System glitches or telco arrogance?

When telecommunication companies wage price wars, customers benefit. With a wider choice of service, never has switching been such a dreaded word to telecom networks as it is to television networks. To entice subscribers to switch back, for instance, Smart launched 25/8 in response to Sun’s 24/7.

But such gimmicks on pricing alone will not work if subscribers feel that they are being hoodwinked and ignored when there are complaints about the level of service. What makes matters worse is when the National Telecommunications Commission sleeps on the job. Below is an apparent example of an ignored provincial customer.

Smarting From SMART Snub

I recently received a letter from Fred Dimamay from Iligan City who, together with his wife, filed a complaint against Smart Telecommunications last May 2003. He says that the Department of Trade and Industry and the National Telecommunications Commission had replied just once. He then writes:

"After that I have not heard nor received any update from them. Smart also never had the courtesy of writing to my wife on this issue.

"As they are raking in stupendous profits, maybe you can ask them to improve their system and stop robbing their subscribers. In fact, I told verbally the Smart customer care lady responding to the *888 line that if their system does not keep transaction logs for their prepaid subscribers that can be audited, what will prevent them from writing a piece of program code in their system software that will every now and then deduct one peso from every prepaid subscriber. They will rake-in millions every time. And who would notice?"

The incident actually involves Fred’s wife, Mariquita. Apparently, last May 7, 2003, Fred’s wife bought a P500 Smart cell card, which she loaded onto her Nokia 3310 cell phone. After being prompted by the system that she had successfully loaded P500, she sent a text message to verify her current balance, and received (a message) that she still had P511 and 83 free text messages in her account.

Mariquita says that in the afternoon of the same day, she sent text messages to four people. In the complaint letter, she identifies the cell phone number, owner and number of text messages sent, a total of seven short text messages and one long text message (equivalent to three single text messages) that she sent out during the day.

A Glitch Without Audit Trail

She continues her narration: "Before going to bed at about 10:20 p.m. of that same day, I inquired on my balance using 1515 (as I usually do) and to my amazement...my current balance is only P319.00 with 0 free text messages when I did not make any voice calls and did send only the above number of text messages."

She says she then turned off her cell phone that night and refrained from using it pending the filing of complaint with Smart Iligan. "In other words," Mariquit wrote, "there was no usage at all of my cell phone from 10:20 p.m. onwards but wonder of wonders and to our shock, when we inquired on the balance the following day at 7 a.m. (May 8)...my balance was reduced to P107 with 0 free text messages.

"With this, the total amount deducted was P404, again excluding the 83 free text messages. We are a hundred percent sure that there was no usage at all of that cell phone considering that it was inside our locked bedroom that entire evening. Why then the big reduction in my current balance?

"My usual budget for a cell card is P500 per month and I have been very careful in my usage that most of the time, usage has been confined to texting, with very minimal voice calls. In fact, the P11.00 balance was still from my April P500 budget."

Later, Mariquit learned that the third part of the long text message that she sent to her son was received more than 200 times. The Dimamays asked for a record of her sent text messages that fateful May 7.

They were told that there was no way of identifying the recipients of sent text messages.

"I expect that my usage history can easily be verified by Smart as I presume that its computer systems keep log of all events including subscriber transactions and system malfunctions," she continued in her letter.

"This I believe is for the mutual protection of Smart and its subscribers in cases when there are complaints of this nature."

Furthermore, Mariquit asks "why can (Smart) keep track of subscriber balances and usages yet cannot give me the cell phone numbers (I was) supposed to have sent those text messages (to). The text messages I sent are financial transactions between me and Smart as I use their facility, therefore they should be keeping appropriate records of these said transactions."

In the Dimamay’s letter, Mariquit maintains that she wanted the text log so she could demonstrate that the Smart system repeatedly resent the same text message to her son more than 200 times even if she had sent it only once last May 7. "This is why I am asking them for the text log list of my cell number so that from the time stamp alone we can verify what really happened.

"Maybe, even during the time when my cell phone is off, Smart’s text messaging system kept resending the same message and charged me for them. Now, isn’t Smart cheating on me? Is it fair for Smart to charge me those resent messages which maybe is due to a system malfunction or software bug?"

A Glitch That Rakes In Money

According to Mariquit, when they started asking other people about their experience in using prepaid Smart cell phones, they encountered a number of similar stories of current balances suddenly reduced by substantial amounts. "This means that Smart could be short-changing or stealing from its subscribers – which if grouped together could be very substantial."

Because of what happened, Mariquit decided to terminate her Smart phone. "I am requesting (DTI) to investigate Smart and compel them to correct their system and not to steal from their subscribers!"

I guess this is a former Smart customer who won’t switch back even with the recent 25/8 Smart promo.

Deregulation Law Not The Culprit; Profit Aspiration Is

To appease the public as prices of oil products continue to rise, outgoing Energy Secretary Perez and mouthpieces from Malacanang Palace announced with as much media hype as possible the review of the Oil Deregulation Law. A group which includes representatives from the consumer sector was supposedly formed to recommend amendments to the Law with the objective of easing the burden on the consumers.

In another DOE press release given full blown treatment, Sec. Perez requested the oil companies to stagger their price increases. Between the two media pronouncements, the latter has a good chance of providing temporary relief, that is, if the major oil companies, particularly Petron, would lower their profit aspirations.

And this is what Senate President Drilon might have in mind when he recommended that the government get back control of Petron. Many are expecting Petron, being 40 percent owned by the government, to mitigate the oil price burden by moderating its profit objectives, at least temporarily.

The announced review of the oil deregulation law is cosmetic. Any move to amend the law and go back to subsidized oil prices will not work as the government is in dire need of funds to provide basic services and is in no position to provide subsidy.

The consumersí only option at the moment is to conserve and stop all wasteful consumption of this precious commodity. Of course, it would help if major oil companies will temper, at least temporarily, their hunger for profits. Will Petron lead the way?

Join us in ìBREAKING BARRIERSî on Wednesday, 16th March 2005, IBC-TV13 (11 pm), and gain insights into the views of Rex Tantiongco, former Energy Regulatory Board chairman, and presently spokesperson of the new oil companies on various issues related to the oil and power sectors of the economy. Watch it.

Should you wish to share any insights, write me at Link Edge, 4th Floor, 156 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City. Or e-mail me at [email protected]. If you wish to view the previous columns, you may visit my website at http://bizlinks.linkedge.biz.