Know your consumer rights!

Captain-Justice said:
You're misreading my statement. I'm not saying the ISP is forcing the client, I'm saying the ISP should be forced by the Law (NCC) to comply with CPA. Laws are there to be followed and if you don't want to do it voluntarily, you should be forced, penalised or incarcerated. That's how a law abiding society functions.
Click to expand...
And that's where we differ.

I would hate to have the State impose contractual terms on you and force you into commercial bargains that you would not otherwise freely enter into.

The same goes for every single other person on the planet, natural or juridical.

As to me misunderstanding your use of 'force', or 'fraud', or 'crime', or 'illegal' ... I understand and use those terms in the way they are used in our legal system because that is the context in which you use them in this thread. It is you who cite chapter and verse from statute. If you mean something else, then say something else. English has the appropriate words. If you don't, you will be misunderstood at best.

You demand precision in interpretation and application from the MNOs. Mutatis mutandis.
 
Last edited:
No offence taken.

I am in fact an avid defender of rights. I have a prison record in that regard.

However, I also strongly oppose legislative measures that create new "rights" out of thin air. Especially when they are partisan.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
And that's where we differ.

I would hate to have the State impose contractual terms on you and force you into commercial bargains that you would not otherwise freely enter into.

The same goes for every single other person on the planet, natural or juridical.

As to me misunderstanding your use of 'force', or 'fraud', or 'crime', or 'illegal' ... I understand and use those terms in the way they are used in our legal system because that is the context in which you use them in this thread. It is you who cite chapter and verse from statute. If you mean something else, then say something else. English has the appropriate words. If you don't, you will be misunderstood at best.

You demand precision in interpretation and application from the MNOs. Mutatis mutandis.
Click to expand...

What don't you understand in the following plain english?
There is a consumer law (CPA) that governs consumers rights for all suppliers, not only MNO's. S48 is very clear and applies to ALL suppliers of goods and services:
48. (1) A supplier must not—
(a) offer to supply, supply, or enter into an agreement to supply, any goods or services—
(i) at a price that is unfair, unreasonable or unjust; or
(ii) on terms that are unfair, unreasonable or unjust

I'm stating in clear english that the practice of data bundle expiry for which the consumer has paid in full, is unfair, unreasonable and unjust and in violation S48(1)(a)(ii) of the CPA. I also state MNO's who don't want to comply voluntarily, should be forced to comply and/or fined in accordance with S112:
112. (1) The Tribunal may impose an administrative fine in respect of prohibited or required conduct.
(2) An administrative fine imposed in terms of this Act may not exceed the greater of—
(a) 10 per cent of the respondent’s annual turnover during the preceding financial year; or
(b) R1 000 000.
 
Captain-Justice said:
What don't you understand in the following plain english?
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand very well indeed. I can assure you.

What is moot is the interpretation of unjust, unreasonable or unfair, and how those are to be applied in the present case.

Your sentiment that expiring 30-day data bundles can be so understood is merely an untested opinion. It is not a fact.

Sorry to be so direct, but you make the same mistake about this Act that biblical fundamentalists make when they cite chapter and verse. It's called eisegesis - reading in meanings and interpretations that are not warranted within the larger context.

You make yourself judge and jury, and have already convicted them. That is called prejudice.

We have courts for that.

And no court has found anything remotely resembling your interpretation.

Of course I know there are many who make the same mistake and who will give eager ear to your allegations.

For me that just proves the very point you yourself made: most people are woefully ignorant of their rights. And in this case, the activism smacks of populist demagoguery. Which is why you'll get a very much larger sympathetic audience than I ever will. ;)
 
Last edited:
Captain-Justice said:
Ok, thanks. Wasn't aware of that, but if they don't identify themselves, no one will be the wiser.
Click to expand...
We need a 'Fair Disclosure' thread so that people contributing to discussions can declare their allegiances.

Some guys were very rude and anti when I posted some things about Zille. Turned out they were political party workers.
 
Arthur said:
Oh, I understand very well indeed. I can assure you.

What is moot is the interpretation of unjust, unreasonable or unfair, and how those are to be applied in the present case.

Your sentiment that expiring 30-day data bundles can be so understood is merely an untested opinion. It is not a fact.

