|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember those days when there were no cell phones and the Department of Posts and Telegraph was the sole provider of basic telephone? Those were the days the monopoly exercised its unbridled power to ride roughshod over consumers. It would disconnect the telephone lines of subscribers without notice for non-payment of dues. It would also disconnect the telephone lines of those who had paid their bills, only because they happened to be close relatives of those who had not paid the bill. The service provider was also notorious for issuing inflated bills, not bothering about complaints and for delays in rectifying faults, among others. Following the government’s decision to allow private participation in the telecom sector, there is a sea change today. And with it, the nature of consumer complaints has also altered. In fact, consumer anger is now directed more towards mobile telephone operators. Not without reason. Despite the fact that there is intense competition in the sector, quality service continues to elude consumers. There has been a phenomenal rise in the subscriber base of mobile telephone operators in the country. According to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, there were over 33 million pre-paid subscribers and nearly 11.4 million post-paid subscribers in the country by the end of September 2005. But unfortunately along with the rise in the number of mobile subscribers, there is an increase in the level of consumer dissatisfaction with the services. In fact one of the major problems pertains to network congestion and poor connectivity. In its report on the Quality of Service Parameters related to Congestion on Point of Interconnection (POI), released in January this year, the TRAI commented "With the exponential increase in the number of subscribers every month, the congestion level at the POIs in the inter Operators networks continues to be one of the major reasons for poor quality of service in the mobile networks." Referring to the network congestion report of all cellular mobile service providers for the month of November 2005, TRAI said in a number of big and small cities, the level of congestion between the networks of different operators was far more than the prescribed benchmark of less than 0.5 per cent and the number of such places were increasing. This is mainly due to delay in augmentation of inter-network junctions, TRAI observed. The issue is now before the telecom tribunal. But then, network congestion is not the only problem. Consumer complaints vary from misleading advertisements, change of subscribers’ tariff plans without prior consent, incorrect billing, unclear terms and conditions to delay in providing roaming facilities and in shifting the subscriber from pre-paid to post-paid regime. There are also complaints of harassment by recovery agents. Another area of consumer discontent is the unsolicited calls by tele-marketing companies. It is no wonder that the largest number of complaints received by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs-sponsored toll free National Consumer Helpline pertained to telecom services. Inaugurated on March 15 last year and run by the Department of Commerce, Delhi University, the largest percentage of complaints received (20 per cent) by the helpline during March 2005 to January 2006 related to the telecom sector. And the complaints ranged from inflated bills and overcharging to poor network coverage and failure of the service provider to activate the service despite having taken payment. Commented the NCH in its annual report : "Despite the in-house redressal systems of various companies, it has been felt that a sizeable number of consumer complaints still remain unresolved." Consumer dissatisfaction with the services is also reflected in the increasing number of complaints filed by consumers in the consumer courts and also brought before the complaints cells of consumer organisations. Consumer courts have in fact intervened in a number of cases and awarded consumers compensation against deficient services provided by cell phone operators. But then, adjudication before the consumer courts takes time and one does not see any reason why cell phone operators cannot provide an alternate system of dispute redress. In fact, what is needed is not just better quality of service, but also a better and a more transparent system of consumer complaint redress. There is in fact an urgent need for an ombudsman in the telecom sector, on the lines of insurance and banking ombudsman. Way back in 2004, the TRAI had issued a consultation paper on the need for an ombudsman mechanism in the telecom sector and had followed it up with a recommendation to this effect. However, it has not found favour with the operators. Service providers have a responsibility to provide an effective system of consumer complaint redress and consumers will now have to demand this of them. |
