ODTR - Proposed Issues and Questions

LegacyUser

There have been a lot of good ideas posted here and in ie.comp over the last few days.

There hasn't yet been time for the committee to discuss these and agree a final list - we hope to do so over the next 48 hours.

We want to email these to ODTR by Friday - I think this is a strategically sound approach so that ODTR have time to consider them and won't be able to say - "mmm, we need to think about that...we'll haveto get back to you."

In the interests of expediency, I have pulled together what I think is a reasonable summary of the issues so that people here and on ie.comp can identify anything major we have missed or items we should drop if we are pressed for time at the meeting.

Please understand that this is just *my* summary and is subject to change by the committee.

Martin Harran
=================================

1) Flat Rate Access
Flat rate access using FRIACO as in the UK requires no new technology or investment – it is simply a case of Eircom agreeing charge rates. Eircom has not done so, nor has it introduced any type of unmetered access despite Esat having done so on a limited scale two years ago.

The Regulator has issued 1892 and 1893 numbers for flat rate access. What can/will the regulator do to make Eircom agree charges and what is the timescale?

Universal service currently applies to basic voice. In the future will this also apply to Internet access? When?

2) Local Loop Unbundling
Under EU legislation, LLU should have taken place by 1st January this year. Six months later, despite the Regulator having announced prices, Eircom have failed to meet their responsibilities and seem set to delay this further by challenging the prices set by the Regulator.

Why has the regulator not taken action against Eircom?

What can/will the regulator do to stop Eircom’s delaying tactics and what is the timescale?

When rejecting Eircom's pricing for LLU, the ODTR mentioned price factors introduced by Eircom that were irrelevant to LLU. What were these?

Is the ODTR aware of the number of splitters or 'DACS' boxes in use in the country? These prevent the use of ADSL and slow down old 56K connections - does the regulator intend to take action in this area?


3) Broadband
a) ASDL
In light of the fact that vast sums of public money have been spent on bringing bandwidth into the country, will Eircom be allowed to impose caps on the amount of data that can be accessed in a given time period by home users when they introduce ADSL?

Why are companies such as Eircom and NTL allowed to advertise (or issue press releases about) services that they cannot offer or have no intention of offering. For the last few years Eircom have issued press
releases promising ADSL within a few months and we are still waiting.

Eircom have recently announced a limited roll out of ASDL in the Dublin area only for September; they have not given any indication of timescale for other areas. What can/will the regulator do to speed up this process and what is the timescale?

The government has announced investment in fibre optic for the Western seaboard – “Donegal to Dingle”. What action can/will the Regulator take to encourage Telco’s to provide the links from this cable to users’ premises/homes?

b) Cable modem
What is the Regulator’s view on the role of cable modems for Internet access?

In view of NTL’s exclusive licences, does the Regulator intend to take action against NTL for not only failing to meet their original targets but actively slowing down their implementation of cable? If so, what is the timescale?

4) Consultation & Presentation of Facts
In its last Quarterly Review, the ODTR gave a very positive report on users’ opinions of Internet access in general and Broadband in particular.

This, however, was based on a survey of 200 companies, 75% of whom had more 100 employees.

Why has the regulator not taken the views of small businesses, self-employed and other users? Will the regulator undertake to carry out an immediate survey into the opinions of this important group of users and publish the results?

5) Legislation
The Minister for Public enterprise is due to review legislation affecting the ODTR this autumn and has told us herself that she is “open to ideas” on this.

In what areas does the Regulator believe that legislation needs to be improved to enable stronger action to be taken against companies who fail to meet the requirements set by her office?

=======================================




[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 27-06-2001).]

LegacyUser

That is a very good summary of what people have been saying. I think you also have them listed very well in their order of importance.

Personally I can't wait to hear the ODTR's answers to these questions.

LegacyUser

Looks good to me. Go for it and I can't wait for their responses either!

LegacyUser

It's an excellent summary o donnell abu -well thought out, sequenced and arranged. In my opinion it says it all.

I'm looking forward to the response from the ODTR.

Bannerman

LegacyUser

brilliantly put together !

Can't wait to hear what the ODTR have to say in responce !

LegacyUser

i think you sumed up very cleary the main points of concern of every one,
thats was the problem before, there was so much stuff we were *****ing about and it was all like rolled into a ball, no one listened.

i have to say this ireland off line thing seems to be getting its act together.

dahamsta

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">i have to say this ireland off line thing seems to be getting its act together.</font>

Pity ACT can't get Esat together.

*snort*

adam

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
Pity ACT can't get Esat together.

*snort*

adam</font>

hahahahaha...nice one!

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
Pity ACT can't get Esat together.

*snort*

adam</font>

i dont follow and im pretty sure i dont want to

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:

Originally posted by dahamsta:
Pity ACT can't get Esat together.

*snort*

adam</font>

i dont follow and im pretty sure i dont want to

ACT was the abbreviation used to refer to Mr. Andrew Conlan-Trant, the person whose name appeared at the bottom of the letters received by the ESAT2000.

In discussions between ESAT and the Ireland Offline representatives, it became obvious that different sections of ESAT had different interpretations of what was going to happen to those who were going to be cut-off - 75-hour limit, etc...

LegacyUser

o you mean the guy that got all the hassel and death treats, and phone calls in the middle of the night.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gladiator:
o you mean the guy that got all the hassel and death treats, and phone calls in the middle of the night.</font>

Among the mildest accusations he got was that he was a 'Brit parachuted in to hit the paddies'

People assumed that the double-barrelled name meant he was British, but he's Irish.

