[UK] Virgin.net "Broadband package" introduced!

Paddy20

Virgin.net has launched a Broadband package in the U.K., for only
Sterling 24.99 a month.

Full details here:- http://www.virgin.net/customers/internetaccess/broadband/

Eircom please note. Richard Branson already has business operations in Ireland. He loves a scrap, especially with misguided Directors of monopolistic companies like Eircom.

What with:-

Virgin.nets,

1, Basic Unlimited Internet access package at only "Sterling 13.49p a month", and now a cheap Broadband package.Vrgin.net could easily enter the Irish market, and he would eat Eircom for breakfast before he even started his normal worhaholic day.

Eircom, I think maybe you better get ready to hide your damn Mouse/Rat?

Yours,

paddy20:cool:

Tellox

Im starting to think that all your going to post is other country's offers...in case you havent figured it out yet, its really beggining to annoy some people..

dahamsta

<adam adds paddy20 to his ignore list and wonders why he didn't do it before>

Paddy20

Quote, Tizlox:- Your own signature?..

"Amount a British user spends staying online for 30 days on BTs 56K subscription service - Sterling 35.00"
"Amount you spend for staying online for 30 days on Eircoms 56K subscription service Euro 1.00"?

Where and what the hell are you on about?

Next you will refuse to use UTVip, simply because they are based outside the Irish Republic. Cop yourself on and get a life.

Maybe, boards.ie should start a "Knockers united" Forum for people like you.:p

Mixie

I'm with Tizlox, its getting annoying - at least stick (UK) or something at the front of the subject line please.

Paddy20

Dahamsta/Adams,

** Other countries offers, "Recent Threds" ?

1, {UK} Tiscali offers high-speed Net access for Sterling 20.00 a month.

2, BTo to ditch 24/7 unmetered service - sources.

3, AOL "UK" pulls unmetered dial up Net Access.

Enough said?, and I did not complain once? must be slipping Eh.:p

eircomtribunal

Originally posted by paddy20
Virgin.net has launched a Broadband package in the U.K., for only
Sterling 24.99 a month.

Vrgin.net could easily enter the Irish market, and he would eat Eircom for breakfast before he even started his normal worhaholic day.

Eircom, I think maybe you better get ready to hide your damn Mouse/Rat?

Yours,

paddy20:cool:

Our own ODTR has firmly put a stop to just that by agreeing to the wholesale price setting of Eircom which is totally out of line with all other countries.

Virgin would have to pay 55 euros plus VAT per month (89 euros for higher than 512) to Eircom for each customer plus auxilliary costs. Virgin then has to provide the bandwidth and market the product and make a profit after paying the above monthly fees (plus others) to eircom.

What are eircom doing for their 55/89 euro? Providing a DSL modem in the exchange and letting an ISP plug into it. Eircom still have the use of the
line for other traffic.

Shared unbundling is worth EUR 3,5 euros in France.


Regards

Peter

Paddy20

Branson and his Virgin Airlines, beat the hell out of the monopolistic giant "British Airways" by taking them to court and winning a unfair practises/ anti - competitive case where he walkedaway with millions of pounds in compensation and a thriving new no frill cheap- fairs Airline business.

He could do the same to Eircom?

In fact why has none of the existing Eircom competitors taken the issue before the courts. They have a clear unfair practises case against Eircom, so why on earth do they not get on with a test case.

Even a circuit court could reach a judgment in relation to Eircoms anti - competitive policy which is illegal under EU Legislation and detrimental to the well being of all sectors of Irish society, both economic, business and social needs of ordinary citizens.

Regards.

paddy20;)

Tellox

paddy, what the hell are you trolling about now?
If you would care to look at the bottom of my sig, and the other 7 or 8 threads where I explained it, you'd see it has "last edited by eircom" at the bottom. In lamest terms, eircom edited my sig to make themselves seem good.

