Eircom Ltd t/a eir
eir
eir is an integrated communications company operating a full range of wholesale and retail services over a range of technology platforms in Ireland.
ID: 193497219648-69
Lobbying Activity
Response to Rules specifying the obligations laid down in Articles 21(5) and 23(11) of the NIS 2 Directive
25 Jul 2024
eir appreciates the need to take appropriate measures to address the risk of threats to cybersecurity. We understand the proposed draft Implementing Regulation is intended to further specify the cases in which an incident shall be considered to be significant as referred to in Article 23(3) and to provide further clarity to entities covered by the NIS 2 Directive with regard to laying down the technical and the methodological requirements of the measures referred to in Article 21(2). Whilst further clarity is to be welcome we feel that the proposed Regulation requires refinement in respect of the proposals. Thresholds for Significant Incidents eir considers it is important to have thresholds that are easy to understand and quantify. The aim should be to ensure consistency in the identification and reporting on significant incidents both within Member States and at the European level. We note that the proposed Implementing Regulation does not apply in respect of relevant entities that are providers of Electronic Communications Networks and Electronic Communications Services. Consequently measures developed under Articles 40 / 41 of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), (EU) 2018/1972, will apply to those entities and be folded into NIS 2 in line with Article 43 of NIS 2. We agree that this is appropriate to avoid duplication of regimes given the significant overlap between the Code and NIS 2 in respect of providers of ECS / ECN. However we do feel there could be further alignment between the measures already adopted under the Code and NIS 2 to ensure consistency across all sectors. The metrics proposed in the implementing regulation go much further and in a number of cases propose metrics that may be more subjective in their calculation. For example Article 3 proposes financial loss thresholds, reputational damage thresholds, and the extent to which an issue may cause personal injury. These proposed thresholds may leave considerable discretion to relevant entities as to whether a threshold has been reached. There is a lack of certainty in terms of foreseeability and the requirement to assess future potential losses under a number of vague and subjective headings. It is difficult to see how this would work with any consistency in practice. In addition, it is difficult to understand how some of the reporting triggers would interact with the mandated reporting timelines in practice (e.g. media coverage etc). eir also observes that the proposed monetary thresholds in Article 3 designating an incident significant are, in our view, far too low. When looking at tangible and operational examples, this casts far too wide a net and would result in far too many minor incidents falling into scope for reporting. This will lead to a disproportionate number of notifications which will be unsustainable both for supervisory authorities and in-scope entities. Monetary thresholds should contain the flexibility to be appropriate and proportionate to the size of the business entity in scope. Technical and methodological requirements of Article 21 measures It is imperative that relevant entities must have flexibility to take a proportionate risk based approach. Expensive and/or less efficient measures should not be prescribed in the Regulations and set in stone when alternative approaches can achieve effective security and integrity. Measures must be effective and efficient. It must also be recognised that the lists of potential measures presented in the Annex are not additive such that relevant entities do not need to reflect all items in each list in their risk based preventative measures.
Read full responseResponse to Voice call termination rates in the EU (Eurorates)
22 Sept 2020
eir welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s Delegated Regulation supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council by setting a single maximum Union-wide mobile voice termination rate and a single maximum Union-wide fixed voice termination rate. In particular, eir would like to seek some additional clarity on the definition of termination services and the implication of the cost effective termination rates for call set up fees.
Definition of mobile and fixed voice termination service
The Draft Regulation states in Recital 5 that “[t]he termination service should also include the associated facilities necessary, to the extent that they are used to provide the relevant termination services. Examples of such associated facilities are the interconnection equipment, colocation services and internal transit from the point of interconnection to the end-user. Therefore, a provider of voice termination services should not levy any cost on the originating provider other than the relevant rates set by the Regulation for the full service of terminating a call to a user on its network.”
