Comms Bill next week minister tells IBEC

neverhappen

breaking news at ireland.com

quote...
-
The Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms Mary 0’Rourke TD, told the IBEC Telecoms Forum in Dublin today that she would be requesting Cabinet go-ahead for the Communications (Regulation) Bill next week.
-

dahamsta

/adam crosses every available appendage.

timod

2/3 minute discussion on 5-7 live on it, just a few mins ago.

A guy from ICT ireland was a litle worried that it would be rushed trough.

Mentioned that the fine was being changed from €1900 to €1,000,00, and that it would allow pooling of resources by telcomms companies.

Set to hit the Dail on Tuesday.

Is there anything that IOFFL would like to see changed in the Bill? Time to get onto our TD's if so.

Tim

Boston

i wonder if this had anything to do with esat and the whole 2003 to make a profit thing.

kinda makes you wonder

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dahamsta
/adam crosses every available appendage.

Ooh, that had to hurt!!

dahamsta

Is there anything that IOFFL would like to see changed in the Bill?

I don't think we can really comment on that until we see the redrafted Bill. I just hope it isn't hamstrung on it's way to the President.

adam

neverhappen

Presumably this bill will allow the ODTR to impose FRIACO a la oftel in the uk ?

dahamsta

Presumably this bill will allow the ODTR to impose FRIACO a la oftel in the uk ?

Again, I can't comment authoritatively without seeing the redrafted Bill, but I would think that the answer is: No, not directly. The mandatory problem does not appear to be directly related to this Bill. It would appear that the European legislation is badly defined and arguable, and that it may not have been transposed correctly into Irish law at this time. We're attempting to address this issue, although it is particularly difficult given the amount of mis- and disinformation out there.

adam

dahamsta

I should also point out that IrelandOffline is somewhat concerned with the information currently available to us about the newly redrafted Bill, and are currently researching whether there are issues to be addressed. I will post more information on this as the situation becomes clearer.

adam

neverhappen

Again, I can't comment authoritatively without seeing the redrafted Bill, but I would think that the answer is: No, not directly. The mandatory problem does not appear to be directly related to this Bill. It would appear that the European legislation is badly defined and arguable, and that it may not have been transposed correctly into Irish law at this time.

But I thought this bill is the transposition (or implementation) of the eu legislation?

My understanding is this ...

1. oftel forced by to introduce a friaco wholesale product under the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997. (see this oftel document ) after worldcom referred the case to them having asked BT for a friaco interconnect product and BT refused.

2. The Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997 implements the EU Interconnection Directive 97/33/EC (see another oftel page )

According to the latest draft version of the comms bill that I can find here "head 34" allow the odtr to resolve disputes referred to it by a licence holder "take[ing] into account, inter alia, the objectives set out in Head 28"

Head 28 states a bunch of objectives the first, and most relevent, is ... "to promote and sustain open and competitive markets in Ireland for electronic communications networks, services, associated services and facilities and postal services with a view to achieving maximum benefit for users in terms of choice, price, quality, value for money and access to a variety of innovative services;"

So can't the ODTR introducing FRIACO, as long as an olo requests it, rather than just mandating it off its own bat, or I am I reading this whole thing all wrong?

eircom will resist friaco as long as it can (as bt did) unless there is regulation to force it. If this bill does not allow the ODTR to do so, then its the wrong bill....

dahamsta

Okay, before I start I have to say that IANAL, and that this particular topic would be addressed best by a lawyer. So I'm not speaking authoritatively, but on impression and understanding I've been given by others. In other words, I'm working on hearsay here. If I'm wrong, tough, I'm just doing my best.

But I thought this bill is the transposition (or implementation) of the eu legislation?

Not exactly. The impression I've been given is that some of the EU legislation has /already/ been transposed into Irish law. I'm not entirely sure if this Bill is continuing this process, but if it is, that's what it'll be - a continuation.

1. oftel forced by to introduce a friaco wholesale product under the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997. (see this oftel document ) after worldcom referred the case to them having asked BT for a friaco interconnect product and BT refused.

The key part of that isn't Oftel's mandate of FRIACO, but Worldcom's complaint. Worldcom attempted to negotiate a wholesale flat-rate service with British Telecom. British Telecom refused, so Worldcom lodged an official complaint with Oftel. Oftel then acted on that complaint. The Irish Telecommunications Regulator's position is that she will not interfere in the marketplace without a complaint by one or more of the parties involved. Our information is that no-one has complained.

2. The Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997 implements the EU Interconnection Directive 97/33/EC (see another oftel page )

This is just a document outlining British law as transposed from EU law, and again, we are unsure whether the EU law has been transposed directly into Irish law.

According to the latest draft version of the comms bill that I can find here "head 34" allow the odtr to resolve disputes referred to it by a licence holder "take[ing] into account, inter alia, the objectives set out in Head 28"

Again, disputes.

