JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate

Mobile Phone Bullying: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Tommy McCabe, director of the Irish Cellular Industry Association, ICIA, Cara Twohig from Vodafone, Majella Fitzpatrick from O2, Catriona Costello from 3 Ireland and Gareth Davies from Meteor. The joint committee invited the representatives of the ICIA, Vodafone, O2, Meteor and 3 Ireland to attend this meeting to discuss Sentry Wireless' Kidsafe technology and the prevention of mobile phone bullying.

I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. The committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. McCabe to address the committee.

Mr. Tommy McCabe

On behalf of the Irish Cellular Industry Association, I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee on mobile phone bullying and how the industry can be of assistance in that regard. The ICIA is part of the Telecommunications and Internet Federation, TIF, and the Irish Business Employers Confederation, IBEC, and represents the mobile phone operators Vodafone, O2, Meteor and 3 Ireland.

The ICIA, which has been in existence for eight years, is a key source of industry information. That is its main role. The ICIA also tries to enhance competencies in standards development in the mobile sector, represents the industry on matters of policy and public interest and responds to the changing forces driving the mobile industry in Ireland and globally.

The subject of this meeting is bullying and mobile phones. The industry is acutely aware of how traditional forms of bullying are being played out on personal computers, via social networking sites, and mobile phones. Operators have a solid track record in the context of taking measures with regard to child protection and we will outline some of these for members. In the past two years, operators have researched and carried out trials in respect of products that can assist with this problem. While mobile operators can offer support in addressing some of the issues, bullying as a behaviour must be addressed by society as a whole. It would be wrong, therefore, to believe that any one technical solution will solve the problem of bullying. Such solutions can assist, however, and the industry is happy to play its role in that regard.

Representatives of Sentry Wireless appeared before the committee recently and outlined a possible solution. The operators are keen to explore the Sentry Wireless product and independently met and discussed it with representatives of the company on several occasions during the past 12 months. One operator has offered technical testing support to Sentry Wireless to allow it to progress testing of its SIM-based solution further. The impression has been given that the industry has not interacted with Sentry Wireless but that is not the case. We will relate some of our experiences to date with the product and other solutions that can assist in addressing the problem of bullying.

I will call on Majella Fitzpatrick from O2 to outline the experience her company has had with Sentry Wireless. If it is acceptable to the committee, we will then comment on some of the general areas to which I referred before engaging in a general discussion.

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

As Mr. McCabe stated, all the operators have met independently representatives of Sentry Wireless. There are three reasons we are not, at this stage, in a position to pursue this particular product. These are: critical technical deficiencies; restricted handset availability; and findings we derived from market research. I will deal with the first two of these reasons.

Given the nature of the product, which is primarily designed for the protection of children, it is obviously important that it should work in a way that does not provide easy loopholes. We identified a number of deficiencies as a result of quite comprehensive technical analysis we carried out. The Kidsafe application does not stop bullies from leaving voicemail messages. In other words, it cannot block voicemail. If a Kidsafe phone is powered off or is out of coverage, anyone can leave a voicemail message. Equally, the facility with which everyone is familiar whereby one can be directly connected to somebody's voicemail by dialling 5 between the prefix and the number also applies in respect of the Kidsafe product. Therefore, the use of voicemail provides an easy way to bypass the predefined numbers used in the operation of the Kidsafe product.

As already stated, the application works by allowing communication to and from predefined numbers. This raised some concerns during our market research, a matter on which Ms Twohig will comment in more detail. The Kidsafe phone is effectively paired with predefined numbers and if a parent is not in a position to use his or her handset with its predefined number to contact his or her child, he or she will not be able to contact him or her. If one has left one's phone at home, if its battery is run down or if it has been lost or stolen, one cannot make a call on someone else's phone because one will not be connected. This gave rise to concerns among parents.

As a result of the technical nature of the product and the way it works, we are somewhat concerned that it could be used as a bullying tool. The system blocks calls and texts from numbers which are not predefined. It does so by rebooting the handset in the same way that a PC reboots itself. If a child is in the process of playing a game, composing a text message or making a telephone call, it will effectively stop that application from working. If a bully was so inclined, he or she could continually ring or text a Kidsafe phone and effectively disable it or render it incapable of working.

Picture or multimedia messaging, MMS, works in the same way as text messaging, SMS. There are, however, a number of differences. One can send a picture, a video or a text message of much greater length — containing perhaps 1,000 characters — than an ordinary SMS, which only contains 160 characters. The Kidsafe application does not block multimedia messaging. Any person can send a picture, video or long text to a Kidsafe handset. As in the case of voicemail, this effectively bypasses the protection offered by predefined numbers. Picture and video messaging are popular ways of communication, not least among young people. We see this as quite a serious deficiency with the Kidsafe product.

As with voice calls, if a parent does not have access to his or her phone with its predefined number that is paired with his or her child's Kidsafe handset, he or she will not be able to contact him or her by ordinary text message. A text message sent to that phone from another handset which is not designated with a predefined number will be blocked. However, the person sending the message will not be aware of that fact and will not know it has not been received. More to the point, he or she will be charged for sending the message in the first instance.

