Dáil debates

Tuesday, 27 February 2007

Communications Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2007 [Seanad]: Second Stage

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

Like many others on these benches, I am continually astonished at the sheer volume of serious complaints received from all over the country regarding unacceptable behaviour on the part of telecommunications operators, including the failure to provide an agreed level of service and numerous unjustified impositions and service contracts that very often disproportionately affect senior citizens and low-income families.

The key problem with the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2007 as it stands is its total failure to address convergence in the communications market. Deputy Durkan will remember we spent the entire first part of a two-day debate on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill 2006 in committee discussing the phenomenon whereby the same operator can now offer a land line, perhaps a mobile telephone, broadband, and video on demand. One must therefore ask if the Bill before us should not have gone much further. I suggested we consider a single regulator covering most of the non-content communications landscape, given the speed with which the market has developed.

Another difficulty the Opposition has with the Bill is the new Part 7 and Schedule 1, the miscellaneous provisions section, which detail a wide range of enactments and statutory instruments for which no detailed background information is to hand. It is therefore quite difficult to invigilate those elements.

One of the most serious examples of massive regulatory failure to have occurred in Ireland was the recent Smart Telecom debacle. On Tuesday, 3 October 2006, more than 45,000 Smart Telecom business and domestic customers awoke to find their telephone and Internet services suspended. They included families across the country and businesses such as medical centres with no telephone or Internet access for patients to contact them. It was incredible that tens of thousands of customers could be summarily cut off and left with absolutely no telecommunications service. That happened under the Minister's regime. Where were the Minister and the regulator during the affair? How was it allowed to happen? Has the Minister received any report on this matter and, if so, will he present it to the House?

During the later hearings by the Joint Committee on Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources on this mess, ComReg signally failed to adequately address its role in the fiasco or explain why no advance warning was provided for Smart Telecom customers. ComReg did indicate, however, that it would like to see the development of a statutory basis for notice of withdrawal of service by any telecoms operator. At the time I indicated that the Labour Party would support and encourage such a measure as a key element of an effective telecommunications policy. The Bill provides for investigation and information powers but why is such a direct measure not included in the legislation? In the middle of the Smart Telecom fiasco, the Minister told us during Question Time that he would rush through emergency legislation but I cannot see anything to address that type of debacle in the Bill before us.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.