We now have successfully migrated our forum from a previous application to WordPress. This forum will be online indefinitely. Please feel free to add or comment on new or existing issues. Thanks everyone for all the support and patience.
CCATS
PS: Due to overwhelming issues with “spam” we have temporarily disabled “feedbacks” – we truly appreciate all your comments that have come our way and we have noted each and every one of them. Thank you!
Read this first!
This community forum is partly comprised of contributions of the general public and thus some views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of CCATS.
When posting a new thread or replying to an existing post please ensure that you base your arguments on facts and refrain from any derogatory statements. We reserve the right to deny or remove any posts that contain obscenity, derogatory or defamatory statements from this forum without notice.
To add a new entry you will need to contact us in order to become a registered user. Adding responses or comments to existing posts is open to public.
Please make good use of this platform and exercise your democratic rights.
CCATS Administrator(s)
See published letter here
Comments from the broad public encouraged – just follow the link “Comment” below!
Aside from some clandestine practices of some providers to forgo imposed responsibilities within a regulatory framework sometimes there are more insidious issues pre-eminently present – but often easily overlooked.
For example one overarching concern is the conflict of interest inherent in an incumbent monopoly provider of basic telephony services moving into competing on (more profitable) mobile services. With no corresponding competitive pressure on the basic telephony side of the business, there is a strong incentive for the incumbent to shift its emphasis to the competitive (mobile) side – which it can do very effectively by cross-subsidising its own mobile service from its basic telephony service (and thus discouraging new entrants and attempting to drive the competitor out of business). This leaves much of the population with a choice of two or more mobile service providers, but essentially without an option for obtaining a basic telephone service. Some of the following posts touch upon some of these issues in order to provide basic public awareness, but ultimately it is the responsibility of an effective regulator to look at, into, and see beyond each and every concern in order to be able to make a judgment call from the totality of issues at hand.
See article here
Comments from the broad public encouraged – just follow the link “Comment” below!
The Telecommunications Act of 2005 is an impressively weighty document which in some detail sets a basic structure for the telecommunications regulatory framework in Samoa. Despite its complexity the Act obviously cannot spell out or predict every scenario that may arise from time to time in the course of operation of a telecommunications provider that may be counter to the objectives of the Act. And so it is incumbent on the Regulator to actively seek out, detect, and expediently remedy any irregularities that directly or in a context undermine the objectives of the Act. While some issues are more complex and require extensive investigation and independent research by the Regulator, others are subtle requiring a knack (and willingness) for investigation. There are also issues that are simple and obvious (under one’s nose so to speak) but often overlooked or discarded as insignificant. And yet these seemingly simple irregularities are those that can be misused by a provider with a great negative impact for the end-user. At this point we limit ourselves to only a few actual scenarios due to sheer number of them.
The most prominent of all these types of seemingly simple issues relates to rates– that is the manner they are made public, how they list and breakdown details and most importantly a reference to when they go in effect and how and when they are superseded by new rates. The best example of such abuse is the case with mobile call rates of the past few years when TSC was the only mobile provider – if you recall at some point the mobile call rates (landline to mobile) were published as 27 sene per minute but somewhere along the line they jumped to 30 sene per minute without any formal announcement up until, as per a short and informal newspaper notice, the rates were “lowered” back to 27 sene “as an early Christmas present” – by the way, CCATS is still waiting for an explanation from SamoaTel and in the lack thereof expecting a refund to all affected customers for all the years of wrong billing! But also more recently, there have been various informal rate announcements e.g. for GoSurf and ADSL (both until recently illegally charged for anyway), but most importantly the GoMobile Prepaid rates which had gone through multiple iterations, with the previous version, as distributed even via the Regulator’s office for months, stating the mysterious Off-Peak plan for Prepaid GoMobile!
Have you noticed that some email you send from a SamoaTel’s internet connection are bounced back (rejected) by the receiving mail server or just get lost? The reason for that is that SamoaTel’s host (or DNS) is not adequately configured. Any DNS look up of SamoaTel’s server gets stuck in a loop (for a thorough analysis and a more technical explanation just contact us). A combination of a misconfigured server (wrong or missing PTR, SPF, SOA DNS records – RFC1912, RFC1912, etc.) causes an email to be rejected by some established servers (AOL, Comcast, Cox, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.) or considered as “Spam”! In addition, using an SMTP that does not match the pop server or the underlying email MX record (as is the case with the strange concessions made recently and triumphantly touted by the Regulator, to allow email originated from select ISP’s to be sent and received while on a SamoaTel connection) can cause such server rejects – not to mention the fact that this also opens a security hole and involves other regulatory issues – details withheld at this level.
