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.