Unlike the position with ordinary handsets, text messages are saved to the SIM card of a Kidsafe phone. When carrying out our tests, we could not conclude what would happen when the SIM card was full of text messages. We do not know if all text messages would go through or if none would do so. Our test findings in that regard were not conclusive.

Unfortunately, the Kidsafe application does not eliminate the intentional or deliberate misuse of premium SMS messages and, critically, it does not stop the child from being charged for them. If, for example, a child is subscribed to a premium rate service, the messages will continue to be sent and while they will be blocked in order that the child will not see them, he or she will be charged and, therefore, his or her credit will continue to be taken from his or her telephone. They will not realise this and because they will not have received the SMS, they will not know the number to text back to say "Stop", which is the industry standard for letting premium rate service providers know that a customer does not want to receive their messages any more. It is slightly more complicated because if one wanted to stop texts, one would have to predefine the short code number and send it. It was asserted somewhere along the line that mobile operators were reluctant to engage with this product because it would hurt our revenues but I refute that. The fact that the application does not stop people being charged proves that point. People get charged and revenue is not impacted.

I refer to the handset availability restriction. When we all spoke independently with Sentry Wireless over the past few months, the company made it clear the application only worked on a small subsection of Samsung handsets. Samsung has a small market share, which represents a small percentage of the handsets, for example, of our customers. From a corporate responsibility point of view and in the context of the work we have done over the past few years to find a robust product that would help, we want to find a solution that is applicable, appropriate and accessible to as many of the 5 million mobile telephone customers as possible in Ireland. That solution does not exist. I will hand over to Ms Twohig to outline the market research we conducted.

Ms Cara Twohig

I refer to the market research carried out by Vodafone in the latter part of last year. I will outline the purpose of the research, the methodology used and the findings. In late 2007, market research was carried out on the Kidsafe product by Vodafone Ireland. It was part of broader research with the ultimate aim of gathering fresh insights into the attitudes to mobile in the family context and the Sentry Wireless product, Kidsafe, formed part of the research as we looked at three distinctly different products in the area of child protection.

We worked with Behaviour and Attitudes, which conducted the research on our behalf. The format was a series of focus groups with different groupings of parents and children of different ages and one on one in-depth interviews with child experts, which included representatives of the National Parents Council, both post-primary and primary, the Office of the Minister for Health and Children, the Internet Advisory Board, the ISPCC, the National Council for Technology in Education and Barnardos. It was important to socialise the product outside the walls of Vodafone to obtain direct feedback from children, given the products we examined would all be used by children and, therefore, needed to be embraced by them. Unfortunately, the findings of the research in conjunction with the technical deficiencies outlined by Ms Fitzpatrick and restricted handset availability informed the decision by Vodafone not to launch the child safety product at the time.

The two distinct aims of the research were to gain a better understanding of how mobile was perceived by parents and the role mobile has in the family and the views of children about mobile and those of their parents about children using mobiles. Across the many groups we met, the mobile was seen in the right context as a force for good. Parents clearly identified with the mobile as a product unique in its ability to afford them direct contact with their children any time, anywhere and they viewed this as crucial to their relationship with their children. There was also general recognition in both the meetings we had with our key experts and with parents that the speed of change in mobile services and in other technologies outstrips parents' own understanding of mobile services and leaves a knowledge gap. For example, they pointed out in many households the teenagers was often the technical expert. They are responsible to programming the video recorder or teaching the rest of the family how to use Sky + and this was evidence of an increasing knowledge gap across the board.

When we examined bullying in the context of the three products, including Kidsafe, there was a general and resounding view that while safety technologies have a role to play in this area, they are not the solution. They can provide assistance but bullying has a broader social context and a solution can only be found through a holistic approach. For example, providing a solution on mobile will not take bullying out of the school yard. When Kidsafe was compared to the other products, it researched quite well, given that, in principle, stakeholders and parent recognised that the ideals and aims of the product were to be admired. However, genuine critical elements of the service were identified by the groups we spoke to as a barrier to use and meant they told us they would not necessarily be interested in purchasing, using or having this product available to them.

This was in-depth research but two of the main highlights were feedback from children and from the parents and experts. The children communicated a genuine fear that their handsets would be easily identifiable as a Kidsafe handset because of the limited range of handsets on which the product is available. They felt they would stand out from the crowd socially and this could raise awareness among their friends in the school yard that they are in some way different from others. In addition, they felt it would prevent them from using the mobile in the way they liked, which is, on meeting new friends, to take and store their numbers there and then. The Kidsafe product prevents them from using the telephone in this manner and would identify them as children who had the product.

Interestingly, there was a broad response from many of the groups to whom we spoke with regard to the view of parents on the appropriate age for their children to own or have their first mobile phone. The parents to whom we spoke told us they identified the Kidsafe product as one that was for children they considered too young to be in possession of a mobile phone. They saw the optimal age as closer to the ten to 12 age bracket, given this is a transitionary phase in their children's lives, when they are moving from a junior school which is a closely monitored environment into a senior school environment where they need to display more independence. They felt that at that stage children have the required maturity to be in possession of a mobile phone. They felt younger children were much more likely to lose, damage or forget about their mobile phones. When parents looked at the Kidsafe product in this context, they felt it was for children who were too young to be in possession of a mobile phone.

