-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your non-negotiable item, device, or app for international travel?
’Thousands’ refused network switch
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
I wouldn't take any figures released seriously, it's in all the networks best interests to claim to have the captured the majority share. It's no secret that like me, many more, will be cheering for the smaller networks.
Gadget_guy
Active Member
I would have to agree with MTN and Vodacom, if you owe someone money, you can't just jump ship.
If people have a 24 month contract, then they have to abide by their contract for which they signed up (It does not matter if there are better options available now, these were the conditions of the contract).
On the other hand if number portability means the churn of these types of subscribers, I am sure the donor operator will be glad to see them go?
If people have a 24 month contract, then they have to abide by their contract for which they signed up (It does not matter if there are better options available now, these were the conditions of the contract).
On the other hand if number portability means the churn of these types of subscribers, I am sure the donor operator will be glad to see them go?
nthdimension
Senior Member
They are still entitled to recover any money owed to them. They just aren't allowed to prevent the person from changing networks.
mancombseepgood
Executive Member
Actually
Would you as a business person allow a new client to use your services if they owed money elsewhere... thats what credit checks are for not so?
Would you as a business person allow a new client to use your services if they owed money elsewhere... thats what credit checks are for not so?
Virgin Mobile is number 1 in terms of the gains at 40%. Vodacom and MTN combined gained 44% of the ported subscribers and Cell C gained 16%.
That means Cell C is 3rd or 4th in terms of the MNP gains (if Virgin Mobile is not considered). Nor very good.
W.
That means Cell C is 3rd or 4th in terms of the MNP gains (if Virgin Mobile is not considered). Nor very good.
W.
diabolus
Executive Member
How's that?
Firstly, Technically it's statistically impossible for every operator to have GAINED ....
Secondly you are missing the VITALLY important stats of LOSSES . There's major diff if stats looked like this [i'm speculating]:
Cell-C : Gains 16% , Looses 5% = 11% GAIN
Virgin : Gains 40% , Looses 50% = 10% LOSS
Mtn : Gains 25% , Looses 25% = 0%
Vodacom : Gains 19% , Looses 20% = 1% LOSS
In other words, the "gains and losses" must add up to 0 , not 100.
RogueTr00per
Honorary Master
I think MyADSL articles should come with a bullcr@p meter from now on. There's little point to reading 95% of articles published because either operators lie through their teeth or whatever they are saying amounts to nothing. 
I would read less articles but I seem addicted to the search for silver lining amongst the clouds...
I would read less articles but I seem addicted to the search for silver lining amongst the clouds...
I agree with the logic if you owe them money you can't jump ship but that requires you to actually owe them the money and their billing works and follows proper proceedures.
Im sitting in a situation where Vodacom credit and risk cocked up and Im waiting for them to actually take the matter to court, I can't retain my number and port because it is just to much hasle to take Vodacom to court (where a magistrate is likely to fail to appreciate judgments from 1921
)
A proper requirement from my point of view is that the network must if it wishes to withhold porting have a judgement or have the matter enrolled at court. Something along the lines of "the donor provider may not utilize port delay or prevention as an alternative to the ordinary course of debt recovery and contractual enforcement". If Virgin and Cell C are serious about customers they would fight for this to be made the case.
Im sitting in a situation where Vodacom credit and risk cocked up and Im waiting for them to actually take the matter to court, I can't retain my number and port because it is just to much hasle to take Vodacom to court (where a magistrate is likely to fail to appreciate judgments from 1921
)A proper requirement from my point of view is that the network must if it wishes to withhold porting have a judgement or have the matter enrolled at court. Something along the lines of "the donor provider may not utilize port delay or prevention as an alternative to the ordinary course of debt recovery and contractual enforcement". If Virgin and Cell C are serious about customers they would fight for this to be made the case.
nthdimension
Senior Member
Since buying on credit is generally how you operate a business I wouldn't be able to do business with anyone if I refused to provide services because they owed other people money. As long as their credit is good, hence a credit check, I don't care whether they owe money to someone else or whether they dispute an amount owed to someone else.
If the porting rules say they cannot refuse to transfer a number just because some money is outstanding then they are not allowed to refuse, unless the number has been suspended. Most likely only someone who has consistently not paid their account would have had their number suspended.