Cell C is lying about MTRs: Vodacom, MTN

CLL is not a solution - it is a problem. The line being locked effectively bricks a smartphone - I haven't tested it but I imagine with CLL in place a Red Unlimited (or whatever it is called) customer could find themselves unable to make phone calls because their account went OOB and hit the ceiling.

The bottom line is that to use the prepaid billing approach - and thereby avoid OOBSharkey - requires (a) that you sacrifice postpaid contract benefits such as Night Owl and (b) that you data driven SIMs are on a different device to you postpaid contract
The current setup does not encourage users to comfortably and conveniently sign up for a postpaid cellular contract and take up high data usage and I know at least two people who have smartphones that don't even have email set to the device because of the fear of the OOBShark and it is the height of corporate stupidity to sell people expensive devices on contracts that they then don't use the features because to do so carries a risk that the company can prevent.

As for a solution within the existing system: one has been put forward on this forum that works using the reforms on the billing system. If your engineers can't build on what has already been set out, make an offer. The OOBShark can be sorted out once and for all it is simply a refusal to recognize the actual problem and provide a solution.
 
@Jannie, when will we be able to disable OOB data on contract?

You've been saying for several years that a new system is in development.
 
biometrics said:
@Jannie, when will we be able to disable OOB data on contract?

You've been saying for several years that a new system is in development.
Click to expand...

First phase of that new system (real time notifications for contract) went live recently......
 
My solution to the Vodacom BS is to use a Samsung S4 Mini Duos with a prepaid voice sim in slot 1, and a Top Up data sim in slot 2.

This solves most of the issues, and I get cheap voice and cheap data with no OOB risk.
 
Yes, I know the limitations, but for a company that likes to blow smoke up its own arse when an article mentions their innovations in the market, it sure is taking a horrendously long time to develop an off switch for OOB on contract. Did all of those original innovators leave Vodacom or does it honestly take years for your "innovators" to develop this? I don't for a second believe that this is given any priority by Vodacom.

It's all good and well to tell us that you have a report that shows you this is a minor problem. Not in my experience it isn't, as I've posted about before. Care to send me one of these reports?
 
jannievanzyl said:
I see a few, more sensible, people above picked up this is not about lowering MTRs. As posted, Vodacom even suggested to drop MTRs immediately.

Rather, it's about the asymmetry which is nothing but a tax from MTN/VC to Cell C.

Make no mistake, this is not about the consumer getting better pricing, it's about the very survival of Cell C. I implore you to listen and read the Cell C ads on this issue. And re-read their press statements. Even though the message implies reduced rates, the actual wording clearly states that reduced MTR will not necessarily result in lower rates. Cell C needs this money just to stay afloat. And they're not getting it from their shareholders. Ever wondered why?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure this will force better pricing from MTN/VC? Consumers are picking up that these two networks are raping them. The day that they are forced (screaming and pleading) to compete on price is near. Sorry people can see through your spin. From iBurst to VC your spin don't change.
 
Paul Hjul said:
As for a solution within the existing system: one has been put forward on this forum that works using the reforms on the billing system. If your engineers can't build on what has already been set out, make an offer. The OOBShark can be sorted out once and for all it is simply a refusal to recognize the actual problem and provide a solution.
Click to expand...
The underlying problem is probably one of incentive i.e. why fix something if they don't have to.
Jannie will probably again accuse me of generating more conspiracy theories, but the facts are well know; today VC do not provide their customers with any appropriate and/or complete (voice & data) solutions to effectively circumvent OOBShark.

Couple this with the fact that they choose to keep OOB rates so high (even amongst the ongoing condemnation) leads my "conspiracy mind" to think it's probably because of financial reasons rather then technical ones.
 
Why should contract users get special deals? They are a burden, needing their cellphones subsidized and not wanting to spend more than they should.

Prepaid deserve the discounts, they were able to afford the cost of the phone up front.
 
whatwhat said:
Why should contract users get special deals? They are a burden, needing their cellphones subsidized and not wanting to spend more than they should.

Prepaid deserve the discounts, they were able to afford the cost of the phone up front.
Click to expand...
I agree... prepaid customers should certainly not be penalised, but I doubt VC views its contract customers as a burden; in reality far more of a profit centre.

This issue however came up because @jannievanzyl was recommending that we migrate to a Top Up contract as a solution to the OOBShark issue. Clearly I have no inclination to be pushed into a contract to avoid OOBShark; and for all that folly he still hasn't provided a solution for the prepaid smartphone customers. i.e. simultaneous use of prepaid voice & data whilst maintaining strict avoidance of the OOBShark.
 
Last edited:
whatwhat said:
Why should contract users get special deals? They are a burden, needing their cellphones subsidized and not wanting to spend more than they should.

Prepaid deserve the discounts, they were able to afford the cost of the phone up front.
Click to expand...