GoMobile and Digicel phones are by default set with voicemail enabled – phone off – party not answering (or out of range?) will always trigger voicemail and so it incurs a (often unnecessary and unwanted) charge for the calling party. While Digicel has provisions for its users to enable and disable VM via a code (our initial tests were unsuccessful) it is not possible for GoMobile users to turn off the voicemail by using GoVM menu* (135) – calling customer service (121) yields nothing but a suggestion to visit live customer service who often find out on the job that VM service is a system module and cannot be turned off/on via the handset menu. So, it takes some convincing (and overcoming initial resistance) for the, albeit friendly customer service staff to have “someone at the switch” to turn it off per customer request – if that person feels like it that is (so far it has not yet happened it doesn’t seem it ever will!) So all in all, disabling voicemail on GoMobile is not an easy task – if not impossible per user request. Do we dare to ask why it is laid out this way? How much money people waste (and the provider gains!) for reaching a VM prompt (without even leaving a message)? Sadly, most people don’t even know they are being charged for it? Well, this is yet another serious regulatory issue that, for obvious reasons, cannot wait for weeks or months to be resolved
Note: deleting the default greeting or choosing the option announce only may seem to disable VM but it doesn’t – there still will be a connection charge to the calling party!
Every time the issue of emergency concern is raised in conjunction with the lack of adequate landline infrastructure or unreliable HomeZone service in rural areas we hear in response (even from top level) that the extensive mobile network is there to the rescue and where there is no satisfactory mobile coverage or no prepaid credit there is always the free call to emergency numbers available from any mobile handset. It sounds good, doesn’t it? The fact of the matter is that the emergency call is not always available is some areas – the technology works only where there is any detectable signal from any of the mobile providers and this is not always the case. It also presupposes that one wants and can afford mobile as a way of communication for routine use – which is again not always the case. But the most compelling argument against “pushing” the more profitable mobile instead providing landline to communities in rural areas is the fact that not all our emergencies are a matter of life and death requiring the fire brigade, the ambulance or the police. Let us define our own emergencies and be able to call upon whatever is necessary to resolve it – we would not necessarily call the police if our son or daughter is late coming home from school or get an ambulance to refill a prescription or order a fire engine if we ought to get to the airport and the car doesn’t start! Having a landline service is not only a major convenience but also often provides peace of mind.
Is it only us noticing this or is it really a new trend in place by SamoaTel? All marketing campaigns and most of the recent financial and personnel resources are now geared towards further promoting the already dominating prepaid products: in the recent times there has been Malo Card, and HomeZone and now GoSurf, and of course the highly profitable prepaid GoMobile (postpaid not promoted at all) which now is taking up 100% of all media advertising! And why not – from the point of view of a provider prepaid products are heaven-sent: getting the money in advance, no collection, no billing transparency (and so hardly any billing disputes). But from the regulatory point of view if there is a possibility of postpaid service for a product it should be offered at the same time, not only as a matter of convenience for some customers (remember prepaid is often more expensive and also it runs out) but in certain situations for productivity (running a business) and emergency reasons.
What is the real speed of GPRS data? We have been hearing all kinds of different speeds coming even from people who should know better – even in writing! There are claims that GPRS data speed (e.g. GoSurf) reaches up to 280 kbps (normal landline dialup barely reaches 56 kbps). The fact is that inherently there is an upper speed limit of GPRS data – under optimum conditions of no more than 171.2 kbps. That is if you are using all eight time channels (impossible!) without error correction, are in the line of sight and in the proximity of the tower and are the single user on the network. In a real world GPRS data speeds on the average are comparable or lower than landline dialup connections depending how many users are online at the same time. So, let’s get real about this! Just for fun – you can get an approximation of your speed at http://speedtest.net
What happened to all the hype about high speed internet connection via mobile?
Last year, even before there was a public announcement about the roll-out of the new “GSM network” and all along since the roll-out by both providers and as recently as beginning of July of this year as proclaimed by SamoaTel CEO on TV, there has been references to using “EDGE” for higher speed (higher than GPRS data at least) for internet access via the mobile network. Some of these claims either directly or indirectly even imply that EDGE is already in place! We don’t know about Digicel’s plans and capabilities but as it turns out SamoaTel doesn’t even have the necessary hardware in most of its cell sites to provide EDGE! And now, there’s talk about the prohibitive license cost for EDGE etc. And so EDGE might not even be provisioned at all for one reason or another. Concurrently, there were also assurances that one could use the GSM connection and dial-up into one’s own ISP. While this is theoretically possible, technically, GSM platform is not suited for such connection due to bandwidth constraints and other inherent problems. So scratch that as well. On a positive note, the GPRS data service commonly known as GoSurf by SamoaTel, after many months of technical trial and error finally seems to be working just fine. Malo SamoaTel!
The recent landline extension to a few communities in the north-western Upolu, mostly alongside or in the vicinity of the major fibre optics route is hardly to be seen as landline expansion.
