THE Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is currently addressing a complaint filed by Mr. Leonard Craig, a customer, against mobile service provider U-Mobile (Cellular) Inc., trading as Digicel.

Mr. Craig, who claims to have exhausted all his options for a direct resolution of the matter, has now sought intervention of the PUC. In his complaint, Craig claims: “Whenever I make calls to another Digicel number, if the called party does not answer, is on the phone or for any other reason does not take the call, I am routed to a voice prompt for which I am charged G$1.20 or more on every occasion. This voice prompt is merely a notice that the called party is not available, or that my call is about to be transferred to a Voice Mail (VM) service.”

He described the practice by the cellular service provider as patently unfair and deceptive, and is calculated to bring the service provider profit by cheating customers. He added: “This practice is in breach of the high standards of fair business practices in the industry. It is not standard for service providers around the world to charge its customers for voice prompts. To do so is nothing short of corporate rip-off. Instead, customers should begin to be charged whenever the switch to a VM service actually takes place.”
Craig is seeking compensation in excess of G$60,000 for thousands of calls unfairly terminated via voice prompt notices; cost for time and effort invested and expenses incurred in making this challenge; and legal or other costs that may be associated with appearing before the Commission to present his case.

In the company’s defence, CEO of Digicel Guyana, Mr. Gregory Dean noted that Digicel adopted a standard voicemail protocol as adopted by networks worldwide, and “after circa twenty seconds of an unanswered call, it defaults to the voicemail system if the called party has one set up.

“The prompt which Mr. Craig refers to is indeed part of the voicemail system, and this setting is no different to what obtains if a person calls a fixed line and the called party has an answering machine,” Dean contended.

He charged the PUC to dismiss what he described as a rather frivolous complaint, since, as it is, Digicel is using what is common practice adopted throughout the telecommunications world.

However, at the public hearing on Friday the issue was far from over. With the complainant not even given a fair chance to speak, attorney-at-law, Mr. Stephen Fraser dominated the forum and claimed that the company has not been pointed to the provision in the Public Utilities Commission Act to which the company (Digicel) is to respond.

He said the complaint presented against Digicel should also be showered upon other telecommunication services, since it is a practice that has been adopted not only by Digicel. He iterated that if Digicel is to be brought before the Commission for that particular issue, so should the other telecommunication service providers.

PUC Chairman, Justice (rtd.) Prem Persaud, C.C.H., in his quest to address the issue, was forced to reschedule the hearing to Friday February 28 at Cara Lodge. The Commission will hear evidence from the complainant, Digicel, and any group or member of the public who may wish to appear and be heard on this matter.

The other telecommunication networks will also play an integral role in bringing a resolution to the problem.

(By Ravin Singh)