Secondly, Im using UTV, and I find their service fantastic. Somebody who even considers not getting it because they're based outside the republic, should be stuck in a corner and prodded with sticks.

and Finally, Im not the one that posts about email homepages, requesting internet specials on the late late show, and constantly posts about the better internet offers being launched in other countrys. Please, dont tell me to get a life until you've acheived one yourself.

longword

Originally posted by eircomtribunal
What are eircom doing for their 55/89 euro? Providing a DSL modem in the exchange and letting an ISP plug into it.

Read the fine print a bit closer. Eircom charges the ISP 350 euro (yes, three hundred and fifty) to hook each customer up - that instantly pays for the DSL modem in the exchange and then some. The real cost of a DSLAM these days is between €50 and €200 per port.

After that, Eircom are charging for maintenance, the short low bandwidth circuit from the exchange to the nearest DSL concentration points, and lots of brown paper envelopes.

Shared unbundling is worth EUR 3,5 euros in France.

On the face of it, unbundled loops here aren't all that expensive - something like 9 euro for a shared loop with Eircom retaining voice, and 13 euro for a fully unbundled loop. Those aren't the exact figures, but they're close enough. Of course Eircom add on additional charges wherever they can - for example any time you want to send an engineer into an exchange for setup/fixup work, the meter is running and you had better have thick wad of 50s in your back pocket.

exiztone

Guys, seriously, what's the point n fighting here? This is supposed to be about getting a better service(s) for the good of us all, wont get us anywhere if we keep attacking each-other :P

PiE

True, but the title was annoyingly misleading.

Especially that damn exclamation mark.

sceptre

Originally posted by paddy20
Branson and his Virgin Airlines, beat the hell out of the monopolistic giant "British Airways" by taking them to court and winning a unfair practises/ anti - competitive case where he walkedaway with millions of pounds in compensation and a thriving new no frill cheap- fairs Airline business.

He could do the same to Eircom?

No, he couldn't. The main Virgin competition case (as opposed to the earlier libel case) was taken under ss1 & 2 of the US Sherman Act which has governed competition law in the US for 112 years. The case was based on Virgin's claim that British Airways hd engaged in predatory business practices (notably the incentive agreements with corporate clients and travel agencies) and thereby "restrained trade" (please contrast this with "restricted competition"). Virgin sued for a billion dollars. They came away with nothing, having lost the case.

You'll notice two things abut the above - first, it was a case taken in the US and second that it was a case taken on a basis that doesn't apply with regard to Eircom (Eircom doesn't have incentive agreements with anyone). Eircom aren't restraining telecoms trade through their regular business practices. They may lie, cheat and a lot of other things but they don't do that.

With regard to the EU, Virgin appealed to the EU that BA's practice of fidelity rebates constituted anti-competitive behaviour. The EU agreed (s85 of the EU Treaties have a different attitude to s1 of the US Sherman Anti-trust Act). BA was fined 6.8 million euros. Virgin never saw a penny of this money - it was a fine, not a reward. Again, it doesn't apply to Eircom as they have no incentive rebate payments for agents.

The only time Virgin has taken money from BA was in a libel case in 1991. No point in going into the details but the settlement was £610,000. Last I checked Eircom execs weren't hacking into Virgin computers.

Therefore Virgin aren't taking Eircom to court. They've no plans, no basis and no product here. I realise many people may believe that Virgin took BA to the cleaners and won millions in compensation. Doesn't matter what people may believe or choose to remember. They didn't. Even if they had, the same couldn't be done to Eircom (even if Virgin were in the Irish market, which I'll remind you that they are not) for the reasons I've mentioned above.

You're treading close to the libel line by implying that Eircom are indulging in similar competition practices to BA. Anyone who calls Eircom incompetent on these boards is merely expressing an opinion. Anyone who implies that Eircom are doing something illegal has to back it up with something real (as people have done). Take this one as a friendly warning.


Two requests from me though:

1. Putting (UK) or similar in the thread title would be useful if it only applies to the UK (as it's purely an information post). Virgin may have a cheap product in the UK but there's no indication or rumour that they will ever enter the Irish market. They may do at some stage (or not) but for example, Freeserve never entered the Irish market after dumping ISP subscription charges.