That said, it is important to point out that Vodafone and the other operators continue to work in this area. We recognise our responsibility and continue to facilitate and support initiatives that form part of a holistic approach to the issue. I will now pass over to Ms Costello to deal with the next part of our presentation.

Ms Catríona Costello

As Mr. McCabe outlined earlier, child protection is of paramount importance to all of the operators. Therefore, we have already implemented child protection mechanisms, such as parental and access controls. If a child is being bullied or harassed, we have the ability to block certain numbers so that the child cannot be contacted in any way by those particular numbers. We can also change the child's number on request if he or she is being bullied or harassed.

One of the parental controls in place which we offer to parents is dual access. This allows parents and the child to have access to the account. The parent can see the numbers the child is calling or from which the child receives messages. It also enables the parent to manage the child's account on the financial side. We also provide access controls that tailor the services available on the handset, such as the Internet.

Each operator also hosts a dedicated spam reporting line where customers can forward suspected spam messages for investigation. We also work closely with appropriate authorities, such as Regtel and the Data Protection Commissioner, for further investigation when needed. We are all members of the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland and are very supportive of the hotline. We also have direct connections with the Garda Síochána so that when a report has been made regarding illegal material, we can take down the sites and block children from accessing them.

We also have well developed policies and procedures for dealing with malicious communications. Our customer care teams are all well trained on how to deal with and prevent the reception of malicious communications from certain numbers. They also provide advice and guidance on how to report these to the Garda and the relevant authorities. We have all, individually and collectively, carried out numerous awareness campaigns on the responsible use of phones. Mr. Davies will expand on that area.

Mr. Gareth Davies

The previous speakers have outlined clearly the engagement we had with Sentry Wireless and the reasons for not progressing with it to date. However, as an association we would not like to come here and just tell the committee why we did not proceed with a particular application.

I am pleased to be able to tell the committee of a number of initiatives that have been undertaken by the ICIA over the past three years or so. All of these initiatives have been undertaken on a completely voluntary basis and at the operator's expense. This is on account of the ethical corporate view we project. All of the initiatives have been undertaken to protect mobile users in this country.

The first initiative in 2005 was to undertake the world's first trial on MMS filtering. We put three vendors into lab facilities and asked them to filter 1,500 images. We were hoping they would be able to filter out inappropriate images while allowing appropriate images through. We set a measurement of 85% accuracy. Unfortunately, none of the vendors were able to come anywhere close to that standard so at this time there is no suitable product that we can find for MMS filtering. We could not progress this, but we continue to look.

The Irish mobile operators code of practice for the responsible and secure use of mobile services was published in 2005. We revised and republished it in 2006 in conjunction with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This code establishes the standard to which mobile operators will adhere on a number of issues, including parental controls for minors and access to their mobile services, malicious or offensive person to person communications, unsolicited commercial communications, that is, spam, Internet access, premium rate services and access controls for content services. The ICIA parents guide was written, published and distributed by the ICIA and we are currently preparing for its third publication.

Any premium rate service provider authorised by Regtel automatically gains access to the mobile operator's network. Our licence provides that we must grant them access. If ComReg grants use of the number and if Regtel authorises the service, we as operators are obliged to grant them access to our networks. However, operators do not sit idly by. All operators have been central to the drafting and redrafting of the Regtel code of practice.

The operators introduced the "stop" command. When people signed up to a subscription service in the past and wished to unsubscribe they had to send the word "stop" along with some suffix, such as "stop news" if they were receiving news alerts. If people did not remember the suffix, it was almost impossible to unsubscribe. Now, to unsubscribe from any service provider all people need do is send the four letters STOP and they are unsubscribed.

Operators also created and implemented the yellow and red card system. We brought this initiative to the regulator. As mobile operators, if a complaint comes to us about the behaviour or practices of a service provider on our network, we independently will examine the complaint. If we deem the service provider to be operating beyond the remit of the code of practice, we will issue either a yellow or red card, depending on the severity of the breach. A minor breach will get a yellow card and a more severe breach will get a red card. A red card can have the service provider turned off all networks. Whether it is a yellow or red card, part of the process is not just to deal with the service provider but to inform every other mobile operator in the country that we have issued a yellow card. We also inform Regtel and, where appropriate, the Data Protection Commissioner.

Operators have a vested interest in protecting customers, thereby protecting our reputation. Operators are aware of the Minister's proposal to introduce legislation around the premium rate industry. Currently, there is a draft in circulation for the new premium rate legislation and operators will engage with all stakeholders to provide input and help progress the legislation.

I should mention that all operators, within our terms and conditions, have fair usage policies and if people use our networks for malicious or bullying communications, that is outside the terms of use of our networks and we will take action. We can and have taken action. On Internet filtering, all operators offer free of charge a service to help protect those accessing the Internet via their mobile phones. This is done through a white list or black list system.

