|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will this work where the earlier one failed? If customers look at the new regulation with a certain amount of skepticism, one cannot blame them. After all, the earlier regulation, passed in 2007 (and the amendments in 2008) did not succeed in protecting the interests
of people. The proof of this is in the large number of complaints received by the regulator. According to TRAI, till March 2010, it received 3,40,231 complaints from people on unsolicited calls and SMS. Saying that there were about 65,000 complaints per month, TRAI says in its explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulation that this is only the tip of the iceberg as many clients do not lodge complaints. The new regulation is certainly an improvement on the earlier one. Besides imposing a stiffer financial penalty on the violators, the regulation seeks to blacklist for two years, those telemarketers who violate the provisions of the regulation. Under the new regulation, not only are telemarketers expected to scrub the data (pertaining to those who do not want commercial communication) before making calls or sending messages, but service providers whose networks are used, too, have to compulsorily filter the data, thereby providing a two-stage screening of subscriber list to prevent unsolicited calls and SMSs. From what one can see from the regulation, its success depends on the main players in the network — the telemarketers, the service providers, who receive consumer complaints, and the original access providers (or those who have provided the service to the erring telemarketers) —strictly following the regulation. Will they do it? If you read the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the 2007 regulation and its amendments in 2008, you will find references to how telemarketers and service providers were using certain loopholes in the regulation to wriggle out of their responsibilities. For example, there were instances of access providers not acting on complaints forwarded by the service provider, the excuse being that they received the complaints beyond the stipulated time of seven days provided in the regulation. Similarly, service providers were also delaying forwarding the complaints to the access provider, in violation of the stipulated time line specified for forwarding it. Since telemarketers are bulk consumers of service providers, the latter may well treat them with kid gloves. So how they comply with the regulation depends on the authority that the regulator will wield. Considering that the business of telemarketers depends on the number of consumers that they communicate with, the telemarketers will also try every trick in the trade to reach out to those who have clearly shunned them. For example, if you look at the commercial messages that you get on your mobile, you will find many of them sending the message without the header required to help people recognise them for what they are. You will only see the mobile number of the sender. That brings us to the role of consumers. The way the regulation has been framed, its successful enforcement depends to a large extent on the client. First and foremost, he has to register in order to block unsolicited calls. And if, despite that, he gets such calls or SMSs, he has to write down the details such as the number, the date and the time at which the message or the call came and complain to the service provider. Or else, the telemarketer violating the regulation may well go scot-free. However, what is disappointing is that there is no provision for payment of compensation to the affected person or the subscriber who is the victim of such unsolicited commercial messages. The regulation should, therefore, provide for a separate clause for compensation to the affected consumer.
|
||
|
|
||
Admitting that the earlier regulation to curb unsolicited commercial calls and messages had failed, the telecom regulator has come up with a new, revised regulation (The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations 2010), aimed at putting a stop to marketing calls and messages that have caused so much of harassment and annoyance to consumers of telecom services.