Important information about cell phone contracts

S

SilverNodashi

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Until now consumers have had few options in paying their cellphone contract network service providers.

But now that, and much else, is about to change for the better because the new regulations adopted by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) make provision for consumers to sign up for shorter cellphone contracts.

From August 17 mobile operators must provide consumers with the choice of a six-, 12-, 18- or 24-month contract and clearly show the amount by which the handset is subsidised.

Other provisions of the regulations specify that:

* Service providers may no longer charge for the renewal or upgrading of a contract and re-sellers may not charge a connection fee.
* Service providers may offer discounts on tariffs lodged with the authority. Cell C will not be affected though as it already offers contracts for as short a period as one month.
* Service providers will be expected to implement the regulations when they come into effect.
* Vodacom, MTN and their re-sellers must now indicate the subsidiary and monetary value of their services, including the price of the handsets.
* Contracts must be transparent and easy to understand, including the billing for free and charged airtime.
* Consumers must be informed every month of their remaining instalments and what amount of the subsidy is still outstanding as well as what they would be liable to pay should they choose to cancel their contract.
* Such subscribers may not be charged exorbitant "cancellation" fees and must be informed of free airtime still available to them.
 
Turiko said:
Sounds promising, but that is all it is.... nothing more than hot air.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Let's wait to see whether the cell providers comply before casting judgement. If they don't.... well won't that just be a nice little reinforcement of iCASA's illegitimacy.

I was reading through the regulations last night and had to wonder, does iCASA make use of real lawyers to write their regulations?

The regulations define a handset as:

1.
"Handset"

Any terminal, including a community service telephone connected via a radio link which may be used by an end user to access electronic communication services".
Click to expand...

A notebook or desktop computer falls comfortably within this definition, as does a neotel handset or an iburst utd = Problems!!! Relate the above to -

"4. A post-paid contract may be for periods ranging from 6 (six) 12 (twelve) or 18 (eighteen) months, but not longer than 24 (twenty-four) months.

8. There may be no charges payable for a renewal or upgrade of a contract by a post-paid subscriber, when the subscriber is entitled to make the renewal or upgrade."
Click to expand...

My gosh these regulations are impossible with that handset definition! Or am I the only person who sees this?
 
Last edited:
well won't that just be a nice little reinforcement of iCASA's illegitimacy
Click to expand...

The problem is that everyone knows ICASA is illegitimate, it's been proven before on numerous occasions. How is this time any different?
 
remybfg10k said:
Uhm, why would it be impossible Debbie, or am i just reading with too much glee?
Click to expand...

Because it looks like they have idiotically ill-defined "handset". The definition they use extends beyond cellular phones to a bunch of other things, such as laptop deals with hsdpa and even iburst. The effect is that these regulations apply to a lot more than just cellular phones and cellular contracts.

dominic??
 
Turiko said:
The problem is that everyone knows ICASA is illegitimate, it's been proven before on numerous occasions. How is this time any different?
Click to expand...

It's one thing for consumers to call icasa illegitimate, it's another for industry to respond to icasa as if they were illegitimate (telkom excluded, since, well, they're telkom...).
 
Debbie2 said:
Because it looks like they have idiotically ill-defined "handset". The definition they use extends beyond cellular phones to a bunch of other things, such as laptop deals with hsdpa and even iburst. The effect is that these regulations apply to a lot more than just cellular phones and cellular contracts.

dominic??
Click to expand...

Well, surely that would be a good thing.

I'm not a customer but it sounds like iBurst needs a bit of regulation to pull them into line.

I'd have no problem if all telecoms providers had to abide by the same rules as this.
 
Now when it comes to iBurst then you guys are speaking my language. I think personally that iBurps needs a jolly good hiding at the way they've treated me and others on this forum!!!!
 
debbie the second is spot on re the definition of terminal - it is way too broad...it is interesting to play around with punctuation to try and get it right but i prefer a pragmatic approach which looks at what the regs are trying to achieve and then gives content to who and what is affected by them, i.e. they are "handset" regs which appear to be targeted at the practice of bundling phones with airtime without properly defining the costs involved with each or the extent to which call charges are subsidising the handset

looked at this way it could also include laptops and the like where theses are bundled with a contract

i quite like these regs - if only because they do away with the complete bull**** of advertising "free" upgrades and "free" handsets - this is highly misleading (and i have a view that it is contrary to the provisions of the National Credit Act) in any event

so all that is being done is forcing a little transparency on them and there has been a noticeable lack of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the mobiles to date

the issue with definitions in IVT legislation is now a new one - the same thing has occured with the definition of crytography provider and internet provider, which, when read literally, include everyone + dog. these wide and ambiguous definitions generally get fussed over for a while and then we all settle down to deal with the practical meaning...

having said that the terminal definition is being taken up with ICASA

d.d.d.dominic
 
dominic said:
so all that is being done is forcing a little transparency on them and there has been a noticeable lack of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the mobiles to date
Click to expand...

ah///fail - was not aware that there was indeed whinging
this is now the second set of regulations that the folk over at the big V (kindof appropriate...) have deepsixed. first was the subscriber service charter regs (consumer-based) and now this one (also consumer-based)

what was that about the love?
 
dominic said:
ah///fail - was not aware that there was indeed whinging
this is now the second set of regulations that the folk over at the big V (kindof appropriate...) have deepsixed. first was the subscriber service charter regs (consumer-based) and now this one (also consumer-based)

what was that about the love?
Click to expand...

dominic do you care to translate? We don't speak this language :eek:
 
apologies - blame OR Tambo for my mental dyslexia

with reference to http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2008/0808141040.asp?O=FPTOP&S=Cellular&A=CEL
&
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/4820.html

On Feb 28th ICASA published final Subscriber and Service Charter Regulations. These are essentially intended as consumer protection regulations committing service providers to levels of service, complaints resolution mechanisms and the like. Vodacom and some others didn't like them so wrote to ICASA (as "the concerned telcos group" (sic)) and persuaded ICASA to withdraw them. They have now disappeared....six months later they are apparently still being reviewed.

Seems like this is happening again with the handset regulations. Bit of pressure because "we were not consulted" and the SA consumer gets set back six more months.

Yuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X