We have been involved in awareness campaigns, but rather than telling the committee members about these I will do some paper waving and show them. We have the Get With It campaign that we helped finance, the Stop campaign from Regtel, the on-line security and the parents guide. We have been proactively involved in getting the word out and trying to educate people. I will now hand over to Mr. McCabe to summarise.

Mr. Tommy McCabe

The industry has indicated comprehensively how it has treated the issue of bullying and the steps that have been taken, such as, in particular, the Kidsafe product. Looking ahead, there is an ongoing review of effectiveness of the GSM Association which represents all mobile operators across the world. GSM Europe has a best practice policy across the EU and it has initiatives to beat bullying such as cyber mentor projects. We can confirm that each operator continues to examine potential solutions and the door is open to all providers to make approaches with suitable products, including Sentry Wireless. The individual operators are actively in discussions with some providers about possible solutions. Each operator would be happy to provide details of this work to the committee in writing if so requested. The industry is very eager to engage with all potential solutions and to work around this very difficult area. I refer to the caveat mentioned at the opening of the presentation that it is not solely the responsibility of the mobile operators to resolve the issue of bullying as this is really a societal problem and it requires broader solutions beyond what mobile operators can do. However, we are willing to play our part. We have done so and will continue to do so. I will be pleased to answer any questions from the committee members.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for their contributions. I invite members to comment and ask questions and then I will ask Mr. McCabe to comment on their questions.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I have a number of comments and questions. I acknowledge that Senator Corrigan was the first to raise this issue in the committee but we all have a great interest in this subject.

I do not think any member of this committee is saying that Sentry Wireless is the only solution to this problem. This is not about an individual product from an individual company. It is about finding solutions to a complex issue and trying to convince ourselves as policymakers that the industry is doing enough and is taking the problem seriously enough. To be quite honest, I do not think the industry is taking this problem seriously enough. I believe it is taking some steps and these have been outlined in the presentation. Most of the actions, such as a code of conduct, an awareness campaign, a reporting system, customer care services, are targeted at adults. A seven year old child will not be able to access customer care advice on bullying. We want to know how much money the industry is spending on trying to find a solution which is a limiting solution for children, not a reporting system or an awareness campaign.

Everybody recognises that the mobile industry cannot solve the bullying problem because it is a broader issue. We want to find out whether the technology or the will exists within operating companies to protect children by putting filtering and limiting systems in place, whether by means of SIM cards or through the phones themselves, or whether it could be a solution by means of the network. We could then solve all the problems of the Sentry Wireless product which Mr. McCabe has outlined. We should not go down the route of whether the current Sentry Wireless Kidsafe product is workable because we are not really interested in that. We want to know whether we will be forced to take a tougher line with the industry and demand that it come up with a solution within 12 months or we will introduce legislation to limit what the industry can offer to children in terms of mobile phone availability. Will the industry be able to satisfy us that there is a voluntary code of conduct in place and that there is a willingness to take this problem seriously?

A total of 1 billion texts have been sent over the past three months in Ireland. We are by far the biggest texters and talkers in Europe. There are more than 400,000 mobile phones in the hands of children under the age of 15. Many of those children are accessing material which would be of concern to their parents if they knew about it. This access could be by means of the Internet on their mobile phones or by means of the sending of photographs or conversations with people whom their parents would rather they did not speak to. We know that more than 80% of parents have real concerns about the dangers of mobile phones for their children and about the possibility of other people gaining access to their children by means of mobile phones. This is a serious issue. The delegation has referred to a code of conduct but in terms of hard cash, how much money is being spent on research and development to find solutions? I mean solutions such as limiting and filtering solutions using technology and not soft information-type solutions.

I have been heavily involved in the mobile phone industry in a number of different areas as a result of my duties as party spokesperson, but I am not familiar with the whole range of publications which the delegation has shown us this morning and this means they are not openly available to parents. The committee has had discussions with the mobile industry about limiting roaming charges for people travelling abroad. I remember the initial response of the industry was that this was price fixing and it would not be workable. However, a couple of years later we now have a price ceiling on what the industry can charge for roaming within the European Union. We were told it was not technically possible. Will it be necessary for legislators to use the last resort of using legislation to force new products onto the market or can we rely on the industry to take this issue seriously enough? When a parent goes into a shop to buy a phone for a person under the age limit as defined, be that under 12, 14 or younger, can we require the industry to inform the customer?

The industry should know that this issue is now being taken seriously by legislators. With all due respect, I recognise some of the work being done and the pilot projects in operation in Ireland ahead of anywhere else. However, I am not convinced that finding a solution is high up the list of priorities for mobile phone companies. Considering the numbers involved, Ireland should be the country that takes a lead. Children in Ireland are given mobile phones at an earlier age than anywhere else in Europe and they use their mobile phones for texting, talking, MMS and access to the Internet more than in most other countries in Europe. We have a responsibility to give a lead in finding new products, whether by means of SIM card technology, network technology or the mobile phone itself. No one wants children to have a stupid-looking childlike phone but that is not an excuse not to take action on finding solutions such as filtering or number selection or whatever model one wishes to use. We are not the experts. I find it very difficult to believe there is not a better solution than the current one of a voluntary code and the kind of customer care services we referred to this morning.