Head 28 states a bunch of objectives the first, and most relevent, is ... "to promote and sustain open and competitive markets in Ireland for electronic communications networks, services, associated services and facilities and postal services with a view to achieving maximum benefit for users in terms of choice, price, quality, value for money and access to a variety of innovative services;"

Objectives are all well and good, but when the penalties are so small that the operators are willing to risk a spurious court case in order to hold up proceedings, I think you will find it easier to understand why the Regulator is unwilling to mandate.

So can't the ODTR introducing FRIACO, as long as an olo requests it, rather than just mandating it off its own bat, or I am I reading this whole thing all wrong?

For a start, we don't even know if anyone is negotiating with Eircom for flat-rate services. Derek Kickham's (Esat) recent comments, where he said he was hoping the Regulator would have stepped in by now, would seem to suggest that Esat certainly aren't, and that might go some way to explaining my anger with Kickham at the time. We certainly aren't aware of any complaints.

eircom will resist friaco as long as it can (as bt did) unless there is regulation to force it. If this bill does not allow the ODTR to do so, then its the wrong bill....

It may be the wrong Bill for this particular issue, but I don't feel it is wrong for the community and the objectives of IrelandOffline as a whole. To quote David Staunton, who is our resident Closest Thing We Have To A Lawyer:

Although ... the legislation might be rushed through, it is however better to get it in place. The way most legislative reform is broached in Ireland is the a new bill is proposed and adopted, then interested parties horse trade with the minister over ammendments to suit themsleves. no doubt this will happen here- both Eircom and Esat will be working behind the scenes to get some things changed. Overall, its not the perfect solution or piece of legislation I've ever seen, but its a start and thus should be supported IMO. When/if there are inadequacies spotted then we lobby for those changes- which is relatively easily when there is a piece of primary legislation to work from.

The other thing David pointed out to us at that time, is that in the new Commission there will have to be a willingness to enforce, and this is one of the things I am worried about. Hefty fines are all well and good - although even they are questionable at the moment - but if no-one is willing to impose or even threaten to impose them, they are all but useless. I would say that up until now, the Regulator is acting reactively. I would suggest that as soon as this Bill is signed, the Commission should start acting proactively to drive forward competition. My reasoning is simple - nothing has changed in the past 2-3 years in the Internet marketplace. There is faux competition, and there is absolutely no innovation. As you suggest above, Eircom will resist change as long as it possibly can, and it appears that the OLO's are content with market control. Something's got to give, and I would suggest that it has to be the Regulator. The Regulator has to force genuine competition on the incumbent and the OLO's. She's a Regulator, that's her job.

adam

Beastie Boy

It sounds good

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Originally posted by dahamsta
But I thought this bill is the transposition (or implementation) of the eu legislation?

Not exactly. The impression I've been given is that some of the EU legislation has /already/ been transposed into Irish law. I'm not entirely sure if this Bill is continuing this process, but if it is, that's what it'll be - a continuation.

The Comms bill AFAIK is on the foot of an EU directive on Competition in the Comms Sector- Hence a "Directive" gives member states discretion as to how to achieve the end result, in a given time period. So in essence we are bound to the directive, but have a discretion as to how we get the purpose of the directive- .ie the Comms Bill is our attempt to fulfill.

Originally posted by dahamsta
To quote David Staunton, who is our resident Closest Thing We Have To A Lawyer:
adam

Your case solved in 30 mins or Your Pizza's free:D

neverhappen

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Adam ...

Again IANAL either etc...

As you say, in the UK FRIACO was imposed after a complaint by worldcom kicked off the whole process, rather than by oftel intervening proactively to mandate FRIACO.

My view is that as this approach succeeded, and as it was based on the uk implementation of the eu legislation, that the same approach should work here.

If the appropriate legislative framework exists for the ODTR, then its up to the OLOs (under pressure from groups like IOFL as well as requests from customers and possibly from competition from the likes of irishwan.org and beam) to look for a wholesale flat-rate product. This would kick off the process in the same way as worldcom did.

So IOFL could concentrate their lobbying etc. on the OLOs, getting thousands of people to say "we have asked ESAT for FRIACO". Presumably their license requires them to provide a reasonable service if requested to by their customers...

I just think that trying to go about trying to create a new legislative way for the ODTR to intervene proactively, according to eu directives, but without an eu precedent (?), might be doomed to a fate of legal people shaking their heads slowly and saying things like "this is going to take quite a while"....

Given all that, and assuming that this is going to be it as far as comms legislation goes for the foreseeable future, I would be anxious that the comms bill will provide the grounds for the ODTR to introduce friaco on the same basis as in the UK - no more, then I'd be happy with it (from a FRIACO point of view only obviously, not talking about the rest of the bill).

The rest would down to lobbying and the ODTR ensuring that all operators stick to the conditions of their licences.

As you say if the ODTR chooses not to do that, we have a problem, but you could then argue that they are not carrying out their remit as detailed in the bill.

vinnyfitz

The official statement is now on the Department site - here: http://www.irlgov.ie/tec/press02/february13th02.htm

IOFFL members should be on their toes next Tuesday. The wording of the Bill should come out after the Cabinet meeting that morning.

