SA Cellular ripoffs (rant)

A

arf9999

MyBroadband Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
6,791
Reaction score
14
Location
South Africa.
I'm getting really p'ed off with Vodacom and MTN. I'm sick of being "nickel and dimed" every month when I get my statement.

Every month I get charged R22 for itemised billing. WTF? And my service provider says that it's mandatory! How can they charge for a basic service like this? If I charged my customers extra for an invoice with details, I can guess what they'd say - and it wouldn't be pretty.

So last month I had enough and phoned Nashua Mobile and complained. They explained that it is a "value added" service. I didn't agree and asked them to open a ticket and escalate it. I got a reference number but got no call back, and no response. So I sent an email to ICASA (copying Nashua Mobile, Vodacom, various newspapers etc.):

Dear Sir,

Could you please advise whether it is legal for the service providers to
charge consumers for something that they are legally obliged to do (i.e.
provide itemised billing). It seems strange to me that a normal
business expense, and one which is required for the business to operate,
is passed on to the consumer as an added "manadatory" expense. I don't
recall ever having to pay extra at a store to get an itemised list of my
purchases.

Please advise the relevant regulations that make this type of gouging legal.

For your reference I have lodged a complaint with Nashua Mobile with the
following reference number: Nashua Mobile Reference R********.

I await your response.

Best regards,
arf
Click to expand...

I obviously have heard nothing from ICASA, but I did get a call from Vodacom (on the 20th January - almost a month after I sent the first mail) who told me that:
1. Itemised Billing is a value added service
2. Vodacom does not make it mandatory (the service providers do that).

I refused to accept that and asked them to escalate the query to someone that could justify their policy and to respond to me in writing.

This is what I received:
Good Day Mr *arf***



Thank you for your concern raised with Vodacom SA

As per our telephonic conversation please not that Itemised billing is a charged Value Added Service offered by Vodacom which you have the option to either add it on your account or not. With this service you as a valued Vodacom client have the ability to get information on all their transactions over the billing period. This service is only mandatory on discounted deals.

Please note that you are a client of Nashua mobile hence your concern would need to be dealt with and resolved via Nashua mobile. Vodacom SP cannot make decisions on behalf of Nashua mobile as they are a stand alone entity having their own policy and procedures.



Regards

R**** S******

Executive Client Liaison Officer

CEO/MD Office
Click to expand...

Which is the same crap that I got on the phone... so I responded:

Dear R*****,

Thank you for your mail. However your mail merely reiterates the same broken argument that you presented during our telephone conversation.

As I requested during our conversation, would you please escalate this query to someone that can comment on your policy. I'm going to highlight the two issues that we discussed below:

1. Itemised billing is a "Value-added Service" according to Vodacom.

This is a complete sham. Itemised billing is not a value-add, it a basic financial service that has to be made available to customers in order that billing is transparent. Charging for this service is at best unethical, and it reeks of outright price gouging and profiteering. The last time I checked, I wasn't charged extra for an itemised till slip when I bought groceries. The basic concept is identical for the services that Vodacom sells.. The only "added value" is to Vodacom's shareholders. If I estimate that Vodacom has as few as five million contract subscribers, and assuming that Vodacom shares the revenue equally with its Service Providers, this little goldmine delivers 50 Million Rands pure profit every month.

2. Vodacom Service Providers offer packages where Itemised Billing is mandatory.

In my first point I made it clear that charging for itemisation on an invoice is wrong, whether it is a mandatory charge or not. The practice of making this "service" a mandatory charge is pure misdirection by the service providers. By shifting their margin from the service charge and airtime mark up to these free services, they can assure themselves of additional profit. On my Nashua Mobile account, I have R34.70 worth of "compulsory" extras. It is unethical, misleading and poor business practice.

I understand that Vodacom is directly responsible for only one of these issues, but since they have power over their service providers, it should be possible for them to force a code of conduct on them to get them to act ethically. However, that would mean that Vodacom has to stop acting unethically themselves.

I await a response from someone that has control over Vodacom policy.

Regards,


arf
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to enjoy myself.
 
Last edited:
Itemised billing may no longer be added as mandatory to a cellular offering, even if it is a reduced subscription deal, that is as of about a year ago. So have a go at them and get a credit for the last year at least.

If you don't come right, the legal fees are not worth the fight. Rather port over to Vodacom Service Provider directly (when your contract is up) where they won't charge you and show Nashua the toffee for ripping you off.
 
Last edited:
Itemised Billing charges make my blood boil - it is a total ripoff charge.

Itemised Billing should be provided free of charge - especially if no paper is involved and invoices are emailed with Itemised Billing.

Itemised Billing is the service providers' only proof that it is not just making up bogus charges and fraudulently demanding that the customer pays regardless, such proof should be provided free of charge to show that the service providers' billing systems are billing correctly - the onus should be on the service provider to prove this and not on the customer to pay the service provider to make sure that the service providers' systems actually work as they should.
 
3G4me said:
Itemised billing may no longer be added as mandatory to a cellular offering, even if it is a reduced subscription deal, that is as of about a year ago. So have a go at them and get a credit for the last year at least.

If you don't come right, the legal fees are not worth the fight. Rather port over to Vodacom Service Provider directly (when your contract is up) where they won't charge you and show Nashua the toffee for ripping you off.
Click to expand...