2. Now stop the bickering please chaps

aidan_dunne

Originally posted by Muirthile
"email homepage"

The guy made a mistake. Jeez, give him a break! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Muirthile
dedicating an entire episode of the Late Late Show to the internet cause

And what would be wrong with that? Okay, I know an entire episode would be out of the question but there would be no harm in trying to get some sort of slot on the Late Late to discuss the whole Irish internet situation. At least we have one member (Paddy20) willing to come up with an idea and then actually do something about it like contacting the Late Late. I think that's something to be commended, not criticised.

Originally posted by Muirthile
misleading "virgin.net broadband package introduced" thread

How was it misleading? Come on, you didn't honestly think this was referring to Ireland, did you? Common sense would tell you that he was posting about Virgin.net in the UK before you even opened the thread.

And what's wrong with posting up information about new offers in the UK or elsewhere? Dahamsta does it all the time and nobody criticises him, why shouldn't Paddy20? I don't think there's anything wrong with it because for any newbies coming on here they can quickly have a read through it and see how badly we're being ripped off compared to the UK. Okay, it might sicken us to read it but it is more evidence against Eircom and the ridiculous prices we pay here. What's so bad with that and how does posting that make Paddy20 a troll?

Come on guys, stop being so hard on the guy and lighten up.

dahamsta

<adam unblocks paddy20 to see what he's wittering on about cos he's in work. don't ask adam why he's in work on a saturday>

1, {UK} Tiscali offers high-speed Net access for Sterling 20.00 a month.

Prepended with [UK], as I do with most of my news posts.

2, BTo to ditch 24/7 unmetered service - sources.

You may have noticed that there are no 24/7 unmetered services in Ireland, so how exactly would one be ditched?

3, AOL "UK" pulls unmetered dial up Net Access.

UK explicitly mentioned in the title.

All pretty clear to those without a major brain matter deficit, in my view. Anyway, let's try and turn this festering pile of fecal matter into a proper thread...

Eircom aren't restraining telecoms trade through their regular business practices.

The pricing of Eircom's wholesale products is substantively restraining telecom trade /and/ competition. (Esat BT not complaining about it is not evidence to the contrary, in fact it could be seen as further evidence of competition restraint. The ODTR not regulating against it simply proves that it is incapable of doing it's job.) The same could be said for Eircom's practise of delaying product rollouts and delaying responses to the ODTR and OLO's. And it's been alleged that Eircom is encouraging it's sales representatives to practise provider slamming.

By rights, these matters should at the very least be the subject of an investigation by the Competition Authority, but because the CA and the ODTR are unwilling to come to amicable agreement on /who/ is responsible for /what/, Eircom - and the OLO's I might add - are allowed to continue unquestioned and effectively unregulated. And Ireland doesn't warrant credible attention from the EU, who would be up to their their elbows in an investigation if the same happened in the UK, France or Germany.

Anyone who implies that Eircom are doing something illegal has to back it up with something real

It's only a matter of time, eh? Personally, I'd much prefer to see a criminal trial, and people in jail.

adam

eircomtribunal

Originally posted by longword
Eircom charges the ISP 350 euro (yes, three hundred and fifty) to hook each customer up - that instantly pays for the DSL modem in the exchange and then some. The real cost of a DSLAM these days is between €50 and €200 per port.

So there are not just the monthly 55/89 euros as a deterrent for possible competitors - and all those charges are legitimised by the ODTR; allegedly this pricing reflects the cost price of an efficient operator.

Who knows the wholesale pricing for ADSL in other countries? What do Virgin.net and all the others have to pay to BT for set up and as a monthly charge.

We'd need to come to the bottom of this:

Was pressure put on the "independent" ODTR to agree to these prices?
If yes, by whom and in what form.

How did the ODTR arrive at the conclusion that Eircoms wholesale price offer was a fair offer? Did the ODTR vet it itself, or had they an independent audit?

Regards

Peter

Paddy20

Sceptre,

Exscuse me, for mentioning Virgin.net, but is part of the Virgin Group called "Virgin Records/ Virgin Superstores, not already operating in Ireland? if so this would mean that they are here in the Irish Republic. Whereas you state that Virgin are not here?etc,etc.