Perhaps the lobby work group should plan a virtual meeting that afternoon?

We should compare what is proposed to the old "Heads" to see what is in, out and revised. It is possible that this legislation will make things worse if it is badly drafted. There were rumours it was turning into an "Eircom Charter" last summer - though that risk may have diminished now.

The timetable to get it through before the election is called will be very very tight. We will have very little time to influence things as it will be being rushed through. Legislation which has been out for weeks (such as the Competition Bill) is allready being rushed - to bring something else in this late is not easy.

Somebody should check next week with the Whips office in the Dail to find out the exact timetable.

neverhappen

From today's IT

The max penalty for non-compliance has been reduced from 10% of revenue to a flat 1 million euros because the original 10% penalty "may have run contrary to the Constitution" apparently.

Can they up the max penalty to 1 billion euros then ...

ando

ah comon, 1 mill euro is nothing to a big telco like eircom ??? Who's bright idea was it to reduce 10% to 1Mil ???

dahamsta

I will be releasing a statement on the penalties issue today. I will post it here later this evening.

adam

Fergus

The max penalty for non-compliance has been reduced from 10% of revenue to a flat 1 million euros because the original 10% penalty "may have run contrary to the Constitution" apparently.

In the UK, OFTEL can impose 10% of turnover:

http://www.oftel.co.uk/publications/ind_guidelines/cact0100.htm

1.5 In the telecommunications sector the Director General of
Telecommunications (‘DGT’) and the Director General of Fair Trading (‘DGFT’) have concurrent jurisdiction to apply and enforce the Competition Act. References hereafter to ‘the Director General’ should therefore be read as meaning either the DGT or the DGFT.

2.20 If a person fails to comply with a direction, the Director General may seek a court order compelling him to do so. Non-compliance with such an order is a contempt of court punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

2.21 Infringement of either of the prohibitions may result in a financial penalty of up to 10 per cent of an undertaking’s turnover in the United Kingdom for each year that the infringement lasted, up to a maximum of 3 years.

Regarding the 1m Euro.. According to http://ir.eircom.ie/eircom/Investor/fr_results/ eircom turnover 1m Euro in approximately 4 hours.. they earn 1m Euro profit every 47 hours or so (including nighttime/weekends )

Arboration

Im curious as to what the Comms Bill is for, I lost out with the ground information you know.

So like, basicly does it means that I have a chance to get hold of Subscription net access?

Mountjoy Mugger

The I.T. have a brief synopsis of it - see http://scripts.ireland.com/technology/newsshowall.cfm?ID=2436 It's also mentioned in another thread further down this page.

MarcusGarvey

I'm just wondering if someone got themselves a Telco licence and tried to negotiate with Eircom for flat rate and it was unsucessful, could they the make a complaint and start the ball rolling ?

What type of licence exactly is required to negotiate this with Eircom ? Will the 2000 Euro one work ?

I figure its not going to be as easy as this though, right ?

dahamsta

Well done Marcus, you're well ahead of the pack!

I can't go into detail at this time, but suffice it to say that we've considered this very carefully in the last few months (the idea was originally mooted by a colleague nearly six months ago), and we've been looking at a number of options. It's a particularly difficult concept though, with many ramifications that we may not willing to tackle directly. There may be other routes though.

adam

Boston

have you considered a colleage, they would do much of what an isp would do, buy bull bandwidth (leased lines) then desribute that among its "clients" through a broadband network (ethernet)

MarcusGarvey

Colleges get their bandwidth from Heanet who get their transatlantic bandwidth through the government who rent massive amounts from Global Crossing or whoever the heck they are now.

I believe that many of the colleges pay about £200k a year to Heanet for 20-26mb connections to Heanet central and it then has pretty darned good connections to the UK, Europe and the USA.

I'm sure theres a chart somewhere on hea.net

I know one college was thinking of doing the ISP thing and was going to buy in leased lines and such but didn't go ahead with the idea due to Quality Of Service issues and tech support/administrative overheads.

aidan_dunne

Originally posted by neverhappen
From today's IT

The max penalty for non-compliance has been reduced from 10% of revenue to a flat 1 million euros...

Isn't this so, so ironic? They are willing to reduce the penalty to a "flat-rate" of 1 millions euros yet we still can't get our hands on f**king "flat-rate" internet access! Talk about double standards!

God, that makes my blood boil!

yellum

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Re: ISP & Colleges,
AFAIK UCD are their own ISP.
I know UCD toyed with the a few Ideas like this a few years back but I dont think there was any commercial substance behind it. It does seem a shame that there is so much capacity floating around the place, especially in the vicinty of Belfield, that "da locals" couldn't tap into it!

yellum

Heanet will not allow commercial use of the bandwidth it provides colleges. If a college started an isp they would have to rent leased lines to provide access as they would be in breach of their agreement with heanet if they used their existing lines.

I wouldn't think there'd be anything wrong with providing net access to employees and students though, once they agree to do work and college related websurfing.