Speaking up: Costly Advertising Traps

Speaking up: Costly Advertising Traps

This is some very interesting information about what can easily be called false advertising of some kind.

Its to do with the free for three minutes package being advertised by Digicel.
Its from Bango's Speaking Up Blog..thanks Rok.

Click on the Underlined heading and have a read and lets hear your comments.

Action is required now.

Digicel and Cable & Wireless

Date: Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Subject: Digicel and Cable & Wireless
To: Bdosconsumer@gmail.com

Digicel

I frequently make calls to Guyana from my Digicel prepaid cell phone. On one occasion while making such a call I noticed that the call timer of the cell phone was running while the cell connection was ringing but not answered. This obviously is not normal as the timer should only come on when the call has been answered by the receiving party, thus initiating charges. Since no one answered I hung up and checked my balance which should have been $10 dollars since I had just recharged the phone with the said amount. It was not $10 but $9.12. I made a mental note but did nothing.

However, I started noticing more and more that the same thing was happening so I decided to call Digicel customer care. I was told by a representative that Digicel was experiencing a problem with calls to Guyana and that she on behalf of Digicel was sorry and wanted to know if I wanted a refund. I said no and that all I wanted was for them to fix the problem because I have to make frequent calls to Guyana and I should not be charged for calls that were not connected. The customer representative assured me that they were actively working on the problem and hoped to get it resolved soon.

A week went by and the problem seemed to have been solved. Unfortunately it recommenced, so finally I decided I couldn't take it any more after realizing that I was losing about $20 a month in calls that were never connected. I called Digicel customer care and told the representative that I wanted a refund for the the last call I just made (I estimated the refund to be about 89cents). She told me that I was not going to get a refund because

1) Digicel was not the responsible carrier. It was the Guyanese company that was at fault.
2) I did not know the exact amount of money that was initially on the phone card before I made the call.

In response to this I said that:

1) Digicel was the responsible carrier since I was making the call through them and it was Digicel and not any company in Guyana that was deducting credit from me. They were the ones taking my money!
2) It seems illogical for someone to have to take the time to constantly check the balance of their phone before they initiate a call. How many people do you know that do that? Once you know that you have money on your phone you just dial.

My response fell on death ears and I got no refund....(remember I was asking for less than a dollar). Doesn't Digicel have the technology to see the last call that was made from a cell phone?

With the high Guyanese population in Barbados, the vast exchange between the two countries and the number of people that do not look to see if their money is being deducted for unanswered calls, one can safely estimate that Digicel is getting rich for not even providing a service. Alternatively, getting rich from providing a terrible service. Digicel must be getting rich by just silently nickel & diming persons. Especially Guyanese who might be illegal in Barbados and therefore will not complain.

Please make the general public aware of this.


Cable & Wireless

If you did not know, Cable & Wireless has been traffic shaping and throttling the internet to their customers disadvantage.

See the link below:

http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs#Barbados

There have been many times recently that I have been downloading legitimate files from the internet from sites like Rapidshare, when suddenly the download connection was severed due to Cable & Wireless over agressive traffic shaping and throttling policy. Thus wasting lots of my time as sometimes these files were transferring for over twenty five minutes.

Our North American neighbours have realised what some ISPs like Cable & Wireless have been doing and have taken successful action:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080711.wgtcomcast0711/BNStory/Technology/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080711.wgtcomcast0711

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/125/


Please help save the freedom of the Barbados internet or next we will find that blog sites like yours or the Barbados Underground or the Barbados Free Press are being cut off from the public by an ISP over stepping it's bounds!


Please reply and let me know what you think
A very concern bajan

Hands off Pre-Paid Accounts

The National Budget provision to collect $4.00 from each cell phone should exclude pre-paid accounts. Pre-paid customers pay a higher rate than post paid, even though paying in advance.
Paying in advance is a premium to providers because it helps them with their cash flows, whereas they have to wait for payment from post-paid customers.

These premium customers are not treated with any hospitality. In most business practices the premium customers are the ones that get the discounts. Why is it the opposite for the Premium customers of the cell phone providers; i.e. the ones that pay in advance? Furthermore, when their debits expire they are abruptly cut off even if on a call.