LegacyUser

As bad as ACT may seem just think about it for a minute and read all the articles in the papers, from what i can see i think this man might actually be working towards getting flat rate access, i mean look at the irish times article and that eircom B***H really sent beyond the line of sanity i want to beat her into small pieces of F*****G ground bait with ma baseball bat the now like! just because ACT signed those "letters of death" dont mean he's a bad guy. OK at first i wanted to string him but now when i look at it this might be the best thing ever to get unmetered flat rate access in Ireland.

BTW i'm feeling sick using all this time on eircom!, is there no other ISP apart from Eircom/IOL/Oceanfree that i can use?

Farls

Tad wee bit pished at this stage!

dahamsta

Just to be clear - it was a joke.

It's quite sad that I have to do that.

adam

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
Just to be clear - it was a joke.

It's quite sad that I have to do that.

adam</font>

I knew your post was a joke, Adam, and I'm sure if ACT reads this forum he will have a chuckle at it

He is a nice guy and very supportive of IrelandOffline - he just happens to be person that is on receiving end of flak that Esat got. IMO, as a company, they did deserve a lot of the flak for the way they handled the whole thing, but personalised attacks on employees of companies are both inexcusable and pointless.

A bit of light humour is fine (and indeed *necessary* to keep us all sane ), but publishing an individual's mobile number on a mailing list (which some d**khead did with ACT) is unforgivable.

Martin



[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 30-06-2001).]

dahamsta

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He is a nice guy and very supportive of IrelandOffline - he just happens to be person that is on receiving end of flak that Esat got. IMO, as a company, they did deserve a lot of the flak for the way they handled the whole thing, but personalised attacks on employees of companies are both inexcusable and pointless.</font>

I agree that publishing Andrew's phone number or even email address is wrong without asking his permission. I was joking. But there's an air of truth in it[1] - Andrew is the Director of Marketing in Esat, he's the king of the proverbial castle in this matter, and the whole sorry "SNL 2000" affair was his responsibility. He signed the letter, and no matter which way it went, he was wrong. I say that because there's more than one possibility here. Granted, it could just have been a monumental flip up on Andrew's part, maybe he just didn't see it coming. But if you slip your conspiracy theorist hat on for a moment - and you should always have it to hand when telco's are involved - the "SNL 2000" debacle could quite easily have been a monumental success for Andrew. Maybe he's *really* clever, and he's done what he set out to do - put the Irish telecommunications problems in the spotlight, in the public eye.

In both cases though, he would still be wrong. Andrew could be one of the most intelligent marketing people in the country, or he could be as thick as two short planks - at least in this instance - but either way he was wrong. If it was a screw-up, he shouldn't still be the head of marketing. If it was a success, he went about it the wrong way -- hurting your customers is never and should never be a means of dealing with market problems. It's not our fault that Eircom and the ODTR - and the OLO's - have made a hash of LLU. It their problem, it's their fault, it's up to them to sort it out[2]. If Esat had used the money spent on sending out The Letter and disconnecting users, on a pro-LLU and anti-Eircom advertising campaign, well, that would be intelligent marketing.

So do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? Well I am, but that's not the point - the same thing has happened in the UK. Several companies in the UK have raised the price of DSL to end users, and they have publicly stated that they did it to raise awareness of problems with LLU and interconnects. I think that could be what Esat were doing, but if they were, they didn't even have the guts to come out and say it. Even if they did, it would still be wrong. And if that's not what they're doing, I honestly believe that Andrew should get a job somewhere else.

It's really not meant to be personal, and I'm sad that it comes off as that way, but I can't think of any other way to put it. Of course, there is one other possibility, and that's that Andrew was set up to take the fall on this one. But that's a matter of self-respect - if that was the case, I wouldn't want to work there. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not meeting Andrew. I reckon we'd probably end up in the car park. (Just kidding Andrew, I'm sure we'd get along just fine once we'd sorted out our differences.)

adam

[1] Homer: "It's funny because it's true."
[2] Irony: Who's having to sort it out now? Who's having to explain things to people who should know better? Us.

LegacyUser

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dahamsta:
But if you slip your conspiracy theorist hat on for a moment... </font>

Couple of people suggested this conspiracy theory originally. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibilty that Esat did this deliberately to bring the issue to the fore but I'm not inclined to believe so because they made such a mess over other issues like customer care giving out different stories, the second letter that didn't ever exist etc.

If they wanted to put the spotlight on Eircom, it would have been far more effective IMHO to state costs as their reason for disconnecting people, rather than blaming excessive usage.

BTW, just to clear one thing up, when I posted original point about personal attacks on ACT, I wasn't reacting to your "get Esat together" comment - I thought that was very funny - I was just making a general point.

Martin



[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 30-06-2001).]

dahamsta

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Couple of people suggested this conspiracy theory originally. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibilty that Esat did this deliberately to bring the issue to the fore but I'm not inclined to believe so because they made such a mess over other issues like customer care giving out different stories, the second letter that didn't ever exist etc.</font>

So you think it's just plain incompetence then?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If they wanted to put the spotlight on Eircom, it would have been far more effective IMHO to state costs as their reason for disconnecting people, rather than blaming excessive usage.</font>

True. I wonder would they have done it again in hindsight though? I think they would have to be honest. They don't appear to have learned anything from their mistakes, a sure sign that someone else has the corporate braincell these days. I mean the vouchers and offers of course, to the "loyal customers" they didn't feel very loyal about. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Place sure seems like an asylum to me anyway.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW, just to clear one thing up, when I posted original point about personal attacks on ACT, I wasn't reacting to your "get Esat together" comment - I thought that was very funny - I was just making a general point.</font>

Oh, I realise that Martin, I just wanted to be sure to be sure.

adam