Telkom backs down on ADSL user policy

[Alchemist]

Does ICASA fall under the public protector's jurisdiction? If so, could it not be worth lodging a complaint against ICASA?

 

[Tns]

Seventeen complaints were lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) stating that Telkom’s advertising campaigns were misleading.

woohoo! i was one of those 17!


ps. saw lots of neotelkom people digging up the pavement in jhb cbd

 

[MFour]

Hmm so can we now have the ICASA ADSL hearings all over again please. If I remember correctly Telkom's justification for the rediculous low cap was the rubish they spewed in their AUP, about adsl being for e-mail and surfing. Also the reason for shaping traffic, I think. If I am correct in saying that (and please feel free to show me the error of my way of thinking), could it then not also be argued that Telkom blatantly mislead ICASA?

Bha besides that, give us larger caps, for at reduced prices then! Seeing that that Telkom has finally found out what the ADSL and the internet is / could be used for, I suppose that is a good thing.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Here's an idea - can't we lay a complaint with the ASA against ICASA for failing to live up to their mandate as advertised?

ICASA’s jurisdiction covers all nine provinces of South Africa. It is charged with licensing telecommunications, postal and broadcasting service providers, monitoring compliance of licensees against their license conditions, developing policy, managing the frequency spectrum and protecting consumers within the communications environment.

 

[-toady-]

Hey, just a heads up while everybody is blowing the ASA's trumpet....

We sent in these complaints (yes I was one of the 17) in November last year, and I only received a reply with the ruling last week. On the first working day of January I phoned them and asked them why I had still not received a reply and after being transferred from one person to the next, eventually it turned out that the person that was suppose to reply to us was no longer there. So I got the details of the new person and spoke to her, and she said that everything had already been done, and that they were now in the process of writing a ruling... then came the end of january.... then came the middle of february.... and then this ruling comes out which could not have taken longer than a day to write.

Amazing, when I complained about Nu metro's add to the ASA, I got a reply and a ruling within a week.... yet when it's Telkom it takes 3 months and a "oops we'll remove that old document" ruling...

It would appear to me that the ASA are either hopelessly incompetent when it comes to writing documents... however that contradicts with the Nu-Metro complaint which was completed in a week. So the only other reason I can think of is that they are sh*t scared of Telkom.

Well done too, to the complainants for their persistence.... interesting post above thanks....

 

[superfly]

It didn't really do much...

To be honest, despite the complaint, it didn't really do anything... Telkom just said, "oops" and took the easy route... they took the AUP down.

I would have way preferred if the ASA had ruled that they need to remove those idiotic, misleading, false adverts!