I hope I am not bitching, but you know what I was on about in relation to Eircom. In fact as far as I am aware, even an ordinary member of the public can lodge a complaint against Eircoms anti-competitive business practises in their local circuit court for a small fee. The court is then obliged to investigate and give a judgment on the complaint/complaints against Eircom.net or Eircom.ie or the Directors of same. I am no legal eagle and I stand to be corrected by anyone including your goodself.

Your long and detailed" Virgin Airlines V British Aiways" novel was very interesting and I for one appreciate you taking the trouble to enlghten me and others. At the time I was living in London and Richard Branson became something of a working mans folk hero, for having the audacity to take on BA which was then heavily subsidised by her Majestys Government. When Mr Branson accused them of using their - Dirty tricks department- of trying to kill off his fledgling miniscule Virgin Airways venture it captured the pubic imagination.

I willingly stand corrected on some of the detail, as you correctly pointed out, but I still believe a similarity between BA and Eircoms behaviour is clear. In order to win Richard Branson persisted and eventually won a battle for a "Cheaper fares" airline service. He became "controversial" in his approach and consequently won the respect of the general public and the "Establishment" and I seem to remember that the Chairman of BA resigned over the matter of dirty tricks. He was lucky not to have been locked up.

I also accept that putting UK at the start of my Virgin.net thread
would have been a good idea which with hindsight is easy to admit.

Yours,

paddy20:cool:

" Nothing, if not controversial?"

longword

Originally posted by eircomtribunal
Who knows the wholesale pricing for ADSL in other countries? What do Virgin.net and all the others have to pay to BT for set up and as a monthly charge.

BT's wholesale DIY service is becoming very popular. It costs the 3rd party ISP €80 to connect a customer (it may be lower, my figure for that is out of date), and €25 per month. The customer doesn't get a visit from an engineer - BT just handles the exchange end of things and you have to install your own splitter and modem, a fifteen minute skill-free job.

For that €25 a month BT provides a complete 512k ADSL internet connection all the way from the customer's home to her favourite web site. The contention rates are perhaps double those of Eircom's service, but hey it's still always-on, a damned sight faster than dialup, and there's no silly cap. There is talk of a monthly cap being introduced but it's unlikely to be set as insanely low as 3GB. Personally I'm in favour of reasonable caps being imposed - makes perfect economic sense and helps make contention a happy experience for all.

Was pressure put on the "independent" ODTR to agree to these prices?
If yes, by whom and in what form.

The ODTR did complain about Eircom's initial wholesale proposal. Not because the prices themselves are too high - for some reason the ODTR doesn't seem to feel obliged/empowered/responsible for that. No, their complaint was that if Eircom were ripping people off at that kind of rate, the 3rd party ISPs should be able to rip people off at a similar rate. They requested an increased differential between Eircom's retail pricing and wholesale pricing.

How did the ODTR arrive at the conclusion that Eircoms wholesale price offer was a fair offer? Did the ODTR vet it itself, or had they an independent audit?

I find it difficult to believe any consideration was given to the pricing in relation to those of an "efficient operator". Or if there was, it must have been based solely on Eircom's idea of an efficient operator.

longword

Originally posted by eircomtribunal
So there are not just the monthly 55/89 euros as a deterrent for possible competitors

It gets better - have a look at Eircom's reference ADSL offer. The prices are on the last few pages. ISPs are required to buy ports in blocks of 24 in any exchange they wish to offer a service. This block of 24 costs €4800. For each customer you want to add to that block, you pay another €150. If an ISP is lucky enough to have filled their DSLAM block of 24 ports, it averages out at €350 to connect each customer. If they have only 12 customers in that exchange, it'll cost them €550 per customer. If they decide to quit, there's a €75 charge to disconnect each customer.

