Mo­nop­oly must be chal­lenged

Finweek English Edition - - Letters - BONGANI NZAMA

YOUR RE­PORT on sec­ond na­tional op­er­a­tor Neo­tel should be wel­comed (18 Jan­uary 2007), pro­vided the com­pany doesn’t col­lide with its com­peti­tor – Telkom – when pric­ing its prod­ucts and that Neo­tel’s cus­tomer ser­vice of­fer­ing will be bet­ter. The rea­son for the above is that my cur­rent state of af­fairs so far as my Telkom tele­phone line is con­cerned is bad.

On 19 De­cem­ber 2006 I re­ported that my tele­phone was out of or­der. Telkom gave me the ref­er­ence num­ber 2118 CRZ 191206. On 6 Jan­uary 2007 I re­ceived an SMS mes­sage in­form­ing me that the fault had been re­solved. That was to­tally un­true, as the wires that trans­port con­ver­sa­tions (from pole to pole) were still hang­ing loose and hadn’t been re­paired. Sub­se­quently, Telkom tried to re­pair the wires.

On 13 Jan­uary I re­ported that the calls I was re­ceiv­ing should not have come through my tele­phone be­cause the call­ers wanted to speak to peo­ple that didn’t re­side at my ad­dress. Telkom said there was prob­a­bly a crossed line. The ref­er­ence that was given to me was 537 CRZ 130107.

To date, my tele­phone is still out of or­der. I’ve been billed for the rental pe­riod 21 De­cem­ber 2006 to 20 Jan­uary 2007. How come I get billed for line rental when the line wasn’t func­tion­ing?

In a re­port in Fin­week (18 Jan­uary 2007) Telkom says that it has seen “very lit­tle” of Neo­tel… That should ac­tu­ally be ad­van­ta­geous to the fixed-line op­er­a­tor, be­cause the de­lay should give it am­ple time to im­prove its ser­vice.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.