I have just called my phone service provider to cancel a service that I have not subscribed for, something like GPRS, which I was charged $5.57. I am not sure if I could have been paying for it in my previous bills. It seems that the service came together with an Android mobile phone. Many uncles and aunties or children have bought phones with many high tech stuff embedded that they did not know and may not even use or did not know that they will be charged for it.
I have cancelled several of such services from the service providers before when I encountered them. For many users of mobile phones, what they need is a phone and nothing else. Some may need the sms while others may need more. The service providers must have the decency to offer the additional facilities to the users on a demand basis and not simply lump them as a package and expecting the ignorant users to pay for them.
I am wondering how many uncles and aunties are paying for such service that they did not want or need, or are paying for their children’s bills without knowing why or what the hell they are paying for. If only they know how to read their bills and demand that nonsense should be taken out.
CASE must step in to protect innocent and ignorant customers from such abuses by service providers. It is a lot of unethical profits charged to the ignorant masses if everyone has to pay a few dollars monthly for things that they don’t need. Some paying without even knowing. The literate will be spared but the poor illiterate will be made victims as they would not be able to protect themselves. This is as good as bullying the poor masses.
The other unethical corporate practice is making cold calls to unwary customers and the latter ended up paying for the phone time used and phone bills. Phone calls are not free and such practices must be stopped. It is not that innocent, and not free. If companies are going to continue with such nuisance calls, they must be made to pay for the phone bills of customers that they called, the recipients must not bear the cost of nuisance calls and wasting their time as well.
Unethical practices by corporate entities must be stopped.
11 comments:
Ideally companies should have the conscience to do what is good for the customers but alas in the name of profits anything goes as long as it isn't 'illegal'.
I think relying on CASE or laws is futile - better off learning to be smarter to avoid getting ripped off (without knowing it...).
Hi EC, welcome to the blog.
Not many people read their phone bills for many reasons. The most pitiful are those illiterate and ended up paying and paying. They are helpless and defenceless to such unethical practices.
Where is the conscience and responsibility to protect the ignorant and helpless? Only concern is protecting own pockets and collecting millions.
One day I decided to scrutinise my phone bill and found some unexplained charges. Called my telco to explain and the reason given was that these were services were originally packaged free with my new phone, but after the "free" period, the standard charges applied and I had to cancel them personally if I didn't want them. Of cos I did just that. I never asked for them, neither did I need them. I think this surreptitious practice would disadvantage those who never bother to put their phone bill under the microscope, and probably what those service providers are hoping for.
The telcos obviously over-estimated the market demand for their "value-added" services.
So have to resort to such tactics.
Looking for conscience from biznessmen must be akin to looking to devils for help.
Aiyah. How many times do I have to say:
You can't cheat an honest man.
People "honestly" got charged because they "honestly" forgot to check their contracts and bills. No one FORCED any of these blur sotong fuckers to get a mobile phone.
CASE should supply ball-pin hammers to smash the skulls of dumb motherfuckers who scream and yell "CHEAT!! " when they've been to lazyl and apathetic to do due diligence.
Caveat emptor, motherfuckers! Got it? No, I didn't think so.
KNN Matilah, you think everyone so clever like you and know how to read the bills with all the new terminologies and words?
"Unethical practices by corporate entities must be stopped."
Do you think CASE is ethical?
After I asked CASE to look into my case against a misrepresentative case, CASE asked me to join them by paying a $35 membership fee. After paying the fee, CASE then looked at the case and said it is beyond CASE rules to handle as my case involved higher than a claim sum that CASE could handle. So, in the first instance, why could CASE not advising me accordingly? Do you think CASE is ethical? Are they more interested to get more membership fee?
Do you expect CASE to act ethically? My experience tells me CASE will not but is only interested in $$$.
Many who went to CASE ended up worsening their original(first) case.
In Sin, thing could get more messy who one seeks help.
I think know that you need to be a member of CASE before they take up your case. Thought CASE is a public institutions set up by the govt using public fund to serve the public.
This membership thing is new to me and it smells foul.
It is new to You Mr Rb,
however, it has been in practice
for a very long time aredi.
Many who had approached CASE got
disappointed, it ended up that
they felt that CASE is either a toothless tiger and or just
another business organization
itself. Maybe it is not a
toothless tiger as described, but simply no match for the many dogs
around.
Post a Comment