The monthly charge is also heavily weighted towards a block-of-24 model. It's €720 per 24 ports no matter how few of them are used then on top of that €19 per 512k customer, €49 per 1Mbit customer. So if an ISP has a dozen 512k users, it's costing them €79 per customer per month. Ex VAT. Ex internet connection.

sceptre

Originally posted by dahamsta

The pricing of Eircom's wholesale products is substantively restraining telecom trade /and/ competition. (Esat BT not complaining about it is not evidence to the contrary, in fact it could be seen as further evidence of competition restraint. The ODTR not regulating against it simply proves that it is incapable of doing it's job.) The same could be said for Eircom's practise of delaying product rollouts and delaying responses to the ODTR and OLO's. And it's been alleged that Eircom is encouraging it's sales representatives to practise provider slamming.
<snip to save space>

Fair point Adam, can't disagree with that (especially given that I'm one of the people alleging that Eircom are using slamming tactics:))

I meant the point purely in relation to the implication there was a direct correlation between BA's tactics in regard to fidelity agreements (like Microsofts agreements on MS DOS bundling) and Eircom's tactics. My fault for being less than clear.

Anyone who implies that Eircom are doing something illegal has to back it up with something real

It's only a matter of time, eh? Personally, I'd much prefer to see a criminal trial, and people in jail.

As would I. I've a far more totalitarian attitude to abuse of trust (as in general corruption and bribery) even than I do for general larceny. Eircom are undoubtedly in breach of Article 81 (the former Art 85) of the treaty of Rome (as amended) (see guidelines - Mario Monti has said that fairly plainly. They're in breach of EU telecommunications regulations and they're a general detriment to Irish business and consumers. That much I can substantiate or stand over.

Originally posted by paddy20
Sceptre,

Exscuse me, for mentioning Virgin.net, but is part of the Virgin Group called "Virgin Records/ Virgin Superstores, not already operating in Ireland? if so this would mean that they are here in the Irish Republic. Whereas you state that Virgin are not here?etc,etc.

Individual Virgin companies do operate in the Irish market. Incidentally Virgin Records was sold to EMI ten years ago and is no longer part of the Virgin group (though of course the stores still are). Virgin.net doesn't operate in Ireland. Ditto some of their other companies such as insurance, loans and so on. They don't have a case against Eircom given that they are not in the market or haven't been directly prevented by Eircom from entering the market.

In a moral sense, you could say that companies like Virgin cannot enter the Irish market as long as they are disadvantaged by Eircom's high interconnect charges and wholesale rates but in a legal sense there's no case until they either attempt to enter the market and are prevented from doing so or enter the market and are disadvantaged in some way thereafter. Tesco sell petrol in the UK - regardless of what dirty tricks Irish petrol companies could play on each other they have no case for being disadvantaged themselves until they are actually disadvantaged (and if they fail to enter the market or make an attempt to do so they've no case in tort)

I hope I am not bitching, but you know what I was on about in relation to Eircom. In fact as far as I am aware, even an ordinary member of the public can lodge a complaint against Eircoms anti-competitive business practises in their local circuit court for a small fee. The court is then obliged to investigate and give a judgment on the complaint/complaints against Eircom.net or Eircom.ie or the Directors of same.

I think I know what you were on about in relation to Eircom. I do think the OLOs have a case that needs to be answered in both a moral and legal sense. In regard to making a complaint, the Competition Authority can investigate an alleged breach of competition law brought by a member of the public, usually where more than one firm colludes in price-fixing, limiting output, dividing markets or abuse of market power. An Irish consumer/citizen has a similar right to take a case under s14 of the Competition Act 2002.

You're not bitching - however making a very specific allegation against a specific company is a dangerous thing to do when that specific[/] allegation has no basis in fact at all. Examples: saying "Eircom are a crowd of lying thieving scumbags with an incompetent board of directors, an corrupt chairman and they've far more of an interest in raping the infrastructure they've bought with a view to holding the country to ransom in order to maximise their personal fortunes at the expense of the people who paid (twice) to build that infrastructure" is opinion. While saying that again and again will most likely annoy forum members, in a legal sense it's fine (just about).