Senator Maria Corrigan

I thank the delegation for attending the meeting. I agree with a lot of Deputy Coveney's contribution. Every member of this committee and everyone present is aware that there are many aspects to child protection and nobody expects one particular sector in society to come up with the answers. However, it has become an issue of concern for all of us.

We have investigated what measures can be taken to enhance child protection and minimise the dangers presented to children. One of the reasons we are having this meeting is that parents are aware that mobile phones represent a tool to enhance the protection of their children. It is one of the reasons children so young are carrying mobile phones. We have the experience of talking to parents and relatives and hearing the concerns they have. The irony is that the instrument that was to be an enhancement of child protection can in some instances be a weapon of destruction. That is what has led to this meeting.

I am concerned about the presentation, which seemed to be about trying to knock a particular product. This is not about a particular product. I admire the united front the witnesses have presented to the meeting. However, it concerns me from a competitive point of view. This is a commercial market. If the witnesses were really interested in pursuing this and given the amount of money at stake, I cannot understand why competition between the operators does not drive this on.

Deputy Coveney asked how much money is spent on research and development. We know vast revenues come from mobile phones and it is great to see such commercial success. This is not about us trying to promote any one particular product. It is about us trying to tell the witnesses that we have a concern as to whether the instruments their companies are putting on the market have ended up becoming a threat to children rather than an enhancement of their child protection. The witnesses should inform us not just of ways in which they might address it but also whether they have any timeframe they are wiling to set down.

Other products are available, including Kidsafe. There have been network solutions available. There are pros and cons to all of them. We have had the presentation. Of course there must be ways around any of the deficiencies in the products the witnesses have mentioned. I do not get a sense from the witnesses that this is an objective they will set. The witnesses have again mentioned the awareness campaigns. Like Deputy Coveney, I have not seen much of them. As they have said they are available, I accept this to be the case. There may be a need to consider whether they can be made more widely available and be more targeted at children. They also need to be primarily targeted at parents, who are the ultimate consumers.

The witnesses have claimed it is only available on a particular handset. My attitude is that if a particular handset can accommodate it, then it should become a consumer choice issue. Parents should have that option. If parents want something that can protect their child and there is a particular handset that can take it, the operators should make it available. I believe Mr. Tommy McCabe said he would be willing to supply details in writing. I would like to make that request. I would like those details.

Mention was made of premium services. My main concern would not be premium services. If 400,000 children under 14 years of age have mobile phones and 55% of all five to nine year olds have mobile phones, I have issues with their capacity to enter into a contract with a premium service operator. Children are some of our most motivated consumers and are very persuasive with their parents in terms of what they want. That is not my overriding concern. My overriding concern relates to the very real issues regarding protecting children. Mr. Gareth Davies mentioned that Meteor investigates premium service operators. Would it be possible to get details on the number of complaints Meteor has received, the number of yellow and red cards it has issued and the reasons for doing so?

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

I welcome the representatives of mobile phone operators, who have come to air their views. I am very disappointed first with the document that was circulated and second with this morning's presentation. The witnesses have an air as if they are being bullied themselves and that they do not want to be here. That comes through in the document also.

I am concerned that the operators operate as a cartel. There are four operators represented this morning. Their mission seems to be to give a very negative critique of Sentry Wireless's solution to a problem, which is very disappointing. Not one of the four operators' representatives has admitted this is a serious problem for the children of this country. They have not admitted there is a problem and are not saying they will do anything about it.

The operators are operating together as a unit in order to put down a system that is now operating in Singapore and aided by Enterprise Ireland, rather than offering solutions that are urgently required. This problem needs to be addressed. They said in their presentation that it must be addressed by society as a whole. Are they not part of our society? Is it therefore not incumbent on them to address this problem rather than telling us why a proposed product does not work? That the four of them are operating together in this means there must be a role for the Competition Authority to investigate their operations and ascertain why they are putting down the solution Sentry Wireless proposed to the committee. I believe we may need to recall Sentry Wireless's representatives to give their opinions on what has been said about their product this morning. I have no interest in Sentry Wireless.

The presentation mentioned that the operators were carrying out trials on certain products. Other then the MMS filtering system, which they have advised they have come to the conclusion does not work, on what products have they carried out trials? The operators said they were keen to explore the Sentry Wireless product and other products. Is it not time for them to come forward with proposals rather than meeting and talking about them? They said they have been doing so for the past 12 months. It is time for positive action.

The witnesses claim that the Kidsafe application does not stop a bully from leaving a voicemail message. Is it not more important to focus on its positive rather than negative aspects? Would they not accept that children by and large do not use voicemail or premium text services, not alone because of the rip-off fees charged, but because the modern trend among children is text messaging? That is the main reason they use mobile phones and the main way they keep in contact. I suggest that the protection offered by the Sentry Wireless product outweighs all the negatives the witnesses have highlighted this morning. At least it is a positive step in the right direction as opposed to their negative reactions in their presentation.

