NEOTEL Capacity - technically speaking

[irneb]

Exactly! Which comes back to what I said: it's all about their profitability.

If they've overloaded their tower, it's good for them. Their customers have bad service, but until this starts reflecting in their "bottom-line" it's not an issue they're concerned with. And "us" South Africans being so "timid" when it comes to complaining about bad service (I don't mean ranting about it, but pulling the plug on the contract) they generally have a long time (even years) of this high-profit-low-maintenance service agreement.

Until the "general" South African starts changing their habits to become someone who "WILL NOT TAKE this S#T! EVEN FOR A SECOND!!!!" We'll see this type of service inefficiency prevailing ad-infinitum. I take my hat off to you sterne! You're one of the few who "complain" to the "correct" parties ... instead of just "at parties" . Hope this becomes a trend!

[AmithS]

100% correct irneb, thats the feeling I got from my security co.

After months of complaing and senior management refusing to speak to me or call me back (I am sure because they know the real problem) they evently installed the equipment for free but still made sure they told me that "all our other customers are paying for the equipment without complaining"

[twinscythe12332]

irneb, I don't think it's a case of South africans being "timid" as you suggest. I'd say it's more along the lines of "what's the use?"
with contract clauses that require you to pay the amount due for the duration of said contract... what does cancelling a contract actually help? I'd love to know a way in which to cancel a contract for poor service delivery. I think half of SA would too.
Any ideas?

[irneb]

Yep. There are "reasons" behind the "timidity". It's a huge schlep to go to court because of such non-delivery (not to mention the expense). But unless more do this "hard" thing, we'll never get this "normal course of business" extinct. The problem is actually that it's in nearly (if not all) sectors of the economy, just start thinking about building contractors & mechanics - and those don't necessarily have the muscle like one of these telecoms companies have, yet still you find complaints galore yet very few court cases making those fly-by-night guys make good on their side of the contracts.

My personal "answer to the problem" is to use prevention instead of a cure. I steer clear of contracts as much as possible, even if I have to pay more for something like a pre-paid thing: I know I can stop it by simply not paying anymore, for whatever reason I have. The only contracts I'd even consider would be a monthly thing, and then you still need to check those infamous "T's & C's". IMO, if they can't blazon their terms and conditions in larger letters than the rest of the advert, there's something about it which is not "kosher"! Basically a clause of "Terms and conditions apply" anywhere in any statement from any company means: "All that's said in this entire thing is a bunch of BS. It's only meant to trick you into signing your life away for no benefit whatsoever!"

I know it's not possible to go this route in all instances, but that's the base problem isn't it? If one person complains and even starts a court case, they might tie it up for years to make him/her become despondent and drop it. Or even if such doesn't happen, one pay-back / cancellation isn't a big worry to them. But if they find absolutely everyone doing the same whenever their service even starts dropping below the "perfection" they "promise" in their ads, they'll very quickly HAVE TO fix it or start taking losses which will blunder them into insolvency quicker than you can say ... uhm ... "T's & C's apply!"

Alternative to this, the media should bring such things into the general public's view - in preference to stuff like Mad-Emma's backhanders (which is already such a dead horse it's starting to smell!) At least that would be negative advertising - causing their new traps (read ads) to fail, which would at least make their profit start to decline. I'd imagine something alike a "Worst-of-the-worst-list" and each time a company gets a complaint against them they move up one spot on this. But such would probably never happen as most media is governed by their customers: these exact same companies paying for the ads (if not even worse). I can't really see Special Assignment doing a piece on NeoTel's non-existent service with a NeoTel add in the middle, can you?

[twinscythe12332]

All in all, it's hard to get a ball rolling when the weight of millions who do nothing about it are the first hurdle. In the end we can blame no one but ourselves.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

The last few posts are probably on the money -
Even when the company fails to perform the cost to litigate is not in proportion to the problem, particularly as it would be High Court matter.
And again T&C apply - once signed for you were bound.
Our new CPA (which i am about to find out if it has any B...ls) is aimed to prevent this.
First it provides an economical forum to have a dispute - although to be fair, a large number of matters will require some legal assistance, but by almost working off a remise that the company is guilty, the customer has a reduced burden.
Second - T&C can be challenged on an overall perspective. The ruling against the cell phone company's dealt with a few of the STANDARD terms.
Bearing the above in mind, I am now very clear, that in addition to my personal claim, I want to see the following actioned -
That they no longer be allowed to sell a product that cant be delivered(that is no signal no phone)
that they remedy all users who have no signal
That they refund all users that bought antenna
That they must inform the public clearly in all advertisng that there may be no signal and therefore the consumer may need to expend R2000 per site

In terms of alarm companys - I have had my eye on them for a while!!!!