The household survey published by BANGO in November 2007, http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline/download-nocache/Library/telecomm/survey1spe, found that 97% of the low income community have pre-paid accounts. A look at the market summary below will show that pre-paid customers are already saddled with 57% more charges than post paid customers for the same unit of time.

Market Summary – Cell phone rates

Average daytime rate
Pre-paid - 0.55 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Average early mornings & Evenings
Pre-paid - 0.50 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Late nights & Weekends
Pre-paid - 0.45 cents
Post-paid - 0.35 cents

Considering this extra burden on pre-paid accounts, it is only fair that any levies on cell phones for pre-paid accounts should be placed on the cell providers, since, seemingly, they are already collecting largesse from pre-paid accounts.

CELL PHONE CHARGES AS PER BUDGET

I am concerned. Can someone please tell me how the $4.00 charge will be imposed. Are we as customers to depend on Cable and Wireless to tinker in some way with the minutes available?

I hope not and will be keeping an eagle eye out to hear. I became even more concerned when I read in today's paper the below comment from a Cable & Wireless official:

"In terms of pre-paid, our engineers will have to look at how we can make adjustments and programming on our pre-paid platforms and in terms of having settlements," she noted.

Do we as consumers comprehend this statement. Lets talk about it and work out the possible reactions we as consumers should make to such an event.

Telephone Rates

It is an uncontestable point that the new way of charging consumers for telephone service should take account of Cable & Wireless' productivity. The Fair Trading Commission recognises this.
So why has the FTC neglected to do so in the sensitive area of residential telephone service in both the last ruling as well as the new ruling?
The productivity factor is used by the FTC for other services and yet there is no explanation why it has been excluded for residential services which affect the lowest income consumers.
Consumer advocates made a lot of noise about productivity when our views were invited prior to the new decision on rates. We complained that the original 7 per cent price control in the first decision was not transparent, had not been explained and was unjustified. In short, a nonsense which only served to shackle ordinary citizens with unjustifiably high rates.
The experts tell us that when a regulator such as the FTC is preparing rates under a Price Cap model "The proper choice of an X-factor (productivity factor) is critical for the long-term viability of any price cap plan."
So, for example, the use of a productivity consideration can result in price "reductions".
What usually happens is that if a company can increase its productivity beyond inflation then the consumer may benefit from lower rates.
So my concern is if the FTC can use prductivity as a factor in other services under the new Price Cap why can't it do so for residential service? Certainly every citizen would be pleased in these hard times to know that at least their basic monthly telephone bill is lower than previous years. If we read the new decision carefully the FTC agrees that the company's productivity gains were higher than anticipated.
Would this not suggest that the compounded 22.5 per cent increase in rates over the past three years was a bad decision?
The FTC has never explained why it chose seven per cent and after the initial period of a freeze in the new rates Cable & Wireles can charge a maximum of 4.5 per cent annually. Again, no explanation for this figure although we believe it is related to projected inflation rates.
The overall decision suggests that a lot of work has been done by the FTC and its consultants.
What is in question is whether in the case of residential rates the consumers are getting a fair deal.
What do you think?
Hallam Hope

Roaming Charges

One of the key tools to enjoying the benefits of free trade is the ability to communicate in its many forms. It would seem to me that everything is being done to undermine any benefits that may accrue to us as part of the global village.

Although I was swept away when I found out that roaming is as much as $2.94 per minute, I was not surprised because it is true to form; a fleecing of the Caribbean people. Slavery ain't done! They make you sweat for it and then take it with ease, making super-profits.

This price is nearly six times the cost of an international call by card. Why? These carriers are terminating their calls on their own networks for which they already earn the profit at $0.60 per minute. Yet, in the USA, which can hold the Caribbean from end to end many times over, roaming is free. What does this say about how these providers see us? In return for consumer patronage, what are they giving to regional integration? I see, they are targeting the foolish ones who don't check their phone bills and even those who do check but are so affluent-minded that they pay nevertheless.

To tell the truth, guys, you affluent have a duty to those less fortunate to object to such high charges and to yourself that would allow you to save and have a bit more that allows you to give more to the poor. Have a heart, all we ask you to do is complain. Give back to the communities where you came from and left the most unfortunate.