Desarrollo potencial de productos sustitutos

clearly indicating the relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your views. (Page 129)

A.10. We agree that retail fixed access and mobile access do not currently belong in the same relevant market given:

1. The views of the European Commission that there is insufficient evidence to prove they were in the same market and

2. The different demand and supply characteristics analysed by ComReg are compelling. For example as highlighted in clause 4.201 if fixed mobile integration had occurred why would Mobile operators support both fixed voice access and mobile access.

Q. 11 Do you agree that the relevant geographic market for the relevant FVA markets identified is Ireland? Please explain the reasons for your answer, clearly indicating the relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your views. (Page 142)

A.11 We agree the relevant geographic market for the relevant FVA markets identified is Ireland as regional changes are not clear and it’s too early to define Sub-Geographic markets. However we have the following concerns about ComReg’s statement:

Response to ComReg Consultation Reference 12/117

8 | P a g e

‘This conclusion does not preclude the application of geographically distinct remedies, as appropriate and as contemplated in ComReg’s consultation on bundles (see ComReg Documents 11/72 and 12/63).’ [Italics added.]

1. We believe the proposal in 12/63 is tantamount to establishing a sub-geographic market given the outcome will be differential pricing. Given this is such a

significant decision we believe ComReg should carry out the appropriate market review analysis to prove it one way or other.

2. We note the Comments of the European Commission for ComReg to strengthen its analysis.

Q. 12 Do you agree with ComReg‘s preliminary conclusions on the retail FVA market definition assessment? Please explain the reasons for your answer, clearly indicating the relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your views. (Page 144)

A.12 We agree with ComReg‘s preliminary conclusions on the retail FVA market definition assessment and that the market is national. However, we are concerned that there does not appear to be an adequate level of market review rigour (such as market shares) in deciding when a location is showing signs of competitive activity. We note ComReg are not declaring these as a separate market; however modification of the price control is tantamount to a declaration that the market is sub-national.

Q. 13 Do you agree with ComReg‘s preliminary conclusions on the competition analysis and assessment of SMP? Please explain the reasons for your answer, clearly indicating the relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your position. (Page 189)

A.13. We generally agree with ComReg‘s preliminary view that wholesale regulation is still required for Eircom’s wholesale offering of higher level voice access ISDN solutions, however we also consider the same should apply for Eircom’s retail offering of the same. We note ComReg’s remark that absent regulation Eircom’s market share would

potentially rise to 62% is a dominant market share. We are also aware from our own market intelligence that Eircom is strong in these markets and consider it too early to remove either the wholesale or retail obligations.

Q. 14 Do you agree with the types of competition problems identified by ComReg, as outlined above? Please explain the reasons for your answer, clearly indicating the relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your position. (Page 198)

A.14. We would like to provide the following comments:

a. Pricing - We are aware that the focus is often on the abuse of pricing and note the bundled pricing issue that ComReg successfully addressed through the courts in 2009. This case clearly highlights the benefit of exANTE regulation as it took nearly a year for the case to be concluded.

Response to ComReg Consultation Reference 12/117

9 | P a g e

b. Service/Product discrimination – We note the recent finding by ComReg (21st December 2012) that Eircom had discriminated on service assurance and note other non-compliances such as the sync checker issue . Hence we know discrimination has been taking place. We welcome the publication of KPIs and consider these should continue, but additionally we consider the onus be placed on Eircom to publish the differences between internally and externally traded products and services. Moreover, this would make it a breach not to publish and creates the right incentives. After all, if there is nothing to hide why would Eircom not publish? Such would then allow the industry to decide whether it should order the same product as Eircom provides itself.

We note that even in a regulated environment it proves difficult to detect and resolve such matters and absent regulation we believe we would have never have known that different levels of service were being provided.

Q. 15 Do you agree with ComReg‘s proposed approach to the existing CS/CPS/SB- WLR obligations (and various related supporting obligations) imposed on Eircom under Sections 5 and 6 of the Decision Instrument appendixes to Decision

D07/61? Please explain the reasons for your answer, clearly indicating the

relevant paragraph numbers to which your comments refer, along with all relevant factual evidence supporting your position. (Page 202)

A.15 We generally agree with ComReg‘s proposed approach to the existing

CS/CPS/SB-WLR obligations (and various related supporting obligations) imposed on Eircom under Sections 5 and 6 of the Decision Instrument appendixes to Decision D07/61 but would like to offer the following comments:

a. Given the high barriers to building an access network it is clear that competition in the FVA market would not be sustainable at this time without the availability of the remedies such as CS/CPS and SB-WLR.

b. We are concerned that the text about the continuation on an interim basis (Clause 6.42) is sending mixed messages that the outcome might be different in a new market review. As this is a full market review we have difficulty

understanding how a different view could emerge in the space of only a couple of months.

c. We can understand ComReg’s desire to move what is a wholesale remedy to the wholesale market reviews; however this should not be reason to undermine the conclusions of this review that will only be a few months old.