Touted as a “major technological undertaking” with a huge cost involved is nothing but extending the landline a few hundred meters from the digital sub-switch and connecting a meagre number of households to an already existing infrastructure.
This is reminiscent of the establishment of the “Remote Subscriber Switch” (just a technology upgrade) and calling it “landline expansion” – this was alongside the main eastern route of Savaii to communities who already had landline! Landline extension to Safata (two years ago), serving only a small number of households, is yet another example of these types of marketing hypes and photo opportunities.
As far as landline expansion in rural areas is concerned SamoaTel has not done any significant progress in the past few years.
Aleisa and vicinity left out again – is this becoming a personal issue?
As recently as early July of 2007 the CEO of SamoaTel in a TV news interview, referencing the installation of 13 new cell sites, once again mentioned the magic 95% network coverage – this time correctly specifying “mobile network” and now inserting the cautious clause “of populated areas”!
How is a populated area defined in a country where 75 percent of the population lives in rural areas? Well, obviously a densely populated area such as Aleisa with over 1,200 residents and all along the Aleisa road from East to West, with a population of at least 3,000 people (according to the most recent national census) does not qualify as a populated area!
Why? Because the mobile (and HomeZone) signal level strength all along the Aleisa road (except a narrow corridor from Tapatapao downwards) is still marginal – at best 2 bars – but mostly substandard or there is no signal at all in some places. Slightly better is the Digicel network but it also leaves room for improvement.
Not only Aleisa residents have been denied, for no plausible reason, the benefit of landline telephony for years, they continue to be disadvantaged by a poorly designed mobile network in that area.
Where is the regulator to the rescue?
Why does the mobile network coverage subject come to foreground almost every time there is talk about telephony service in Samoa obliterating the shameful 7 percent (teledensity) landline penetration in rural areas?
For over six months and to the present time, SamoaTel has not had any website – not even a simple generic front page with just a logo or a phrase – the old website was just yanked out without an interim replacement – well not that the old website is missed too much – the information and even the rates published there were at least two years old.
Well, we understand a new slick, modern portal is coming up soon. But how utterly strange is it that for such a major business with all the money to spend and a dire need to disseminate information (i.e. officially publish rates) introduce products, make announcements, etc. and in the heat of introducing its mobile network and associated products, handsets, offering promotions, etc. they simply pulled the plug on their website!
Should we, or should we not be astounded by this?
While landline to mobile rates are separately assessed and established based on a set of criteria including interconnect charges, etc. they are a relevant piece of information for a customer to decide which provider to use.
And so they should be widely published and should appear on the same “mobile rate card” and include the fact that these rates are prorated to full minutes!
Why is everyone comparing both provider’s rates “per minutes” and draws conclusions about which one is cheaper where in fact SamoaTel and Digicel mobile rates are based on “increments of blocks of seconds” and “seconds” respectively?
Even marketing wars have been waged on the “per minute” charge and countless articles published by people and both providers. This is only confusing the end-user. Let’s take the charges as they are and make any judgment about which rate is better based on our habitual usage.
Also, how strange that postpaid mobile hardly ever enters the heated debate about mobile rates!
Conditioning customer behaviour and expectation
It is simply a basic human trait to feel helpless and settle for less when obstacles are put in one’s way consistently and repeatedly. The extreme case is indifference and apathy. This post is an expose on the state of “learned helplessness”.
For average Samoan customers there is no need to depict actual scenarios (we have compiled several case stories for the record) – we all, more or less have had our own share of experiences with some of the telecommunications or internet provider’s customer service or technical support.
Either the cases reported are not recorded, not followed up at all, or one is fobbed off over the phone: “the fault is most likely with your handset, your modem, the wiring inside your house, a nasty virus, etc.” any sort of vague explanation to make one feel “inept” and say “oh ok then, thank you!”
Now, repeat these types of experiences a few times and all the sudden you feel stuck in position – so next time your phone rings and there is no answer, or your internet connection drops repeatedly or is extremely slow, or you were charged for something you know is wrong you will not pick up the phone and seek resolution – after all what is the point you think to yourself – I just have to cope with it – can’t be bothered… Because of these predictable effects, tactics like this are widely used to ward off annoying customers or lower their expectations.
Nothing new in this department but the latest over the top strategy we noticed pretty much across the board is asking customers to personally come into the office and fill out a form when reporting a problem – imagine the major inconvenience coming from the other side of the island, the cost involved and lost wages, etc.!
We refrain to name all the telecommunications and ISPs who have adopted this systematic detraction method as their informal and unwritten fault reporting policy. What will be next – pay for customer service?
