Ireland in Breach of World Trade Organisation Rules?

timod

Was doing a bit of web searching...

From the website of the Competitive Telecomunications Association

This document: http://www.comptel.org/filings/ustr_sec1377_feb1_2002.doc

It's from February, but I dont recall seeing it mentioned here. It's a letter from Comptel to Office of the United States Trade Representative regarding WTO breaches.

Its aimed mainly at American companies wanting to do business abroad.

Anyway to quote:

IRELAND

Ireland suffers from some of the highest local access leased line rates in Europe, as well as the longest provisioning time in Europe. In addition, fixed-to-mobile termination rates are extremely high.

WTO VIOLATIONS – Reference Paper and GATS Telecommunications Annex

Local Access Leased Lines – Pricing: Despite the requirements of Section 2.2(b) of the Reference Paper for cost-oriented rates, the rates charged in Ireland for local access leased lines are among the highest in the world. Eircom, the major supplier, provides local access leased lines at rates that are far from cost-oriented and, in fact, approximate the retail rates that Eircom charges its retail customers. For a 5 km, 2 Mbps local access circuit, the annual charge is more than 12,000 Euros (3-year contract). By comparison, a similar circuit in Sweden costs less than 3,000 Euros a year. The average rate charged by a Bell Operating Company in the United States is the equivalent of just less than 4,000 Euros a year. The Irish Regulator (“ODTR”) has indicated that it is concerned about this issue, but no progress has been made in bringing these rates down to cost-oriented levels.

Local Access Leased Lines – Provisioning: Eircom’s local access leased line provisioning times are among the worst in Europe, in violation of Section 2.2(b) of the Reference Paper, which requires delivery in a “timely fashion.” ODTR’s failure to act forcefully also violates Section 1.1 of the Reference Paper, which requires Ireland to maintain measures that prevent a major supplier from engaging in or continuing anticompetitive practices. Within the last 18 months, delivery times had been as high as 89 days. While this has since improved with delivery times of between 65-75 days, due in no small part to the efforts of the ODTR, CompTel believes that there is still substantial room for improvements to be made. Indeed, the best practice in Europe is 25 days, and the average of the three best countries is 28 days. The average provisioning time in the United States is 25 days. These provisioning delays are extremely damaging to the business of emerging carriers.

Finally, Section 5(a) of the GATS Telecommunications Annex requires Ireland to ensure that service suppliers of other WTO members have access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions for their provision of value-added services. Ireland, however, has failed to prevent Eircom from provisioning local access leased lines, a fundamental part of the public telecommunications transport network, to providers of value-added services in Ireland on an unreasonable and discriminatory basis.

Fixed-to-Mobile Termination Rates: Fixed-to-mobile termination rates in Ireland are far from cost-oriented, in violation of Section 2.2(b) of the Reference Paper and Section 1 of the Reference Paper. In particular, Eircom, the major supplier for mobile termination services in Ireland, charges fixed operators more than 15 Eurocents – four to five times the LRIC rate - to terminate calls on their mobile network. Moreover, this rate is higher than Eircom’s retail charge to certain customers, which is approximately 11 Eurocents. Unfortunately, the ODTR has made little progress on this issue since July 2000, when it announced that it would be examining the situation. This discrimination against fixed network operators results in significant damage to U.S. network operators and customers.

Tim

timod

Just to put this in context...

The WTO reference paper mentions:

Section1.1
1. Competitive safeguards

1.1 Prevention of anti-competitive practices in telecommunications

Appropriate measures shall be maintained for the purpose of preventing suppliers who, alone or together, are a major supplier from engaging in or continuing anti-competitive practices.

Section 2.2 (b)
2. Interconnection

2.2 Interconnection to be ensured
Interconnection with a major supplier will be ensured at any technically feasible point in the network. Such interconnection is provided:

(b) in a timely fashion, on terms, conditions (including technical standards and specifications) and cost-oriented rates that are transparent, reasonable, having regard to economic feasibility, and sufficiently unbundled so that the supplier need not pay for network components or facilities that it does not require for the service to be provided

Section 5 (a) of the Telecommunication Annex

Each Member shall ensure that any service supplier of any other Member is accorded
access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
terms and conditions, for the supply of a service included in its Schedule.

BoneCollector

Section1.1
>1. Competitive safeguards
1)errcom is a monopoly (no safe gaurds)


>1.1 Prevention of anti-competitive practices in telecommunications
2)Errcom prices its wholesale delibertly! to make it uneconomical for any other telco to compete

>Appropriate measures shall be maintained for the purpose of preventing suppliers who, alone or together, are a major supplier from engaging in or continuing anti-competitive practices.
3)Huh!? I have`nt seen the ODTR being very pro-active here!?


>2.2 Interconnection to be ensured
>Interconnection with a major supplier will be ensured at any >technically feasible point in the network. Such interconnection is provided:

>(b) in a timely fashion, on terms, conditions (including technical >standards and specifications) and cost-oriented rates that are >transparent, reasonable, having regard to economic feasibility, >and sufficiently unbundled so that the supplier need not pay for >network components or facilities that it does not require for the service to be provided

Blah! errcoms random number generator definitely not "Cost orientated" but "Profit orientated"

Section 5 (a) of the Telecommunication Annex

>Each Member shall ensure that any service supplier of any >other Member is accorded
>access to and use of public telecommunications transport >networks and services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory
>terms and conditions, for the supply of a service included in its Schedule.

Anyone notice errcom applying this !?


I would say overall we are absolutely in breach of all of these.
so! who`s the people to persue this with?

timod

Dunno...

Competition Authority perhaps
Minister for Communications perhaps
ODTR perhaps
National Competitiveness Council perhaps (part of Forfás)
The Taoiseach perhaps
The Tanaiste perhaps (looks after Trade)

Anyone who'll listen!

b20uvkft6m5xwg

The committee actually discussed the GATS (General Agreement on Trade In services) Agreement briefly a few months ago. However due to the lack of locus standi, we as indivduals have in the matter, it was thought best to forget out it for the moment. The WTO agreement itself and any annexed legislation such as this confers rights and obligations on member states and not indivduals.

In the answer to the question who do you pursue?
The initiation needs to come from a fellow signatory to the agreement itself. ie. If an Italian co. wanted to sell leased line capacity they could petition the Italian Govt. to make an application under the agreeement. It is not a private indivdual law matter but an inter-governmenatal one.

Having said all this it is refreshing to see that ireland once again is beng lambasted on the International Scene for its anti-competitive comms market.

--
Might be good to keep this reference for any future statistical needs