I suggest that MMS is not a very popular service with children. The representatives of the mobile phone operators expressed concern that the bullies might have to pay for messages which are not delivered. So what the hell about the bullies? Why should we worry about such people having to pay for messages that may not be delivered? I do not get the point that was made. Perhaps our guests will explain it again. I am not concerned about bullies. The more this measure costs them, the better. I am concerned about children who get messages of the kind we are talking about. The most effective way of dealing with bullies is to ignore them. It does not matter if the bullying is being done by means of text messages or phone calls. Perhaps I am taking the wrong message from this aspect of the association's presentation.

Parents and children see each other and communicate with each other many times each day. If one's mobile phone does not work, one can use one's work phone or one's partner's mobile phone. There are umpteen other ways for children and parents to contact each other if they cannot do so by mobile phone owing to the use of the Kidsafe product.

I wish to speak about a matter raised on page 12 of the document circulated by the association. Reference has been made to the limited number of handsets. Parents do not buy expensive mobile phones, costing €300 or more, for their children. They tend to purchase low-cost phones, at the medium or bottom range of the market, that can do the essentials of sending text messages and making calls. The association suggested that more than 5 million people are using phones. This product is designed for a segment, or proportion, of that market. We do not have to cater for 5 million people. This product does not need to be available on every handset that is issued. We want the industry to offer a handset that is tolerable to children. I am talking about a handset that looks like an adult handset and can do the essentials. Such a handset is necessary if we are to safeguard and protect our children.

I would like to highlight a number of issues but I will not take up the time of the joint committee. By and large, I am very disappointed with the negative attitude the association has taken to this problem. I had hoped the witnesses would come here with a positive proposal to give hope to the parents and children of this country. A recent poll conducted by Barnardos found that 85% of parents are concerned about this desperate and increasing problem. Some 38% of children said that one of their friends is suffering as a consequence of this dreadful problem. The nature of modern technology means this problem will not go away. Technology can follow one in the dark of night, when one leaves school and even when one goes to another country on holiday. I am disappointed the representatives of the industry have not put their hands up, admitted this is a problem and promised to do something within a specified period to deal with it.

Deputy Michael D’Arcy

The tone of this meeting was set by the industry association's presentation. We are not responsible for the presentations given by delegations at this committee. Today's presentation was the worst one I have seen since I was elected to the Oireachtas. It is clear that the various companies agreed a strategy before they addressed this forum. The presentation dealt purely with the aspects of this problem that affect the mobile phone companies. It made very little mention of the children. We did not hear about other products that should be coming forward. I do not believe the delegation is taking this issue seriously. It is not one of the industry's main priorities. If we were talking about a priority for the industry, the chief executive officers of the four mobile phone companies would be sitting in front of us. I do not mean to disparage those present in any way when I say that the CEOs would be present if the companies were concerned about their profit margins.

I do not want to repeat what has been said so far. Mr. Davies suggested that the work that has been done already was at the expense of the four operators. The operators are four of the most profitable companies in the country. The inclusion of such a comment in the association's presentation says it all, as far as I am concerned. I am criticising all four companies in that respect as they all agreed the presentation.

My colleagues have touched on many of the issues which are at stake. Deputy Coonan could have kept going until midday, as he has about four more pages of notes. As a positive individual, I would like the association to reconsider its position, as expressed in its presentation. I ask those present to make it clear to the CEOs of their respective companies that this is a major issue for Members of the Oireachtas. We want the operators to be positive. I am not here to advocate the Sentry Wireless product. We were impressed by it, however. We believe it represents the way forward. The representatives of the mobile phone companies have been critical of that product throughout today's meeting. They mentioned that a great deal of work has been done in other areas. They spoke about market research, for example. Like Deputy Coonan, I do not think a parent who is buying a phone for a child is likely to go for MMS. A seven year old child does not need MMS, even if it is on his or her phone.

The companies have not differentiated between the types of mobile phone given to children at various ages. It seems that many children expect to get a phone on the occasion of their first communion. The witnesses do not seem to understand that there is an enormous difference between a seven year old child and a 14 year old child. Children are given mobile phones at seven years of age because their parents want to be able to contact them in case something happens. It is a different story at 14 years of age. Young people of that age are technically aware of how to use the various systems. I did not see any understanding of that distinction in the presentation.

I suggest that the representatives of the mobile phone companies should have a good rethink. They will be welcome to come back to this committee having reconsidered the matter and told their CEOs how dissatisfied Deputies and Senators are with what was said by them today. Perhaps we will receive a further presentation from the association at a future date, depending on how things pan out, with a greater focus on the positive aspects of products of this nature, such as their benefits for consumers, especially parents and children.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I welcome the delegation to this meeting. The tone has been set, as Deputy D'Arcy said. The tone from the politicians on this side of the room is quite negative. If we peel back the layers, perhaps we will find that other things are going on. As politicians, we use telephones very often. We get high telephone bills every month. Perhaps that is having a subconscious effect on us. A few weeks ago, I came up with a mathematical formula to show that over the past ten years, I have paid various mobile phone companies €50,000 for the privilege of having a mobile phone. I will not mention the companies in question. That amount of money would have bought me a house in Letterkenny ten years ago. This is probably the first opportunity we have had, as politicians, to address the mobile phone operators. It would be unfortunate if we were to fail to use that chance constructively. It may be the case that something is going on, subconsciously or otherwise. We are concerned about whether we are getting value for money. Are we paying too much money for mobile phones? I will park those issues for the time being. We may be able to explore them at a later date.