How unsuspecting HomeZone users are cunningly forced to use mobile services
A brief history
For the past two years CCATS has been pointing out a multitude of problems with HomeZone (an inferior GSM service all along) including its serious billing problems, unacceptable service level and the fact that it is not (and should not be considered as) a replacement and a cheap substitute for true landline service in rural areas. As HomeZone’s service level somewhat improved in the months leading to the launch of GoMobile in January of 2006 with introduction of HomeZone Plus (which incidentally also served as a test platform for GoMobile) a massive media campaign sought to increase the number of HomeZone users. With the launch of the all-mighty GoMobile the massive marketing campaign and the irresistible special offers for HomeZone completely dried up – to the extend that one would not even know that such service even exists now. Eventually, within months, even the sign for HomeZone service at the Matafele main branch disappeared! To add insult to injury as a result of unannounced numbering reshuffling with the introduction of HomeZone Plus many customers thought the service had ceased operation altogether and so they resorted to mobile.
Gradually deteriorating service
It can be factually verified that the HomeZone service gradually deteriorated as soon as GoMobile service was launched: prolonged outages, “network busy” or “call failed” messages, rising incidents of fake engaged dialed numbers or incorrect voice prompts – all in all a major inconvenience at best (at worst potentially dangerous in emergency situations), waste of time and money but also loss of productivity for the HomeZone users.
Resorting to Mobile
What other choice do the captive customers in rural areas without landline service have other than using expensive mobile for routine use? CCATS predicted this and published this predicament last year. While the original questions regarding the service level, cost to the provider and the end-user still remain, new serious questions have emerged: technically HomeZone service is capable of delivering GPRS data (and hopefully soon EDGE) in the same way as GoMobile to rural areas. What is the rationale behind blocking internet access via HomeZone to rural residents (which incidentally should be rated lower than mobile) other than forcing them to resort to the more expensive mobile service? What are the inconspicuous and unpublished (but already established) deals whereby one can exchange (“upgrade”) one’s HomeZone SIM for GoMobile? Why are HomeZone rates still different and oddly rated (25 sene per 15 minutes with no partial increments vs. GoMobile 3.4 sene per 6 seconds!) And why should HomeZone users not be able to enjoy the benefits of postpaid service?
Elaborate scheme or plain technical incompetence
We let you judge for yourself especially in light of the preceding historical evidence and the following compelling fact: The HomeZone Plus service runs on the same mobile platform (switch, cell site/towers) as GoMobile with the only difference that the numbers are location bound – so theoretically any technical problem should affect both services the same way. But users find that when HomeZone service has not been available for some reason or another (which seems to be happening more and more often), GoMobile service has still been working using the same handset or fixed wireless terminal.
There is only one plausible cause for such deteriorating service: different network resource allocation. Put in real simple terms: either the network resources available to HomeZone service have been set (or lowered) to such degree that it saturates (network busy, call failed, fake busy numbers) when certain number of simultaneous users is reached or, the more likely scenario, the switch has been configured to “grab” the resources of HomeZone and “give” it to GoMobile when a certain percentage of mobile network congestion is detected – this is commonly known as “trunk prioritization”.
Either way, this is a classic case of an incumbent provider in a monopolistic position covertly shifting customers to use a more profitable service. From the regulatory point of view this is illegal practice. But often even the most effective regulator either misses such clandestine practices or does’t have the resources, or access to reliable data to pinpoint such irregularities.
Besides, confident that it is a mammoth effort to prove such subtleties, the accused provider often flat-out denies any wrong-doing and dismisses such allegations as preposterous – knowing that when it comes down to it, with the flick of a finger technical settings can easily be changed. And while there is never any customer satisfaction data available, fault reporting, as an indication of customer complaint, is “soft” data that can be selectively collected and easily shaped to fit one’s own purpose.
In reality things are even more complex than depicted here! See our previous post about “learned helplessness – conditioning customers’ behaviour and expectation
Update – Monday 06 August 2007
After reporting HomeZon’s unacceptable service to SamoaTel and many months of following up to no avail we elevated the matter to the Regulator. How bizarre that it took only minutes to fix the compounded problems of HomeZone service level on the same day the issue was raised to SamoaTel by the Regulator!
Update – Current date
Absolutely nothing has been done by the Regulator’s Office nor SamoaTel about this! How shameful!
Often it is hard for an incumbent provider to let go of some of their old practices. And so it happens that, without having an internet license, SamoaTel has been charging its customers who were on trial basis for “Broadband” (ADSL) for multiple months!
SamoaTel was granted a licence to operate as an internet provider from the beginning of July 2007. Prior to that date charging customers for the service without license constitutes illegal business practice. As of this date affected customers have not been officially notified of this nor have there been refunds issued to them. Technically, GoSurf, which was commercially launched in March 2007 should also be subject to the same provisions and GoSurf customers using the internet portion of the service should be eligible for a refund as well. Is anything being done about this?
Update – to Current date
Nothing has been done about this and to our knowledge no refunds were issued to any of the affected customers