Challenging poor services

Challenging poor services

Winahyo Soekanto, Lawyer, Consumer Care Foundation (YPK),
Jakarta

There's a lesson to be learned from Australia on the danger of
poor -- no, downright bad -- service of public utilities.

In February, the Australian Communication Authority (ACA) in
Sydney ordered an investigation into the country's largest
telecommunications operator, Telstra, following complaints from
the family of a 10-year-old, asthmatic patient named Sam
Boulding.

The family claimed that their son died recently because
telephone line trouble over the previous 10 days prevented them
from calling an ambulance in time to help save the child after he
fell ill.

Sam's mother had apparently contacted Telstra 30 times to ask
that the line be fixed.

Preliminary findings showed that Telstra's priority service
was lacking, prompting the ACA to impose an additional condition
for the company's operating license -- namely, that it must
provide effective service for people with life-threatening
medical conditions.

The telecommunications minister also ordered Telstra to
implement a fast-track system for consumers on its priority list
to ensure urgent service.

In fact, a 24-hour repair service is to be guaranteed, with
additional temporary service, if necessary.

This is certainly a relief that the public has heavy artillery
at its disposal in its campaign for better services.

Telecommunications operators risk major lawsuits on the basis
of liquidated or consequential damage in cases such as this.

Let's say, for example, that the telephone lines in your
office had gone on the blink for three weeks.

But instead of getting an alternative phone line, you had
spent the last two weeks repeatedly lodging complaints, to which
the telecommunications company merely responded with promises of
repair -- within 15 days at the latest.

Then came the important day when you were supposed to close an
important deal -- but it fell through because your business
partner could not reach you.

Hence the need for the heavy artillery.

The 2000 Customer Service Guarantee established by the ACA
defines damage as situations in which telephone service cannot be
used -- either for calling, or receiving calls.

Sam Boulding lived in Victoria, where repair service is
promised one day after a complaint is filed. A 10-day lapse, in
this case, was clearly negligence.

The general damages ruled by the Customer Service Guarantee is
A$12 for the first five days, and A$40 for each following day.

By Australian standards, the telephone company in Indonesia
indeed has it easy.

A ministerial regulation stipulates that operators first find
"the source of the trouble" within two days of receiving a
complaint. Then they have three days in which to begin repairs.

After that, they have 10 days to complete the repairs. Only
after these periods expire do consumers have a right to
compensation -- though law enforcement is the main obstacle.

Here, evidence of poor service on both fixed lines and
cellular telecommunications operators can be found on a daily
basis.

One leading news website, for instance, recently ran a
complaint of a consumer of the ProXL cellular service in Serang,
Banten, that he had been unable to use his mobile for four months
due to poor signal transmission.

He claimed that 37 other people in the area had similar
complaints, and that the promised repair service never
materialized -- despite his having sent out a map of the area to
the ProXL operator.

This went on despite the fact that Law No. 8/1999 on
protection of consumers' rights bans operators against
discrimination by lowering the standard of service in areas
considered less than profitable.

Just because Serang is not as good a market as other areas,
for instance, does not mean that ProXL is entitled to give out
lesser service to reduce operating costs.

The ProXL consumers in Serang are entitled to direct
compensation for the failure to repair services within 13 working
days -- as stipulated in the Post and Telecommunications
Directorate General Decree No. 266/1999.

Because the 13-day limit has been repeatedly breached,
consumers, in fact, are entitled to 10 times the compensation!

This is not enough, however, because there should be
opportunities for consumers to seek special compensation for
consequential damages because of the missed important
communications.

Unfortunately, despite so many "letters to the editor" on
complaints from telecommunication consumers, not many responses
have been forthcoming from the Directorate General of Post and
Telecommunications.

The agency -- the regulator and monitor of services by
telecommunications operators -- has not informed the public of
actions taken, if any, such as reprimands or investigation into
how such poor services remain in place.

In at least one case, the agency only responded by forming an
investigative team only after a group of consumers filed a class
action suit against one cellular phone operator.

The Koran Tempo daily reported a case involving a consumer of
Telkom in Central Jakarta whose number 57191xx remained dead for
two weeks despite repeatedly having contacted the telephone
company to complain.

Apparent complacency on the part of Telkom, which once
declared itself a "world-class operator" with an ISO-9000
certificate, could only come from the fact that it has no rivals.

According to a decree of the Director General of Post and
Telecommunications, consumers have the right to compensation
whenever Telkom fails to meet the standard of service.

Again, the compensation of mere free subscription fees are far
from enough. Consumers should be able to file for consequential
damages for Telkom's failure to provide standard services except
in circumstances such as damaged central telephone lines, or the
backbone transmission network.

What the consumer needs is the ability to protest poor public
services -- services which can often lead to damage and,
sometimes, even death.