Monopoly must be challenged
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.