You're missing the main point. Charging for it at all is wrong. How can it be justified?
 
ic said:
Itemised Billing charges make my blood boil - it is a total ripoff charge.

Itemised Billing should be provided free of charge - especially if no paper is involved and invoices are emailed with Itemised Billing.

Itemised Billing is the service providers' only proof that it is not just making up bogus charges and fraudulently demanding that the customer pays regardless, such proof should be provided free of charge to show that the service providers' billing systems are billing correctly - the onus should be on the service provider to prove this and not on the customer to pay the service provider to make sure that the service providers' systems actually work as they should.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Hence my comparison with a supermarket till slip. I'd like to see Pick 'n Pay try to add an additional charge if you want your tillslip "itemised".;)

Edit: And it doesn't matter if it's electronic or paper!! IT'S THEIR INVOICE TO ME FFS! Why should I pay extra to get it?
 
arf9999 said:
You're missing the main point. Charging for it at all is wrong. How can it be justified?
Click to expand...

It can't. I agree. However, if you choose to have it posted to you on paper there is a cost involved. Printing, paper, postage, etc. Even my bank informed me as of Jan2010 that if I choose not to have my statement emailed I will be billed a monthly fee for it.

As I said, only ripoff artist SP's will make itemised billing mandatory. The one's who charge for it via email or online lookup are just as bad. It costs them nothing.
 
3G4me said:
It can't. I agree. However, if you choose to have it posted to you on paper there is a cost involved. Printing, paper, postage, etc. Even my bank informed me as of Jan2010 that if I choose not to have my statement emailed I will be billed a monthly fee for it.

As I said, only ripoff artist SP's will make itemised billing mandatory. The one's who charge for it via email or online lookup are just as bad. It costs them nothing.
Click to expand...
But they're only charging if it is "itemised" - the difference in cost is negligible. Also, it is a basic business expense, it's not an additional service, cover it in your operating costs.

PS: Don't get me started on the banks.
edit: please refer me to a source that shows that it is no longer allowed.
 
guys go watch this!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGC1mCS4OVo&feature=related[/ame]

this womens got BALLS man!!

this is what we must start doing to our "service providers"

name & shame them on the internet!!

spiff
 
arf9999 said:
EXACTLY! Hence my comparison with a supermarket till slip. I'd like to see Pick 'n Pay try to add an additional charge if you want your tillslip "itemised".;)

Edit: And it doesn't matter if it's electronic or paper!! IT'S THEIR INVOICE TO ME FFS! Why should I pay extra to get it?
Click to expand...
I agree 100%, but I also think that it is more important for a cellular service provider to provide the proverbial 'itemised till slip' - the items being charged for are not tangible and cannot be seen inside of a plastic bag, therefore all the more important for a cellular service provider to provide proof free of charge that it is not inventing bogus charges.
 
In Vodacom's own words, the prohibition of charging for itemised billing will have a substantial impact on their revenues.

Vodacom Annual Report 2009 said:
10.2
Electronic Communications Act No. 36 of 2006 ("ECA")

The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa ("ICASA") finalised the licence conversion process and issued converted licences for Individual Electronic Communications Services ("I-ECS") and Independent Electronic Communications Network Services ("I-ECNS") to all qualifying licensees under the ECA. The Group has been issued with two sets of I-ECS and I-ECNS licences, one set converted from the Value Added Network Services ("VANS") licences and the other from the Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Services ("MCTS") licence. The licences confer the same rights for the category of licences as provided for under the ECA. The MCTS converted licences do, to a considerable extent, grandfather most provisions from the MCTS licence with the following key issues outstanding:

Finalisation of the licence fee regulations as required under the EAC.
No additional Universal Service Obligations ("USOs") have been imposed on the Group as part of the conversion process, however the Group is required to continue to maintain the previously implemented USOs under the converted licence pending the review of all USOs by ICASA and the Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa ("USAASA"). The old disparities remain as new I-ECNS, converting from VANS have no USOs imposed on them. It is anticipated that the outcome of the review will result in parity between all similarly licenced entities.
Provisions that might have a negative financial impact on the Group are the provision prohibiting charging for itemised billing, which will have a substantial impact on the Group’s revenue, and the penalties and fines subscribed are substantial.
The above requirements are set out in terms of the Regulations on Standard Terms and Conditions for Licensees which came into effect on 19 January 2009. ICASA has indicated that the contentious provisions under the regulations, as mentioned above, will be reviewed. The Group is in consultation with Senior Counsel to ensure the Group’s rights in this regard are protected
Click to expand...
http://www.vodacom.com/reports/ar_2009/fin_gr_dir_report.php
 
Ok, how about this:

General notice 751, Government Gazette No. 31156
Electronic Communications Act (36/2005): Regulations: Handset subsidy.
Consumer issues
3.(1)....
.
.
3. (6) A licensee, its agent or reseller must ensure that billing in respect of free and non-free minutes is transparent and easily understandable by subscribers.
.
.
Click to expand...
 
not going to upgrade with mtn again...going to get those 'bring your own phone' topup contracts and be done with it..kid is not happy but i can live with that..
 
nice, fight them, the unethical bastards deserve some grief
 
arf9999 said:
I should have expected that :mad:


That's pro'lly why ICASA haven't come back to me.
Click to expand...
Sadly I doubt that's the reason - far more likely that !CASA is still bloody useless :mad:.

Nice one with that handset subs reg., perhaps someone at !CASA doesn't know they repealed it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X