As a representative of a Border area, I am often welcomed to the United Kingdom by a mobile phone operator as I drive around places like Quigley's Point and Muff. I have to pay roaming charges to companies like Orange UK as I move through the various bands. There is a serious issue in that regard. The Good Friday Agreement provides for an integrated communications strategy to be drawn up. It is something of which we should be cognisant.

We have to be responsible during the debate on mobile phone bullying. I welcome the opportunity to meet the representatives of the various companies. I welcome their critique of the specifics of the Kidsafe product. Teachers and principals within the secondary school sector are stretched. They have tried everything, such as confiscating phones each morning. They cannot do that. They do not have the ability, time or resources to do this because it is an impossible task. Children will simply hand in a different, broken mobile telephone. Confiscation is not the way forward.

Responsible ownership and a change in culture in mobile phone usage are needed. The ICIA has a role to play in this regard, as do legislators and Departments, particularly the Department of Education and Science. One school principal has proposed including in the curriculum a focus on the communications sector. Mobile telephones have become part of our lives. We take them to bed with us and check them first thing in the morning. They are over-used, invade our personal space and we do not know when to switch them off. The working day used to be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for good reason. Nowadays, we receive text messages at 3 a.m. and send e-mails or do work on our Blackberry devices at all hours. Everyone has a responsibility to take ownership of this issue and change how mobile phones are used.

On the issue of bullying, we all attended school and know that bullying takes different forms, for example, verbal abuse or through graffiti on desks and toilet walls. Should we attack the manufacturers of markers because people use them for graffiti? It is an easy option to beat the people who provide the medium and mobile telephony is a new medium which young people use. There is an onus on legislators and operators in the industry to come together to seek responsible behavioural change.

We treat young people as if they do not have minds of their own. Teenagers aged 12, 13, 14 and 15 will act responsibly if they are shown leadership and guidance. Deputy D'Arcy and I had to be told by the Chairman, our teacher as it were, to switch off our mobile phones when we arrived at this meeting.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy still has not switched off his phone.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I turned it off when I received the lecture. Adults will not switch off their mobile phones but expect young people to leave them at home or switch them off when they enter the classroom. We need equity between adults and young people. This also applies in the case of alcohol where adults who expect young people to drink moderately and behave properly get drunk at weekends at rugby matches, christenings and weddings.

Deputy Noel J. Coonan

Deputy McHugh should speak for himself.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I am speaking on behalf of a few of us. Adults are supposed to show leadership but fail to do so.

There are many opportunities to use this new technology for the benefit of the disability sector. Under current legislation, drivers may use hands-free kits in their cars. Why does every wheelchair not have a hands-free kit to assist people with disabilities? The reason is that disabled people are at the margins of society. We need to introduce legislation on this issue. While I do not wish to single out companies, I commend O2 for showing leadership in this area. A few of the company's employees financed and furnished a person whom I know well with a hands-free kit for his wheelchair.

This returns me to the responsibility on policymakers and industry. The role of the latter is in research and development, whereas the role of legislators is in cross-subsidisation. We need to get serious about how to improve lives, combat bullying and assist those with disabilities to secure access to modern technology. As I noted, the tone of the meeting has been a little negative. Perhaps we need to start at the beginning, engage in more debate, show joint leadership and take joint ownership of all the problems.

Mr. Tommy McCabe

I thank members for the opportunity to appear before the joint committee and their comments. I will make some general remarks before calling on some of my colleagues to address the specific points members raised.

Deputy McHugh touched the core of the issue. Deputy Coveney asked whether there was a will or the required technology to address the problem. These are both key factors in helping to solve the problem. As Deputy McHugh noted, a cultural and behavioural problem needs to be solved by society. Legislators will have a role to play in this regard. While the impression was given that the mobile telephone operators have a solution, this is not the case, although we accept we have a continuing role to play. If the relevant technology is not available, we must be realistic and ask what is available. The industry is happy to engage on this matter and has done so but one must face reality and start with what is available.

The research done to date shows there are severe limitations on available technology. This should be noted by the joint committee and society at large — members of the media are present. At the previous meeting, attended by representatives of Sentry Wireless, a view was put across that new technology is available which would solve all the issues of bullying but the mobile operators have chosen not to take action. That is not the case.

As Deputy McHugh pointed out, parents have a role to play. I am sure the joint committee is not suggesting that the mobile operators assume the role of parents and decide what should be done for children. One cannot tell parents they must not give children mobile phones or that giving children mobile hones would stigmatise them among their friends. Neither children nor their parents would accept that. The mobile operators can only work within accepted cultural parameters.

