SSP Diaries | Time to stand up to poor service providers

I SUSPECT that most people are growing tired of certain experiences with our telecommunication providers, so just to refresh our memories or cause some to take a different approach to resolution, I have decided to highlight a few experiences.

In recent years it’s not unusual for you to be in the middle of a conversation on the phone then suddenly hear ‘clunk’ as the call is ‘dropped’. You must make the call all over again. At other times you make a call, the phone is ringing in your ears but there is no ringing of the recipient’s instrument. If you have Internet service from your provider, you are in even deeper trouble. Most of us have become accustomed to Internet service going down without explanation and subjected to ‘bewilderment’ when complaints are made.

In some cases, I have heard of the Internet service being disconnected at source because the provider’s system is showing that the client has not paid her bill. This happened to a friend of mine. After making a lengthy complaint, the provider suddenly realises that they had cut the service of the wrong person due to an error in the recording of addresses in their system. She advised that some days later her service was restored without as little as an apology. How can this be acceptable behaviour in a civilised society?

TROUBLE-SHOOT A PROBLEM

Getting a technician to come to your home to investigate a problem or do repairs is another story. From personal experiences, I highlight the loss of Internet and cable services. After a lengthy interaction with the agents of the provider, sometimes lasting for an hour or more, you are suddenly informed that the problem cannot be rectified from their side and a ‘ticket’ will be issued to have a technician do a house visit. Once the ‘ticket’ is issued, you are advised that you will receive a call from the relevant department within 24 hours to set up the appointment to visit. In this age of technological advancement, why the appointment to visit cannot be made by your initial contact with the provider beats me. Additionally, why it takes so long to trouble-shoot a problem, defies all logic.

When the agent from the relevant department makes contact, there is the expectation that one would at the very least be getting prompt attention. Perish the thought, as it’s at this stage that you have to agree on a time and date for the technician to address your problem at home. That done, it is not unusual for the appointed time to pass, by hours, before the technician makes an appearance. The usual excuse for lateness is simply that they were on another job before coming to you. The fact that you have wasted your day waiting is not of any importance.

The lack of the Internet, for those who work at home, can be economically devastating. For some, the cable services provided by both FLOW and DIGICEL, leave much to be desired and bear no relationship with the high fees being charged. In my humble opinion, we ought now to be at the stage where system disruptions that are not categorised as acts of God or nature, should cause the client to be refunded a portion of the monthly charges levied by the provider. This is a matter which I recommend that the Office of Consumer Affairs, or whatever it’s called these days, take seriously with the organisations concerned.

NO RECOURSE

Like any other entity providing a service, they need to be held accountable and made to deliver the service being paid for. It cannot be, for example, that a client loses service and economic potential and has no recourse with the provider contracted to provide such services. The paying customer loses, and the provider continues to profit because there are no consequences for their actions. How can this be right or acceptable? This must be corrected, for a start it is unheard of in developed countries, and we are aiming for that status. Let’s begin now by positively addressing this matter.

Perhaps the first thing to do when reviewing the licences of these entities is to insist on realistic percentages of profit to be ploughed back into the development of the structure of the relevant organisations so a defined acceptable service is provided to customers. Numerous advertisements speak to increased Internet speed, storage capacities, improved programming, picture clarity, etc., but this amounts to nothing if there cannot be consistency in the standards offered to the public by the providers.

The bottomline is simply this. Whether you have a cell phone, landline, Internet or cable provider, or are using the services of some other communications platform, it is obvious that more needs to be done to give satisfaction for money well spent by the consumer. The time is right for you to signify in your own peaceful way the poor services that the public is accustomed to and the fact that we know our providers can do much better. The authorities must live up to their responsibilities and the public’s expectations. Unless we make these demands, and enforce our rights in the law, the country will continue to accept mediocrity.

Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com