Neway I digress......

If ppl are agrieved with €ircom bcos of service issues then they of course are welcomed members, but in essence using IrelandOffline as a vehicle to vent their frustration arising from (IMO) their own stupidty then not so much

BTW I like the Idea of not charging ppl for line rental where there are dacs boxes. That would be a progressive step!

spongebob

Seeing as u r on the comm - it - tee and all........

Could you get the principle that DACS = Partial service = partial line rental (lets say a token €1 per month rate) into the USO, one needs a contract so one does which is why I do not suggest a 100% rebate.

Then modify the USO to ensure that all DACS are to be removed in favour of exclusive pairs by end 2003....otherwise €ircon gets fined, say, €50000 a day or something worthwhile.

Course if the DACS was replaced by a fibre/copper convertor/multiplexor I would consider that to be in 'compliance' with the regulators wishes.

Fibre to the Hood, Good.

M

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Fair point, they still are getting a portion of the line and so should pay a portion of the cost.

I know Adam & Fergus are currently preparing a brief on the matter at the moment to clarify a few things so stay posted:)

spongebob

One rather important point is that if you get something free, then you have no contract per se and therefore have no comeback if something goes wrong with it.

Reducing the rental to €1 means

1. Contract is valid
2. You are getting the service for less than it costs to bill you, never mind provide it. It focuses minds in €ircon because u will cost the scumbags money until they spend some money.
3. It will force €ircon to provide enough pairs , rather than bodge the local lines when they run out of pairs. If ducting is an issue they will have to pull fibre and power through them , an improvement really.
4. The matter should be dealt with in their Universal Service Obligation because there will otherwise be an informatic apartheid in this country based on distance from the exchange....eg

a) POTS (normal analogue) lines should work 'fine' up to 25000 feet, 5 miles
(This is both an ITU standard and a fact of life so don't start whinging about it people)
You will note that €ircons exchanges are nationally sited in order to more or less guarantee this 5 mile maximum cable length.

b) ISDN and DSL lines work 'fine' up to 10-15000 feet, 2-3 miles

What happens to those who live between 3 and 5 miles from the Exchange. Under POTS they are OK but they cannot have DSL unless a subexchange (something like a DACS with fibre as it happens) is built nearer them, it can be slung onto a pole. That is why €ircon are being very careful about where they intend to provide DSL technology and are murmuring sweetly about wireless broadband for rural areas.

Remember that these €ircon customers pay the same line rental as everybody else, they have invested as much in the construction of the €ircon network as anybody else and will not benefit from that ..... and €ircon currently want to increase that rental in order to pay for a differential service to these people.

This is a disgrace and that is what a USO is designed to deal with.

For the regulator to agree to this is tantamount to the introduction of Apartheid into a knowledge based society.

M

ednwireland

Originally posted by Muck
....as set out by the ODTR no less in 1999 (around March ISTR)

It is called the Universal Service Obligation and covers the matters raised in the starting post on this thread.

"Eircom should provide free or reduced rental when not able to provide a proper (DACS free and v90 compatible) telephone line. ISPs should guarantee a minimum down and upload speed facility and minimum standards for connections and diconnections and for 'out-of-order'. The ODTR should write the relevant specifications into the licences, monitor compliance and investigate complaints from customers. "

Your entitlement is

2400 (who thinks they can have 56000) bps
line repair turnarounds are guaranteed

Only Eircom is subject to the USO, ESHAT have gotten away scot free in this regard as have the minor players.

Has the USO ever been discussed between IOFFL and the ODTR perchance? Tis getting a tad outta date.

M

M

The problem here surely is our spineless gov. who cannot / willnot impose standards for data connection - The uk used to be that all BT had to provide was a useable voice line which if you look at putting in a voip system translates to 14.4 k mobiles run on 9.6k hence drop out etc.
i assume that all eircomn has to provide is a useable voice line my line is appalling, doubt that the sale to valentia will yield any investment in infrastructure. this country is slipping so far behind the rest of europe and our blind politicians haven't the guts to do anything about it

dahamsta

ednwireland, please don't quote entire posts when replying, just the relevant text is all we need. Remember those per-second fees we're paying...

Thanks,
adam

murcielago

CHORUS RISES FROM CHAOS
Extract from Money & Jobs; Irish Examiner 30.11.2001
Colette Keane

[The] demand outstripped their expectations and the teething problems of rolling out any new system were exacerbated by the .. volume of customers compared to the .. low numbers of technicians .. and the .. lack of customer service representatives.
More than 250,000 people signed up and the system couldn't cope.
The picture would break up and the screen would freeze... It would happen 14 or 15 times a night. Some people lost the service for days on end and since no one would answer the call the problem went unchecked for days. .. [Then] it would take another few days to book an appointment to repair it.
At the height of that ... Chorus sent out a letter to all their customers telling them they would be increasing their monthly bill by £2.50. The benefits of this extra £2.50 included an insurance of a next working day response to loss of service as defined as a loss of more than three channels and request and restoration within 72 hours.
People who did not want the additional service charge would face a £45 charge per call out of a technician.
The 2.50 would be automatically applied to the bill unless you sent back a postcard to Chorus declining their offer. To refuse the extra charge the onus was on the customer to apply a 30p stamp to the postcard and send it back.
It caused uproar. Public anger rose to a point where the Office of the Director Of Telecommunications Regulation who issued Chorus with a licence to operate, was considering at one point whether to revoke their licence or apply snctions. According to the ODTR, the regulator has never received so many complaints about any operator. ...
Things have so improved at Chorus that the telecoms regulator Etaine Doyle sanctioned a price increase.


Notes by Murcielago
1) Chorus is still in business
2) The regulator did become involved in contrast to the ODTR's Pontius Pilate approach to the SNL problem.

Discussion
The ODTR did not appear to have the professional competence to evaluate the licence application from Chorus. It is common practice in other regulated industries to evalute an application according to certain fundamental criteria that include a) technical competence of the applicant, b) management and aministation competence of the applicant c) the applicant's (officers' & directors') repute including financial, criminal, previous history of problems in the regulated industry, d) financial resources e) human resources f) facilities & equipment g) a plan showing projected P&L and Balance Sheets for three years ahead. The licence will normally be for a stated maximum volume of business as measured by an appropriate method such as the number of subscribers (or number of people at a disco, for example). An applicant is usually required to put up a bond or deposit a certain sum of money with the regulator. It is also common to require the regulator (the regulator shall ..) to withdraw the licence in case of serious (specified) non compliance. Note it is not a matter of the regulator merely considering and then letting the culprit off with a caution. Zero tolerance applies. The directors and officers will be barred from from acting as such in the regulated industry.
The Chorus debacle of around last winter and early spring should have been seen as an indictment of the ODTR. Was there some reason for not firing the incumbent and closing down the entire ODTR?
I have not read the often mentioned Communications Bill. Does it deal with the matters I have listed? The phoenix phenomenon should not be tolerated in an industry that is so vital to the economic and social health of the country.
There is more that I could add. Perhaps it should be a new thread. But it follows logically from my submission of incompetence and/or commercial funny practices in every nook and cranny of the ICT business in this Republic of Tribunals (ROT).

Thanks to Muck for sharing your specialist know-how