Telkom anti-competitive behaviour exposed

whatwhat said:
Telkom Retail offered them the service, doesn't mean they were able to get it.

Many times you get called up for some speed upgrade only to find out your exchange doesn't support it.

In this case sounds like the user saw a shiny new MSAN, thought he could get 10/20/40 and the ISP said no.
2 weeks later after the MSAN has been commissioned, Telkom offers it to the user. Telkom won't offer to you unless you also have a Telkom ISP account most of the time.
User cries, ISP shows why people should let Telkom manage their lines.
Click to expand...
If Telkom does that NAIL THEM
 
whatwhat said:
Why should they, in most cases the user would have his line managed by the ISP. In that case the ISP needs to contact the user when the upgrade is available.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who manages the line the upgrade on the infrastructure is available on a non-discriminatory basis.
If Telkom says "your line is managed by an OLO you will need to ask your ISP to do the upgrade" its a different story. That is exactly the same as an ISP only being able to perform port resets etc if the line is with the ISP.
 
I find it very strange that Telkom Wholesale doesn't know who requested the service in that particular area.

Anyways, I hope this complaint is the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back and opens up cheaper stuff for all :)
 
StevenC said:
I find it very strange that Telkom Wholesale doesn't know who requested the service in that particular area.

Anyways, I hope this complaint is the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back and opens up cheaper stuff for all :)
Click to expand...
IF the complaint has substance it might - if it doesn't it will be yet another Telkom is evil we wantz morez page in the book

If the complainant is one of the companies who have pushed a course of action which is a hold up on LLU then we really should be surprised by anything good for the industry as a whole being achieved or sought ...
 
Having dealt with Wholesale and Retail before, I'd personally take Wholesale's feedback over Retail's any given day. Too many times have Retail promised the world, with me communicating to Clients their commitment, only for them to miss deadline after deadline, leaving me embarrassed. Wholesale gives you the bad news out the blocks and at worst, delivers on or before the date committed.
 
Last edited:
the service provider was told by Telkom Wholesale that Metro Ethernet was not available to a certain business.

However, not long afterwards, Telkom Retail offered the requested Metro Ethernet to the same business.
Click to expand...
This is the critical part.

Was this a "lucky" cold call by TR?
or
Was the lead passed from TW to TR?

And... was TR able to deliver the service as they promised?
 
Metro is in effect fiber , so it was or was not available at the time the inquiry was made .
Very easy to establish if fiber was available at the inquiry time to the subscriber .
Could just be coincidence . ( I am not saying that is the case)
A bit more info would help.
 
Paul Hjul said:
@Rudimental

Anti-competitive behaviour rests in intent not effect, agreed that isn't neccessary for Telkom to have benefited as the end result. However agent intent and corporate intent are separate here and we have to assume that a company's intent is rational - it isn't rational to pass on meaningless information (which would be the case if Telkom Wholesale would not be able to provision) and therefore the intent is rebutted.
Click to expand...

Paul, I apologise if I confused you here, but you've missed the context of my reply. I was just talking about your latter case where we suppose that there was in fact information passed from one company to the other, and not the case in terms of the facts we do have access to. This is just armchair reasoning about what we would need in order to justify a claim of anti-competitive behaviour. I'm just claiming that passing 'meaningless' information could nevertheless indicate anti-competitive intentions, because such information was assumed to be meaningful.

TR clearly assumed that the information that it received was meaningful, that TW could offer the service, otherwise it would not have contacted the client. If such information was passed to it by TW, then this is a case where it seems competence, rather than intent, was lacking. This is supported by your claim of rational intent, TW would not have intentionally sent TR meaningless information, so it must have intended to send meaningful information, but failed at doing so.

I will admit that there is an extremely small chance of a lack of such intent even in this scenario. It is always possible for a situation to come about via mere incompetence. For example, TW may have customers who accidentally contact them instead of TR, and then they send those details on to TR. The client in this case could have accidentally been added to a list of people that TR should contact, but I find this incredibly unlikely, especially since the customer never contacted TW in the story.

As for the case as a whole, yes of course we have to wait until there is an investigation and all the evidence is in.
 
I just confirmed that the Telkom Retail could indeed deliver the service to the client. This means that Telkom Wholesale told the service provider that the service was not available, while Telkom Retail could deliver the service.
 
rpm said:
I just confirmed that the Telkom Retail could indeed deliver the service to the client. This means that Telkom Wholesale told the service provider that the service was not available, while Telkom Retail could deliver the service.
Click to expand...
Did the SP place an order on TW to provide the service and did they receive an order number?

If not then this means nothing.
 
rpm said:
I just confirmed that the Telkom Retail could indeed deliver the service to the client. This means that Telkom Wholesale told the service provider that the service was not available, while Telkom Retail could deliver the service.
Click to expand...

Now that is a smoking gun - and I imagine Telkom's fraud line is going to be working overtime on this
 
I would rather put this down to the usual Telkom staff incompetence than anti-competitive behavior.

Just look at the VDSL section where the staff don't even know what VDSL is.
 
whatwhat said:
I would rather put this down to the usual Telkom staff incompetence than anti-competitive behavior.

Just look at the VDSL section where the staff don't even know what VDSL is.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter if it is incompetence or trying to cheat the conduct violates Telkoms CoC on the subject
 
If this situation turns out to be as it seems at the moment (TW lies to ISP about available products and then passes customer information to TR who tries to steal the customer from the original ISP), what sort of penalties and fines are Telkom looking at? I assume it will be more severe than the previous occasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X