As Deputy McHugh noted, everyone carries a mobile phone at all times. This is changing society and the operators will play their role. A number of years ago, representatives of the operators appeared before the joint committee and explained the filtering solution, which was a first in the industry. Other mobile operators around the world wanted to know the outcome of the filtering trials. Unfortunately, however, they showed that the technology was not feasible at the time. Deputy Coveney is, therefore, right to pose the question about whether the technology is available. While the solution being offered by Sentry Wireless is a possibility, it is characterised by severe limitations. For example, it is not of any use to bring out a solution that is not available in handsets, nor would it be practical to tell parents to give severely limited new handsets to their children. The industry will act when a practical solution emerges and has worked with manufacturers and solution providers.

It is regrettable that members believe the presentation was negative in tone as this was not the intention of the operators. The purpose of the presentation was to highlight the limitations in the current position.

Operators are more than willing to invest in solutions and have done so. However, these are only part solutions. I believe the industry would be willing to appear again before the joint committee if members and the Chairman so wish. The committee must also examine how to change the culture, which is a task that goes beyond the mobile operators. It is unrealistic and unfair to ask the mobile operators to produce solutions to address a broad societal and cultural issue. They will, however, be pleased to play a role in this regard.

I have addressed in general terms some of the comments made by members. I suggest some of the operators comment on the specific issues raised. Ms Fitzpatrick will first address the issue of technical solutions.

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Deputy Coonan asked a couple of questions on technical issues. I do not want to give the impression that I would have empathy with someone engaged in bullying. I was merely pointing out that in cases where people incorrectly believed their telephone number to be one of the predefined numbers on a child's telephone, they would be charged for messages they sent and would not be aware that the intended recipient did not receive them. This could cause problems.

With regard to the question of making calls from other numbers, because a telephone is paired with a predefined number, one cannot lift another telephone and telephone the child's Kidsafe telephone. The number will not be recognised.

Deputy Coonan is of the view we are operating as a cartel. O2, as an individual operator, cannot give commercially sensitive details about the work it is doing in the background on this matter because it is a competitor. As soon as we all walk out of here, we will be killing each other.

When issues that require corporate responsibility arise, all operators work together under the auspices of the Irish Cellular Industry Association. However, we do not have a solution to this issue that we could sell to our customers, claiming it will give peace of mind and security to a parent who buys their child a mobile phone.

How much in hard cash have the operators spent in this area? That will convince the committee that this is not a PR job.

There has been a negative tone taken by our side, due largely to the frustration that this is an issue that has been flagged but there has not been as honest a discussion as was needed to be had. The operators do not have the solutions.

There are times when children need to be treated as children. There are also times when they need to be allowed their independence and grow in self-confidence. A seven year old child, however, needs protection from a potentially vulnerable situation across the medium of a mobile phone. I accept other solutions are required to combat bullying. This committee is involved, however, in this policy area and that is why it is asking the operators the hard questions. The same would happen in the justice or education committee when they deal with bullying.

Up to half a million children have a mobile phone and use them for texting, sending pictures, voice messages and access to the Internet. I am a fairly positive individual most of the time. I am negative on this because I want an ongoing dialogue between the committee and the industry. I want to know that as we move forward, the industry is taking it seriously, spending money on it and trying to find solutions, not just waiting for a Sentry Wireless type company to provide a solution. I want to know that Vodafone, O2, 3 Ireland and Meteor are spending money on this and actually leading the search for solutions, not waiting for a solution and poking holes in it when it arrives. That is where the frustration is, from our side. It is nothing personal. Some of the biggest companies in Ireland are in the telecommunications area, dealing with mobile phones. The industry has shown great initiative in terms of developing market share and aggressively marketing its products. It has done a really good job in that regard. However, it has not shown similar initiative and leadership in this area and that is what this committee wants to see. We have not seen it today and therefore the industry can expect that we will come back to this and invite the delegates in again to get an update in three or four months' time.

Senator Maria Corrigan

It is a two-way dialogue, and the operators are open to solutions from all companies, including Sentry Wireless. If the company wishes to come back with the latest solution, the industry will certainly look at it.

Chairman

I thank you all for your presence today. You now realise that there is an issue about which committee members are concerned, which is mobile phone bullying. We would like to see you being more proactive in trying to find a solution for it. It was a healthy debate, and I hope you take the opportunity to outline to us the progress you are making in that area.

Committee members have not seen the guides that were displayed, so I hope you can arrange for them to be given to the clerk.

Mr. Gareth Davies

I have only one copy of each. Can I send in half a dozen of each later?

Chairman

You can send them in at a later date.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.20 a.m. sine die.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate - Wednesday, 12 Nov 2008

Mobile Phone Bullying: Discussion.

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Cara Twohig

Ms Catríona Costello

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Mr. Gareth Davies

Ms Cara Twohig

Ms Catriona Costello

Ms Catriona Costello

Ms Catriona Costello

Ms Catriona Costello

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Ms Majella Fitzpatrick

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Mr. Gareth Davies

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Mr. Tommy McCabe

Mr. Gareth Davies

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 2008