I assume (re-reading your post) that what you were saying is that Richard Branson isn't the kind of type to lie down and ignore legal abuse or anti-competitive behaviour by an incumbent company with a dominant market position. I may have misread "he could do the same to Eircom" as a specific charge rather than a general warning - if I did I apologise. I do try to read posts in an objective manner though (given that I'm moderating the thing) - in that regard it could be read by an Eircom lawyer* as two sentences away from another letter in the post. Personally it wouldn't bother me but I don't want to give them any ammunition. Put it down as a pre-emptive (albeit slighty premature) overreaction on my part. A genuine libel case wouldn't be a good thing.



*and you know they read what's written here

spongebob

This phrase specifically refers to the antics of long distance carriers in the states (who handle out of state or international calls and no local) where the customer also nominates a long distance carrier to their local call and line provider.

In a case where (for example) a customer leaves AT&T for Worlcomd....they may mysteriously get an AT&T bill one month and no Worldcom bill. They've been slammed.
That is because AT&T had their bank account/credit card details on file all along along with their address and phone number.. AT&T (in this example) fraudulently resubmit these to the Local Carrier and say that you have requested it. The US long distance mobs AT&T Worldcom and Sprint do it to each other all the time.

For Eircom to do a slam, they would have to turn off a CPS provider with NO instruction from you to do so. The selction of another carrier is an instruction to Eircom not to carry your calls (or selected calls)

After CPS came in (3 years ago or so) , the ODTR allowed Eircom to put their case to customers who had selected another carrier for their calls as long as the customer is residential. This means Eircom are allowed to coldcall you or even call out to your house and to mail you with offers...some of which their own customers never get to hear about from Eircom EVEN if they ask.

Ask the ODTR why they allowed this ...by all means.

They are not allowed to do so with Business customers.

Unless they disconnect you from a CPS provider where you have not given them a written instruction to do so they are NOT guilty of slamming IMO

M

sceptre

Originally posted by Muck
This phrase specifically refers to the antics of long distance carriers in the states (who handle out of state or international calls and no local) where the customer also nominates a long distance carrier to their local call and line provider.
<snip>
Unless they disconnect you from a CPS provider where you have not given them a written instruction to do so they are NOT guilty of slamming IMO

You're correct Muck - just checked the phrase on the FCC site. Misused phrase by me (though I blame that Beecher chap for defining it using that word:)) "Hard sell over the phone" then - may as well get these terms correct.

Paddy20

Sceptre,

Thank you, for your prompt response to my psting to you.

This "citizens rights" part of the legal process, is becoming more and more interesting to me .

I am determined to become a thorn in the side of Eircom.net, as, as far as I (Personally) speaking am concerned, they have a lot of answering to do as they appear to- not be accountable to anyone, in their opinion.

Perhaps, they might have no alternative but to answer a Judge in a civil case brought against them by a ordinary citizen, if no business or other state body has the will to challenge them, because of the possible legal fees.

However, in my case I am entitled to full legal aid and I am considering proceeding in a personal legal action against them, but due to serious health problems I may not be fit enough to attend at court in person. So I have to weigh up all my options, in relation to my possible claim for damages against Eircom.net and/or the named Directors & Chairman of Eircom.ie.

Yours,

paddy20.

"Nothing, if not controversial?";)

jd

Originally posted by paddy20
Sceptre,


I am determined to become a thorn in the side of Eircom.net, as, as far as I (Personally) speaking am concerned, they have a lot of answering to do as they appear to- not be accountable to anyone, in their opinion.

"Nothing, if not controversial?";)

What would be the specific case you would bring against eircom.net ??

dahamsta

Ask the ODTR why they allowed this ...by all means.

mdf posted recently saying that this practise had been stopped. See here.

though I blame that Beecher chap for defining it using that word

Muck is correct, the phrase originated from the practise of changing operators without consultation. However, when the FCC got wise to slamming and cracked down on it, the operators didn't stop, they just changed their methodologies. So where originally the entire process took place behind the users back, now the operators would contact the user and do the "hard sell" on them. The problem being, it wasn't just a hard sell, it was lying and cheating. The classic ploy was to offer cheaper long distance to the user, and then put the prices up in a month or so; but there were lots more.

