Reference Interconnect Offer and consumers

A Reference Interconnection Offer might not mean a whole lot to many people but it can have a significant impact on new services and the extent to which there is competition in communications.
LIME is at the centre of a RIO consultation and a series of documents on services such as overseas calling. Companies have to interconnect so that customers of one company may communicate with those of another, for example Digicel, TeleBarbados, LIME and Blue Communications, which is offering a competitive long distance card to make calls.
In addition, the new charges could also relate to new services, since they also involve interconnection and payments between these companies to terminate calls.
Essentially, LIME is trying to get the best deal for itself while other parties want to ensure that the decisions taken by the Fair Trading Commission do not disadvantage them financially and their ability to compete and offer better rates where possible.
In March the FTC received submissions in response to LIME’s proposals from my business consultancy, CARITEL, TeleBarbados, Digicel and Blue Communications.
Well, on Friday we all received what was submitted by the parties as well as the responses of LIME.
A public consultation will be held on June 19th when only these parties will have a chance to re-iterate their positions, provide any additional information on the issues raised or raise new related issues.
In the case of the latter the Commission has given all parties until June 5th, a day over one week, to provide a written summary and submit to all parties.
Now if this isn’t highly unreasonable I don’t know what is.
We are expected in our case with limited resources to read all the documents, do research and respond by then.
But this is how the Fair Trading Commission goes about its business while refusing to provide a lot of basic information when it is requested to do so.

Hallam Hope
caritel@hallamhope.com
(246) 822-1414

Electricity rates update

An application for increased electricy rates has been made to the Fair Trading Commission which proposes the highest increase for domestic consumers.
It is proposed that consumers using 50 kilowatts monthly (at the bottom of the scale) would pay an increase of $3.47 and those at the top using 500 kWh would pay an additional $11.04. In between there are proposed rates for citizens using 100 kWh ($3.50), 150 kWh ($8.46), 200 kWh ($8.83), 300 kWh ($9.57) and 400 kWh ($10.30).
The company has contended that businesses have been paying a greater share of the cost of providing electricity and is seeking to adjust this so domestic consumers pay a larger share than they have in the past.
As a result the power company is proposing to increase the Rate of Return it makes from the Domestic side of the market from the current 2.58 per cent to 7.82 per cent, which is the single largest increase of the five categories.
So rather than the current return of 4.1 million dollars it is seeking to earn 12.6 million dollars from its application.
The likelihood of an electricity rate increase by October coincides with pending higher telephone rates of four per cent.
Armed with the above information and our electricity bills it is possible to calculate what our new monthly bills would be if the application was accepted without change. This is particularly useful for persons at the bottom of the income ladder such as pensioners.
Hallam Hope
caritel@hallamhope.com

Beware! Banks Prowling for prey at Night

If that cheque can bounce, it will bounce!

A very good friend of mine had an experience that he could not believe. He had a cheque to deposit but needed to write a cheque to pay a bill at Sure Pay that same evening for fear of losing his electricity the next morning. For some reason he tried desperately to get to the bank by 3 p.m. to make the deposit, but failed; like he had a vision.

In his mind he reasoned that the account did not have on sufficient funds for what he wanted but surely to deposit the cheque would have been more than enough because the cheque was for more than what he wanted. He continued to reason that if he wrote the cheque and he could get to the bank at 8 a.m. the next morning and make the deposit, all will be fine. So said, so done.

Five days later, he got a call from Sure Pay saying that his cheque had bounced. Bewildered, he went to his bank to find out how that could happen. The teller at the bank in explaining said when Sure Pay deposited that night, their "night staff" would have received it from the payee's banker and at that time, your account would not have had sufficient funds.

"NIGHT STAFF?" Furthermore, he said, the bank is now charging a penalty of $50 per bounced cheque. With regards this charge for not sufficient funds, it is a mechanism for the bank to steal from its customers. As my friend explained, they took out the money as if it was their account, but what is worse, although the clerk argued with him that when he opened the account he would have agreed to all this, the point must be made that previously it was $25-$30 for a bounced cheque and the bank raised it without notifying him.

It means that the bank, not only took his money but increased what they took and surely this cannot be right. I have argued and will probably argue in a court of law very soon, that this practice is nothing more than breaking and entering; highly unethical by legal and moral standards. It should be that if you owe the bank money, just like any business should write you an invoice and give you time to pay so you can budget... but to just go and take the money has the potential of devasting a poor person.

As an addendum, with all the banks employing staff at night, it is unfair to ask for three days to clear a cheque. It should not be more than two days. Fair is Fair. The next pertinent question is, what constitutes a working day if banks are working at night and probably on weekends too?

The Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

Food Security Extinct for Barbados

By now, there are hardly any crops in Barbados that can generate its own seeds. That is because our farmers have been buying their seeds from an imported source and they have been genetically modified.

The worse part is that even if you were a farmer using natural techniques, the pollen from the plants of your neighbour who is using genetically modifies seeds, will modify the seeds of your crops on pollination.

The real danger is that GM seeds do not produce seeds fit for a second crop. You have to keep on buying the seeds from the imported source. What this has done, is put us at the mercy of seed producers. We can no longer grow plants and save the seeds for the next crop. They either won't grow or give very slender yields.

Below is a video of what is happening to farmers in India. They are committing suicide as a result of the complexities arising from the problem.



URL Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA&feature=player_embedded