Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1994

Vol. 439 No. 1

Written Answers. - Telecommunication Services.

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

23 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the terms and conditions of the licence issued by his Department to ESAT; whether it includes a provision for voice telephony services; and if he will make a statement on the policy he intends to implement with regard to the derogation from competition in voice telephony services.

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

29 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the terms of the licence issued by him under section 111 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983, to ESAT Telecommunications; the payments required of ESAT in respect of this licence; if this licence covers voice telephony services; the reason it was necessary for him to clarify to Telecom Éireann the definition of voice telephony services; if he is concerned that, arising from this clarification, Telecom Éireann felt compelled to lease voice telephony lines to ESAT despite Telecom's fears about the possible implications for Telecom Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

51 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, as reported, he has issued a licence to a private undertaking (details supplied) to market telecommunication services in this country; the services involved; and the terms, financial and otherwise, of the licence issued.

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

52 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he has satisfied himself that the undertaking to which he is reported to have issued a licence to market telecommunication services in this country will be competing on level terms with Telecom Éireann; that creaming off of lucrative services to the detriment of telecommunication users generally and of a return on the substantial State investment in the telecommunication services over the years is not involved in the licence; the way in which he has ensured this; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 29, 51 and 52 together.

The terms of the value added service (VAS) licence issued to ESAT Communications Ltd. are identical to those contained in any other such licence. They are too detailed to go into here but I will arrange for a specimen to be placed in the library of the House for perusal by Deputies. The ESAT licence issued in December 1992 on payment of the fee of £1,000.

VAS licence holders are entitled to provide certain telecommunications services that are not within the exclusive privilege of Telecom Éireann. These include voice services on lines leased from Telecom Éireann as long as these services do not amount to "voice telephony" within the meaning of the Telecommunications Services Regulations 1992, which transposed Directive 90/387/EEC on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through open network provisions, into Irish law. Voice telephony so defined remains within the exclusive privilege of Telecom Éireann as set out in S.87 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act of 1983.

Following consultation with the Attorney General's office and with EC Commission officials, I was satisfied that what was proposed by ESAT does not infringe the voice telephony monopoly of Telecom Eireann and I so informed the company. Telecom Éireann subsequently agreed to provide leased lines to ESAT as required by the terms of the 1992 Regulations.

The Government, in responding to the Moriarty Task Force on the implementation of the Culliton report, accepted the recommendations therein and stated that competition across all services and areas of the telecommunications system will be encouraged subject to the imposition of corresponding public service obligations on all service providers to the fullest extent possible.
I am aware of the possibilities for "creaming of", as Deputy Kenny calls it, of the more lucrative aspects of the telecommunications market and I have informed Telecom Éireann that I am open to proposals based on objective criteria to authorise the application of a charge on facilities provided to licence holders in order to help meet the public service obligations contained in S.87 of the 1983 Act. It is my intention that all players in this market would compete as far as practicable on equal terms and that the public service obligation would be shared equitably between them.
It is too early to be definitive about the derogation until 2003 from full implementation of the open network provisions.
Barr
Roinn