Now that is some fantastic reasoning. Why don't you explain this until you understand it...
 
Agreed but the lack of incentive is based on a lack of thinking about long term profits and failing to recognize the millions they loose because customers are adverse to using their smartphones to watch video etc ...
[)roi(];12377068 said:
The underlying problem is probably one of incentive i.e. why fix something if they don't have to.
Jannie will probably again accuse me of generating more conspiracy theories, but the facts are well know; today VC do not provide their customers with any appropriate and/or complete (voice & data) solutions to effectively circumvent OOBShark.

Couple this with the fact that they choose to keep OOB rates so high (even amongst the ongoing condemnation) leads my "conspiracy mind" to think it's probably because of financial reasons rather then technical ones.
Click to expand...
 
Paul Hjul said:
Agreed but the lack of incentive is based on a lack of thinking about long term profits and failing to recognize the millions they loose because customers are adverse to using their smartphones to watch video etc ...
Click to expand...

Say what? With the amount of OOB sharks bites there is no reason to cap it. It would be financial suicide.
 
DJ... said:
Yes, I know the limitations, but for a company that likes to blow smoke up its own arse when an article mentions their innovations in the market, it sure is taking a horrendously long time to develop an off switch for OOB on contract. Did all of those original innovators leave Vodacom or does it honestly take years for your "innovators" to develop this? I don't for a second believe that this is given any priority by Vodacom.

It's all good and well to tell us that you have a report that shows you this is a minor problem. Not in my experience it isn't, as I've posted about before. Care to send me one of these reports?
Click to expand...

I would love to see an independent audit of how many people are getting raped by OOB
 
marine1 said:
I would love to see an independent audit of how many people are getting raped by OOB
Click to expand...
Never going to happen; yet VCs choice to keep OOB rates excessively high speaks volumes.
 
It costs the same amount to deliver one Meg in bundle as it does out. Why the discrepancy in cost to the end user? One could argue incentive for bundles if the cost discrepancies were minimal but OOB rates in SA are effectively punitive. It's a profit motive imo. It doesn't take years to develop a single billing "fix" which this is being sugar coated as. You'd have to be a company lacking in some serious talent for that to be the case. Even then, outsourcing the skills would be simple. So it's either conscious and belligerent inaction by management or a problem so fundamentally difficult as to render it nigh on impossible. I find the latter to be highly implausible.

Trying to conflate profit motive as conspiracy places the situation into a false dichotomy. It's obvious why the networks couldn't come out and say that they're incentived to keep the rates so high. That would be a PR nightmare. Hence the nonsense thrown around about system limitations and accusations of conspiracy on the parts of those who see through the nonsense.

Happy to be proven wrong here, Jannie...
 
DJ, you ask a fair question. And I am not into defending gouging, as you know. I have no stake other than as regular user in any MNO.

Are you aware that many/most pipe owners and operators have volume-tiered pricing?

The MNOs only own a small part of the network, so when you click a link, in 99.9999999% of cases it involves hauling traffic over someone else's network as well. And that has to be measured, reported, invoiced, paid and recon'd. Which all costs money.

Contract commitments from your own subscriber base allow you to make matching commitments in you own volume-tiered purchases from the other pipe owners in the chain. And OOB usages by your own users can easily take you into OOC (out of commitment/contract) territory with your own back-haul suppliers.

Also, it is not immoral or unethical to reward commitment or loyalty with better pricing or discounts, because this smoothes curves and steadies revenue streams. And it makes sense to calibrate that reward to time - longer commitments generally get better prices.

Now, that reward can be expressed in two ways, either as a discount off "normal" (uncommitted) rate, or as a higher rate for uncommitted (aka "out of bundle") usage. The former us untenable because competitors will always prove their normal (ie contract) rate is cheaper than your normal (ie non-contract) rate. So the only feasible option left is to charge more for OOB ie uncommitted non-contracted ad hoc usage. But the effect is the same, and springs from the same motive: to appropriately reward those who contractually commit money over time.

I have never had an in principle objection to paying more for casual discretionary uncommitted pipe. The banks do the same thing, by the way, when it comes to credit/loans/overdraft. Rates rise with risk, and unsecured ("out of contract") money is the most expensive. The principle is legitimate, ethical, and moral.

Apols if this is badly put - am in bed typing on a cellphone (2connnneccted via WiFi).
 
Last edited:
Prepaid data and bolt on data are ad hoc purchases. One could argue then that these purchases are subject to the same operational and financial inefficiencies you point out. And while I agree that there is no issue in principle with reward programs, OOB in itself is the opposite. It's a punitive measure, aimed at generating revenue off the back of ignorance of your own customers. While the OOB shock bills are terrible, it's the thousands of average Joes out there unknowingly paying under R100 or so extra each month without knowing it that highlights the real issues. Perhaps Jannie can share some of these reports with us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X