In Ireland, the fixed termination rate set by ComReg is in respect of calls handed over at the primary level i.e. the local exchange closest to the subscriber. Calls handed over higher in the network are therefore double tandem i.e. subject to the regulated fixed termination rate plus an unregulated transit charge. Our understanding is that the definition of termination services, as drafted, implies that unregulated transit charges would be abolished.
eir will shortly launch its next generation interconnect service (SIP Interconnect). The charging regime agreed with ComReg for SIP is lower than the rates for traditional TDM interconnect, reflecting cost efficiencies. The differential in charges also has the benefit of encouraging migration from the legacy TDM service to the modern SIP interconnect service. We would appreciate if the Commission could clarify whether it is indeed intended that operators would no longer be able to charge separately for legacy and modern services and if this is the case, whether promoting the correct economic incentives to upgrade network facilities has been taken into account in the transitional periods proposed for Member States.
The cost efficient termination rate
The Draft Act determines that the single maximum Union-wide mobile and fixed voice termination rates are EUR 0.2 and EUR 0.07 cent per minute.
eir notes that the current regulatory regime in Ireland specifies the fixed termination rate in terms of both a two part charge consisting of a call set up fee and a per minute fee as well as a one-part charge i.e. a pure per minute fee.
eir would therefore like to understand if the cost efficient termination rates specified imply a restriction on call set up fees or if call set up fees will continue to be allowed under the Regulation. In the case that there is no restriction placed on call set up fees, eir would appreciate if the Commission could clarify how such set up fees would interact with the cost efficient termination rate.
Read full responseResponse to Initiative for reviewing and prolonging the “Roaming Regulation”
7 May 2020
eir has a number of preliminary comments in relation to the Commission’s initiative and some of the issues raised within the roadmap.
Transparency on Quality of Service (QoS) and Roam-Like-At-Home quality
eir agrees that there has been a rapid increase in roaming consumption and as noted by the Commission’s November 2019 report on the implementation of the Roaming Regulation, there is a high level of general consumer satisfaction in relation to the functioning of the roaming market. We note that with particular regard to QoS, the joint Commission/BEREC survey of March 2019, found that end-users’ dissatisfaction with QoS while roaming ranks low among the consumer complaints received by NRAs. Our experience in this regard reflects this, with a low volume of complaints received in relation to QoS.
eir acknowledges that increased transparency on any expected and justified variations in service could of course be beneficial for consumers and additional clarity on the transparency obligation with regard to QoS could create greater harmonisation across Member States. However, we are concerned with regard to any proposals for explicit obligations on QoS that seek to mandate the provision of the exact same service abroad in the EU/EEA without allowing for the availability of such services.
As noted by the Commission in its November 2019 report, the Regulation mandates that “the user has access to the same service abroad in the EU/EEA for the same price, as long as such service can be delivered on the visited network. eir considers that this in-built flexibility will prove even more integral over the coming years with the rollout of 5G networks and new services such as VoLTE and VoWiFi.
The speed of deployment of new network technologies and widespread availability of mobile services can vary greatly by Member State, most recently seen in the case of 4G. Deployments can also be greatly affected by economic shocks. It remains to be seen what overall effect the COVID-19 crisis has on 5G deployment but it is clear that it could potentially exacerbate differences in rollout timelines across Member States.
Explicit obligations on QoS could therefore have implications for the conclusion of roaming contracts. For example, if the roaming operator offers 5G in a number of urban centres in the home market and only one operator has rolled out 5G to any extent in the visited country, the choice of local operator would be completely restricted with obvious knock-on effects for leverage in commercial negotiations. We therefore do not consider that obligations in relation to QoS, outside of potentially clarified transparency requirements, are appropriate at this point in time.
Seamless access to emergency services
eir is unaware of any issues in relation to access to emergency services while roaming and would therefore welcome additional clarity from the Commission on this matter.
Difficulties in Effectively Combating Fraud
eir has recorded numerous instances of abusive use of SIM cards in voice and/or SMS roaming communications in the EEA. In our experience these instances cannot be mitigated by the FUP control mechanisms alone and we would therefore welcome proposals from the Commission for additional measures to combat this issue.
Read full response