Customer wins Digicel in landmark voice mail case

May 25, 2014 News

“It should awaken their awareness that if one person can stand up to a big multi-national company to make a difference and effect change, imagine what could be accomplished if we band together, the outcome can only be consumer justice.” – Complainant, Leon Craig

In a landmark case, the country’s utility regulator has ordered the two mobile phone companies not to charge customers for its voicemail services.
The complaint was made by consumer advocate, Leonard Craig, against U-Mobile (Cellular) Inc. trading as Digicel, since last year February.
Craig, who represented himself, alleged that Digicel’s charge to consumers was unfair.

Successful Challenger: Leonard Craig

According to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the specific complaint is that whenever a call is made to a Digicel number, if the called party does not answer after four rings, the call is routed to a ‘voice prompt’ for which a charge is imposed.
“The voice prompt informs the caller that the call has been forwarded to the voicemail system if the called party has one set up.”
Craig’s complaint is that when Digicel diverts the call to the voicemail he is not given the opportunity to exercise an option to abort the call, or to continue with it. He said that he ought not to be charged for the voice prompt, but charges should only commence when the voicemail is activated.
According to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in its order made on May 9th, neither Digicel nor GT&T shall charge a subscriber for the mobile voicemail service offered by either of the parties. Rather, this service should be free of charge, effective June 1, 2014.
“A calling party to a mobile number shall be allowed a minimum of eight rings. Customers wishing calls to their mobile number to ring more or less than eight times are free to programme their handsets accordingly since both mobile networks and the handsets they support provide this functionality.”
Under the order, when a call to a mobile number is not answered after eight rings, the new arrangement would be that the calling party shall hear the operator pre-recorded notification that the call will be transferred to the voicemail facility of the called party. “No billing shall take place between the initiation of the call and the completion of the pre-recorded notification.”
It was also ordered that if the caller does not terminate the call by the end of the notification, it shall be directed to the voicemail facility maintained by the called party and billing shall commence.
Frivolous Complaint
Digicel, in response to the complaint, had argued that it was frivolous and should be dismissed. The company insisted that it uses a standard voicemail protocol adopted by telecommunication networks worldwide.
According to PUC, Digicel explained that after approximately 20 seconds on an unanswered call, it defaults to the voicemail system and further, that the prompt is not different from what obtains when someone calls a fixed line telephone and the called party has an answering machine.
Digicel, in its answer, had made reference to the services provided by Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company (GT&T), the other mobile phone company in Guyana. PUC, during the hearings, invited GT&T to attend and participate in the process.
Gene Evelyn, GT&T’s Consultant with respect to “Rate Making”, had recommended a harmonized approach in dealing with the issue to avoid confusion among customers.
The Guyana Consumers Association was represented by Patrick Dial. He argued that a voice prompt differs from a voicemail and urged that no charges should be incurred by consumers since the prompt advises that the called party is not available and that the call is transferred to the person’s mailbox.
In the ruling, PUC said it was of the opinion that there were two major issues to be addressed.
“Are four rings —about 20 seconds – adequate to facilitate an action or response by the called party?”
The regulator also questioned whether the call could be transferred to the called party’s mailbox without alerting the caller that the call will be transferred.
PUC pointed out that when a caller initiates a call he/she intends to speak with the called party or anyone who would have accessed the service. “If the service provider offers a service to channel the call in any manner he considers appropriate, that service ought to be pro bono (without charge).”
Digicel and GT&T agreed that they will exercise their discretion whether to charge the called party for the retrieval of voicemail messages; and that the charge shall not exceed $12:00 per minute.

The PUC hearing last month at Cara Lodge, Quamina Street.

“The Commission offers its commendation to Digicel since it understands that the company has not been exercising the option to charge the called party for the retrieval of voicemail messages.”
Silent Consumers
PUC also lauded Craig for bringing to the fore an issue in which he felt very strongly, and which “has represented the cause of many silent consumers.”
PUC also praised “the camaraderie” displayed by both Digicel and GT&T in the deliberation of the matter, and “hopes that despite the robust competition between the operators in providing services from which the nation benefits, such mature consideration be continued and extended- to issues common to both parties, in the interest of eventually the consumers who sustain them, and from whom they earn their keep.”
Craig had asked for $60,000 as part of the challenge but had signaled his intention last month to waive it once both Digicel and GT&T agreed to work together on the issue.
He said that the ruling is a landmark for all consumers. “It puts back the power of choice in the hands of the consumer. It should awaken their awareness that if one person can stand up to a big multi-national company to make a difference and effect change, imagine what could be accomplished if we band together, the outcome can only be consumer justice.”
He said that ruling is a win for all consumers as there is a choice for not paying for a service “we were not given a choice to opt out of”.
“The way Digicel voicemail is currently set up is equivalent to walking into a store then the owner announces “you are now the owner of a brand new TV, your account has been deducted”. That is not fair to consumers as they should have been able to choose whether or not to purchase the item…the PUC has now remedied that.”
The order was signed by PUC’s Chairman, Justice Prem Persaud and Commissioners, Badrie Persaud and Maurice Solomon.
Representing Digicel were Gregory Dean, Chief Executive Officer and attorneys-at-law, Stephen Fraser and Corinne Phillip.
For GT&T’s was CEO, Radha Krishna Sharma, and Gene Evelyn, Consultant.