Sorry to be so direct, but you make the same mistake about this Act that biblical fundamentalists make when they cite chapter and verse. It's called eisegesis - reading in meanings and interpretations that are not warranted within the larger context.

You make yourself judge and jury, and have already convicted them. That is called prejudice.

We have courts for that.

And no court has found anything remotely resembling your interpretation.

Of course I know there are many who make the same mistake and who will give eager ear to your allegations.

For me that just proves the very point you yourself made: most people are woefully ignorant of their rights. And in this case, the activism smacks of populist demagoguery. Which is why you'll get a very much larger sympathetic audience than I ever will. ;)
Click to expand...

Why do you find it so difficult to interpret what is unjust that you need a court's interpretation? I already provided you with the definition of rob and you agreed to theft and misappropriation.

Lets forget about data bundles and go to everyday items. And don't tell me about spectrum and all that jazz, the CPA was legislated for ALL suppliers of goods and services, irrespective of their business model. The dictionary defines unjust as
1. characterized by inequality or injustice
2. dishonest or unethical

Let's put the following examples to the above definition's test:
1. P&P advertises a jumbo pack washing powder at a reduced unit price opposed to the standard packet. Is it fair to add a T&C stating any unused washing powder should be returned to the shop after 30 days and the consumer then has to buy a new packet?
2. You fill up your tank once a month. Is it fair of the service station to ask you to empty your tank before you can fill up again?

If anything like the above should happen today, a local Magistrate will rule it as unfair as the practice is marked by injustice, partiality and not equitable in business dealings. Simple.
 
Over-simple. And wrong.

Your analogies and examples don't work.

Limited time usage of an item is not part of the contract when you buy washing powder or petrol. It is when you buy a limited-time data bundle.

If you don't like it, negotiate with the other party. Or lump it.

But please don't get Caesar to force your requirements on my cellular providers. It'll reduce their flexibility to create specials and bundles and packages, thereby driving up costs, reducing choice, and ultimately harming the consumer.

Your sentiments are doubtless pure and well-intentioned. Regrettably, they will result in a worse deal for the consumer. Sure, you might get your 90 day roll-over. But that kind of State and bureaucratic intervention ultimately cramps the freedom of creative people to offer creative bundles and specials, reduces choice, and drives up costs.

It is shortsighted. And always bad for the ordinary man in the street.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Over-simple. And wrong.

Your analogies and examples don't work.

Limited time usage of an item is not part of the contract when you buy washing powder or petrol. It is when you buy a limited-time data bundle.

If you don't like it, negotiate with the other party. Or lump it.

But please don't get Caesar to force your requirements on my cellular providers. It'll reduce their flexibility to create specials and bundles and packages, thereby driving up costs, reducing choice, and ultimately harming the consumer.

Your sentiments are doubtless pure and well-intentioned. Regrettably, they will result in a worse deal for the consumer. Sure, you might get your 90 day roll-over. But that kind of State and bureaucratic intervention ultimately cramps the freedom of creative people to offer creative bundles and specials, reduces choice, and drives up costs.

It is shortsighted. And always bad for the ordinary man in the street.
Click to expand...

Why can iBurst do it with 10GB all day and 10GB Midnight to morning at R198 pm and 3 year rollover of data?

I say again and again, om fully aware of the limited time of a data bundle when I buy it, but I say it is unfair and unjust.

If P&P adds the term of 30 days expiry to their washing powder, will you also argue that the item was bought under those terms and the consumer should abide by it? The time of abusing consumer rights has passed my friend.
 
Last edited:
Captain-Justice said:
Why can iBurts do it with 10GB all day and 10GB Midnight to morning at R198 pm and 3 year rollover of data?
Click to expand...
Because that's the gap they decided to take, within the possibilities of their business model and cost structure. It's their business, and they may offer their services as they wish. The consumer decides which they prefer.

My local Steers offers a delivery service. But the one in the next town does not. Should the one that doesn't be forced to provide one, or mine be forced to stop so that we can all get an equal value?

My local chemist has a monopoly in our area. His prices are higher than those in the major cities. Should he be compelled to lower his prices? By whom?

Your world would be very flat.
 