The same methodologies were carried across to the domain registration business when the market was liberalised and Network Solutions lost it's monopoly. NetSol thought the whole thing was pie-in-the-sky, but when their parent company, Verisign, noticed a serious nosedive in revenues[1], they gave the company a stern talking to and NetSol went on the rampage, sending out invoices to registrants whose domains had been transferred away from NetSol[2]. This practise has come to be known as "domain slamming", so you can see that the term has become more generalised.

I've wittered on here because all this has a bearing on the topic in hand, anti-competitive behaviour. And it's not just a business thing, or a comms thing, it runs to most businesses and politics in Ireland. The problem is that nothing in Ireland is done or decided explicitly, in public, transparently and accountably; it's done in backrooms, in pubs, at private dinners, and sometimes all of the above -- in the K Club for example.

So to take one example, the decision by Eircom to win back business by all means necessary, IrelandOffline and EircomTribunal are effectively fscked at the post, because whoever made that statement in the meeting wouldn't have made an explicit statement. They would have told the telesales guys to "use their imagination" or somesuch. And sadly, the telesales guys know what he meant, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more.

Like I've said many, many times, I'd like to see some people - you know who I'm talking about - in the dock, answering questions. And I'll do everything in my power to advance that to reality. But I have difficulty seeing how we can bring it to fruition. We're cute hoors at times, but these guys are masters. And they're proud of it, which makes it all the more offensive.

adam


[1] Verisign also operates the registry, i.e. they control the root zone files where all the domains are actually stored. However, the registry only gets $6 per year per domain name stored in the roots, as against the $35 NetSol was getting them.
[2] The other registrars picked up on this, and started sending out invoices too. My latest friendly registrar is "Domain Registry of Europe", who are so helplessly stupid they send the invoices out in the wrong envelopes, with a US flag and "Domain Registry of America" writ large on the front.

jd

Originally posted by Muirthile
The admins should give him his own board. They could call it "Recycle Bin"

or "homepage "
recyclebin@boards.ie :D;)

Paddy20

jd,

You do not seriously expect me to publicly, forewarn Eircom at this moment of my proposed civil action against them.

Forewarned is forearmed, and I for one am not going to be of any assistance to Eircom in that respect.

This is a personal legal matter which will remain within the confines of the legal profession.

Meanwhile, Eircom can wait, and so can everyone else?

Yours,

Paddy20,

"Nothing, if not controversial?":cool:

jd

Originally posted by paddy20
jd,

You do not seriously expect me to publicly, forewarn Eircom at this moment of my proposed civil action against them.

Forewarned is forearmed, and I for one am not going to be of any assistance to Eircom in that respect.

This is a personal legal matter which will remain within the confines of the legal profession.

Meanwhile, Eircom can wait, and so can everyone else?

Yours,

Paddy20,

Paddy
I hope you realise that if you try and bring a case aganst eircomnet regarding phonebills you are wasting your own money and time..
jd

Paddy20

jd,

I appreciate your interest, but I must repeat that I am in the luxurious position of having full legal aid approval?.

If my case warrants it . Apparently, it can go all the way to the European court of human rights, if needed.

My personal financial costs = NIL.

Yours,

paddy20.

"Nothing, if not controversial?":cool:

jd

Originally posted by paddy20
jd,

I appreciate your interest, but I must repeat that I am in the luxurious position of having full legal aid approval?.

If my case warrants it . Apparently, it can go all the way to the European court of human rights, if needed.

My personal financial costs = NIL.

Yours,

paddy20.

"Nothing, if not controversial?":cool:

paddy
I don't know what case you think you may have, but make sure you get you get your facts right, and make sure you exercise a claim against the correct entity..
While you may have free legal aid, I don't , and while this is going off topic a bit, it bugs me a bit to see someone considering taking a legal case which they might not take if they had to foot the bill themselves,,

Paddy20

jd,

It is called "Poetic Justice" here in Donegal.

As poor old Eircom will find out.

Yours,

paddy20.

"Nothing, if not controversial?"