Telecommunications in Ireland

Ubiquity Completes Acquisition of Dallas-Fort Worth Metro Broadband Provider

Retrieved on: 
Friday, October 9, 2020

Ubiquity Management, LP (Ubiquity), which invests in critical communications infrastructure throughout the United States, announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Millennium Telcom, LLC d/b/a OneSource Communications (OneSource), a provider of fiber-fed broadband services in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro, from Tri-County Electric Cooperative (Tri-County).

Key Points: 
  • Ubiquity Management, LP (Ubiquity), which invests in critical communications infrastructure throughout the United States, announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Millennium Telcom, LLC d/b/a OneSource Communications (OneSource), a provider of fiber-fed broadband services in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro, from Tri-County Electric Cooperative (Tri-County).
  • Ubiquity plans to invest substantially in OneSource and its 300-mile+ fiber network located in one of the fastest growing markets in the United States.
  • Ubiquity has hired industry veteran Ken Carter to lead OneSource, bringing over two decades of communications operations and strategic leadership roles to the company.
  • Ubiquity partners with wireless carriers, technology companies, broadband providers, developers and municipalities to deliver infrastructure solutions.

EIR Healthcare Awarded Two Fast Company Innovation by Design Honors For Its Modular Design Solution Positioned to Save the Healthcare Industry

Retrieved on: 
Monday, September 9, 2019

EIR Healthcare's winning product, MedModular, is a factory-made "hospital room in a box," prefabricated and delivered on-site to the healthcare facility.

Key Points: 
  • EIR Healthcare's winning product, MedModular, is a factory-made "hospital room in a box," prefabricated and delivered on-site to the healthcare facility.
  • EIR is the first company linking industrial engineering, construction, technology and patient care to garner a solution to the traditionally considered "fixed cost" of hospital development.
  • The awards, which can be found in the October 2019 issue of Fast Company, recognize people, teams, and companies solving problems through design.
  • Fast Company is recognizing an influential and diverse group of 483 leaders in fashion, architecture, graphic design, data visualization, social good, user experience, mobility, and more.

Customer Demand for Safety Technology Threatened by Overbearing Alerts, J.D. Power Finds

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, August 27, 2019

"The technology can't come across as a nagging parent; no one wants to be constantly told they aren't driving correctly."

Key Points: 
  • "The technology can't come across as a nagging parent; no one wants to be constantly told they aren't driving correctly."
  • This ranges from just 8% for one domestic brand to more than 30% for a couple of import brands.
  • For these owners, 61% sometimes disable the system, compared with just 21% of those that don't consider the alerts annoying or bothersome.
  • "Some brands are succeeding at making their safety technology effective without being overbearing.

Customer Demand for Safety Technology Threatened by Overbearing Alerts, J.D. Power Finds

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, August 27, 2019

"The technology can't come across as a nagging parent; no one wants to be constantly told they aren't driving correctly."

Key Points: 
  • "The technology can't come across as a nagging parent; no one wants to be constantly told they aren't driving correctly."
  • This ranges from just 8% for one domestic brand to more than 30% for a couple of import brands.
  • For these owners, 61% sometimes disable the system, compared with just 21% of those that don't consider the alerts annoying or bothersome.
  • "Some brands are succeeding at making their safety technology effective without being overbearing.

FER0768545

Retrieved on: 
Friday, August 23, 2019

The complainant requested information concerning the Crossrail 2 project specifically in relation to one of its proposed routes. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) but not the exception at regulation 12(4)(d).

Key Points: 
  • The complainant requested information concerning the Crossrail 2 project specifically in relation to one of its proposed routes.
  • The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) EIR.
  • The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) but not the exception at regulation 12(4)(d).

FER0806658

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, August 17, 2019

The complainant has requested information regarding a noise abatement order. West Berkshire Council withheld the information requested under regulation 13(1) of the EIR as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Berkshire Council has appropriately relied upon the EIR regulation 13(1) - personal information, to withhold the information. No steps are required. 

Key Points: 
  • The complainant has requested information regarding a noise abatement order.
  • West Berkshire Council withheld the information requested under regulation 13(1) of the EIR as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons.
  • The Commissioners decision is that West Berkshire Council has appropriately relied upon the EIR regulation 13(1) - personal information, to withhold the information.
  • No steps are required.

FS50815838

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, August 17, 2019

The complainant has requested information with regards to a named lane. The council initial refused to provide the information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and subsequently provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it provided the information outside the required 20 working days. As the information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.

Key Points: 
  • The council initial refused to provide the information under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA).
  • During the Commissioners investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and subsequently provided the information.
  • The Commissioners decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it provided the information outside the required 20 working days.
  • As the information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.

FER0781869

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, August 17, 2019

The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (the Council) regarding details provided for an investigation which relate to the project to develop a waste incinerator in Norfolk. 
The Council provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold some of the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (the Council) regarding details provided for an investigation which relate to the project to develop a waste incinerator in Norfolk.
  • The Council provided information which contained some redactions in accordance with regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR.
  • The Commissioners decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulations 12(3) and 13(1) to withhold some of the information.
  • The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.

FS50811558

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, August 17, 2019

The complainant has requested quarterly information concerning Manchester City Council’s progress in meeting its Climate Change Action Plan.  The Council responded, providing some information falling within the scope of the request but advising information was not collated on a quarterly basis and would be available in the Annual Progress Report to be published in July 2019.  Following an investigation, the Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request.  However, it failed to do so within the 20 working day time for compliance and therefore the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant has requested quarterly information concerning Manchester City Councils progress in meeting its Climate Change Action Plan.
  • The Council responded, providing some information falling within the scope of the request but advising information was not collated on a quarterly basis and would be available in the Annual Progress Report to be published in July 2019.
  • Following an investigation, the Commissioners decision is that Manchester City Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request.
  • However, it failed to do so within the 20 working day time for compliance and therefore the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.

FER0816505

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, August 7, 2019

The complainant requested information from North Yorkshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to certain individuals who submitted evidence forms about the use of a bridleway near Thornton-in-Craven. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly redacted the personal details of the individuals under regulation 13 of the EIR. However, the Council incorrectly redacted the dates on which the forms were signed, since this is not personal data within the definition at section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). The Council also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and failed to carry out a reconsideration when asked (known as an internal review) within 40 working days. It therefore breached regulations 5(2) and 11(2) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose that part of the relevant forms which shows the dates of signature.

Key Points: 
  • The complainant requested information from North Yorkshire County Council (the Council) relating to certain individuals who submitted evidence forms about the use of a bridleway near Thornton-in-Craven.
  • The Commissioners decision is that the Council correctly redacted the personal details of the individuals under regulation 13 of the EIR.
  • The Council also failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and failed to carry out a reconsideration when asked (known as an internal review) within 40 working days.
  • It therefore breached regulations 5(2) and 11(2) of the EIR respectively.