Last edited:
except that even washing power and petrol have an expiring point, washing power cakes and petrol does ugly things in the tank. What CJ is advocating would see him having the right to return to the store after 5 days and say my washing powder caked give me new washing powder without their having been a presentation in the sale of a warranty of the product surviving some period of time or another.
Data is provided as a service on a bandwidth basis and there is an absolute use it or loose it feature to the network, by affording a 30 day window on the service the MNO is actually shouldering in quite a bit of risk.
 
Captain-Justice said:
Why can iBurst do it with 10GB all day and 10GB Midnight to morning at R198 pm and 3 year rollover of data?
Click to expand...
because they aren't paying their licence fees and do not hold funds sufficient to pay out subscribers for data allocations that are unused their entire business model benefits by getting suckers who depend on an unbacked roll over to drive in revenue and cover the previous spread.
moreover because they don't have wide coverage and there is no handover or mobility in the product
 
Arthur said:
Because that's the gap they decided to take, within the possibilities of their business model and cost structure. It's their business, and they may offer their services as they wish. The consumer decides which they prefer.

My local Steers offers a delivery service. But the one in the next town does not. Should the one that doesn't be forced to provide one, or mine be forced to stop so that we can all get an equal value?

My local chemist has a monopoly in our area. His prices are higher than those in the major cities. Should he be compelled to lower his prices? By whom?

Your world would be very flat.
Click to expand...

iBurst changed their data rollover policy shortly after implementation of CPA and to be compliant with the Act. Pre CPA they also had the 30 day limit. Their model is working because the average user don't roll over their bundle for longer than 3 months max. Anyone who has to roll over their data for longer, is obviously on the wrong package and it would be more economical to downgrade to a smaller bundle at a lower cost. As you can see the natural mechanics of supply & demand vs cost will regulate usage automatically. iBurst's business model proves that an extended data rollover period can be successfully implemented. How difficult and detrimental to profits can it be for the other MNO's to follow suit and extend rollover of data to 3 months?

One usually pays extra for delivery. If the Steers in the next town don't provide the service, it's fine, as the consumer didn't pay pay for the service and can't expect a service. It will be a different thing if the delivery fee is included in the cost of the item and Steers don't deliver, then the consumer will have a right on a refund for non performance. The golden rule in consumer rights is, did you receive the goods or services that was advertised and was paid for?

Again you missing the point with the chemist example. Competition is good and I don't have a problem with different pricing. My issue is when I pay for goods and services, whatever the price I was prepared to pay, I expect to have full use of it until it is fully consumed by me and not expire because it don't suit the supplier's business model.
If iBurst had a mobile data bundle, I would have switched to them a long time ago. The 3 MNO's who do have mobile data have a monopoly and all 3 implemented the same unfair practice of data expiry and THAT is my gripe :mad:
 
Last edited:
Paul Hjul said:
except that even washing power and petrol have an expiring point, washing power cakes and petrol does ugly things in the tank. What CJ is advocating would see him having the right to return to the store after 5 days and say my washing powder caked give me new washing powder without their having been a presentation in the sale of a warranty of the product surviving some period of time or another.
Data is provided as a service on a bandwidth basis and there is an absolute use it or loose it feature to the network, by affording a 30 day window on the service the MNO is actually shouldering in quite a bit of risk.
Click to expand...

S56 of CPA affords consumers the right to claim a refund, repair or replacement if the goods become defective within 6 months of purchase.
56. (1) In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to a consumer there is an implied provision that the retailer warrants that the goods comply with the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55.
(2) Within six months after the delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in
section 55, and the supplier must, at the direction of the consumer, either—
(a) repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or
(b) refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods
 
Paul Hjul said:
because they aren't paying their licence fees and do not hold funds sufficient to pay out subscribers for data allocations that are unused their entire business model benefits by getting suckers who depend on an unbacked roll over to drive in revenue and cover the previous spread.
moreover because they don't have wide coverage and there is no handover or mobility in the product
Click to expand...

Even if these allegations are true, I'll stick to this horse as it's to my benefit. Should they fold, I'll accept the loss of unused data balance and just move over to the next best MNO.
 
Anyone who has to roll over their data for longer, is obviously on the wrong package
Click to expand...
You have already answered your own question.

The principle is clear. All you are quibbling about is degree. But that's a prudential matter best left to the market and the contracting parties. Just substitute your three months or three years with thirty days.

I rejoice that SA consumers have the choice.

You want to take it away.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X