Critical Consumer Pat Sidley
CONSUMERS with cellular phones may be surprised to learn that they enjoy one of the few palpable rights South Africans have in the telecommunications industry at the moment. This is that their conversations cannot be bugged.
The digital system operates in such a way that any authorities wanting to tap cell phones would need the technical co-operation of the GSM networks. Allan Knott Craig of Vodacom says the South African Police Services have approached the two networks operating here and asked for their co- operation, but they refused. The FBI in the United States is fighting similar resistance among the cellular networks operating there.
So for the time being you can rest assured about Big Brother listening in on cell phone conversations. Even the “third force” is unlikely to have found a way to tap in to the networks.
The two networks, MTN and Vodacom, have extensive obligations to consumers, placed on them by the terms of the licences granted to them by the government.
But many consumers are unlikely to be aware of many of these obligations and rights. Buyers sign a contract with a middleman, or service provider, who may not ensure that all the buyer’s rights are in evidence. Some of their rights may even be excluded by the service provider, and as a result it can prove an expensive exercise to enforce them.
There is a privacy clause in the networks’ licence which probably means that the commercial habit of circulating bad debt information cannot be excerised by this industry — but this Critical Consumer believes that until consumers enforce it, this clause will only be observed in the breach.
The networks are also obliged to make a functioning service available within 90 percent of “their actual area of coverage at least 95 percent of the time”. The information on accounts provided to customers is specified: they have to contain the name, address, telephone number, account number, itemised billing number, number called, time of call, call duration and call charge on each call.
But there is one item missing here: the account does not have to specify how many of the consumer’s calls were dropped (or cut off), or how this happened.
Steve Crawford’s home-based computer business is hooked into the MTN network and he was left with a distinctly patchy service when the technical sharing agreement between Vodacom and MTN terminated at the end of July. The problem is that MTN’s equipment doesn’t serve his area efficiently and his connections are frequently broken as a result.
Crawford points out that for each call which he makes or receives and is then cut off, the network makes a minimum of R1,10. If he calls in for messages from frustrated clients, it costs another R1,10 for each minute. And when, in anger, his clients use a Telkom phone to make a better connection with his line, they pay R1,35 to reach the message service — and he then has to pay R1,10 to collect the message.
Knott Craig says the networks are able to gauge from their computers exactly how many calls are dropped, after what period and what the cause is. Calls cut off before five seconds are not charged for, he says — but this means that calls which last for, say, eight seconds or half a minute and are then cut off are charged for. Consumers can get their money back, but it’s up to them to put in the effort.
Another obligation in terms of the licence is a free emergency service, though the advertising campaigns vaunted this as a benefit to consumers. Clause 8.1 stipulates that callers are to be enabled, free of charge, to “communicate in the event of an emergency in the area serviced by the licensee with an emergency organisation”.
A clause relating to the printing of directories smacks a bit of the old South African “gravy train”: Telkom is to provide this service — and we all know who gets those tenders.
A clause in a section called “Fair Trading” stipulates that the networks must compel their service providers to comply with a code of practice for consumer affairs which should at least guide customers on how to deal with complaints or disputes, advice on billing and on use the service. This seems to have resulted in the “care lines” which both networks run.
However, a contract given to customers by Vodac (a company with the same shareholders as Vodacom) reflects a total disregard for consumer rights. The Vodac contracts are loaded with several pitfalls, including limiting the company’s liability to such an extent that it requires consumers to indemnify the company against Vodac’s own negligence. The company effectively acknowledges that it may have some liability if things go badly wrong, but limits it so that the customer must bear the cost.
Our law provides at least for a fight in this arena, and this Critical Con-sumer believes a court case involving, say, a rich yuppie who missed a deal on the stock exchange because a network technician flipped a switch should establish some clear rights in this regard.
The networks are obliged to make their tariffs and fees easily available to consumers and they can’t simply charge whatever they like, notwithstanding the clauses on the backs of contracts which allow for increases.
The postmaster general has to approve (or disapprove) applications for increases, and he has to give his reasons for doing so.
This Critical Consumer believes that the postmaster general also needs to inspect the contracts to ensure that they do not in spirit, if not in the letter, outwit his good intentions towards the consumers.
An industry-wide code of ethics has been proposed by at least one industry operator, Peter McBride, managing director of M-TEL — the service provider related to MTN.
The code would not primarily be aimed at consumers, but this Critical Consumer believes it could deal with consumer rights too.