明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao. com/critic.htm COMPLAINTS about telecommunicationservices have come in an endless stream.The newest are about speed restrictions onsome mobile broadband customers. CSL is suspectedto have unilaterally revised its contracts with its users.That is very unfair to them. Some telecommunicationoperators' services have fallen short of specifications.The problem emerged last year. The ConsumerCouncil and the Office of the TelecommunicationsAuthority (OFTA) have received several times morecomplaints about mobile broadband services.However, OFTA has done little to have serviceproviders remedy the situation. OFTA must do whatmay cure maladies of the industry. If it fails to do so,the government should shake it up. CSL has used "unlimited download" to sell itsmobile broadband services. Unlimited download is amajor factor that has decided many to subscribe to itsservices. True, its contract with such a customerstipulates "fair use". However, the meaning of "fair" isnot explained. That is in fact a trap - an unequalcondition. Furthermore, it is extremely unfair to its oldcustomers for a service provider to impose speedrestrictions on them so that it can serve new customers. Download speed is an essential feature of anoperator's service package. If a customer is subjectedto speed restrictions, he will have "limited download"rather than "unlimited download". The change may beregarded as a unilateral contract amendment. If theservice provider informs a customer there will be achange and he accepts it, he consents to thecontractual amendment, and no problem will arise.However, if he does not accept it, he ought to beallowed to have his contract cancelled. Atelecommunication service contract usually runs for 18months to 24 months. If he may not terminate hiscontract, he must long endure services that fall short ofspecifications. Not only would he lose money, but hewould also suffer mental torment. If service providers do not increase theirhardware, they will be unable to cope when they havemore customers. That is why some of them have usedthe "fair use" clause to impose speed restrictions ontheir old customers. OFTA has a duty to ensureoperators' services are up to standard. It may introducea licensing condition that says the hardware such acompany controls must be a function of the amount ofthe services it provides. That would prevent what isakin to a situation where "there are seven jars but onlythree lids". Unless an operator has adequatehardware, it will eventually be unable to cope, and itsservices will suffer. Last year complaints about mobile broadbandservices surged. Most complainants said operators'advertisements contained misrepresentations anddownload speed was lower than they claimed. OFTAwas aware long ago that some operators' mobilebroadband services had fallen short of specifications.However, it has yet to take any vigorous measures torequire them to make improvements. That is why theproblem has kept worsening. There are problems with telecommunicationservices often because OFTA is unaware of what ishappening or turns a blind eye to what has happened.It was reported last month that some operators fleecedconsumers almost fraudulently by flooding them withchargeable mobile content services. At first OFTA (alicensing agency) said there was noting it could do.There was a public outcry. No sooner had Secretaryfor Commerce and Economic Development Rita Lauinstructed that it do something than OFTA did anabout-turn, saying there were things it could do. It canthus be seen how passive and incompetent OFTA is.The government must shake OFTA up before it canreturn the telecommunication industry to the right track.Only if OFTA works better will citizens be troubled byfewer problems of telecommunication services. 明報社評 2010.01.29 服務須與硬件掛鈎 迫使網絡商增投資 消費者投訴電訊服務層出不窮， 最新一例是流動寬頻客戶被嚴厲限速。就此事，電訊網絡商CSL 有單方面改變合約之嫌，對客戶不公平。 此事說明網絡商所提供服務貨不對辦，有關問題去年已經浮現， 消委會和電訊管理局收到對流動寬頻服務的投訴以倍數增加， 電管局卻未確切要求網絡商改善。 電管局必須以實際行動端正業內流弊，不然的話， 政府應該整頓電管局，務求減少電訊服務對市民的困擾。 當初CSL 以無限上網作招徠，是消費者選用其寬頻服務的主要考慮， 合約雖然寫有「公平使用」，但是何謂「公平」，並無闡釋， 實際上是「合約陷阱」，屬於不平等條款；另外， 若網絡商為了吸引新客戶，對舊客戶限速，但限速的嚴厲程度， 對舊客戶極不公平。 流動寬頻下載速度乃網絡商提供服務的要件，限速之後， 「無限上網」變為「有限上網」，這個改變， 可視為單方面更改合約。若網絡商有知會客戶，客戶接受限速安排， 那是你情我願，無問題；若網絡商改變合約，客戶不予接受， 網絡商應該讓客戶有解除合約的權利。這類電訊服務合約， 一般長達18 至24 個月，客戶若不獲終止合約，要長時間忍受服務貨不對辦， 不但損失金錢，也是一種精神折磨。 客戶增加了，硬件設施未相應增加，最終必然出現僧多粥少， 網絡商以「公平使用」概念限制舊客戶下載速度， 其實是這個情况的反映。電管局有責任監督網絡商確保服務質素， 電管局應該從發牌着手，規定網絡商提供的服務要與硬件設施掛鈎， 以杜絕3 個蓋應付7 個盅的情况，否則最終必然出現捉襟見肘，張羅不過來， 影響服務質素。 關於流動寬頻的投訴，去年大增。投訴內容， 大多指摘網絡商的廣告失實，聲稱的上網速度與實際不符。因此， 部分網絡商的流動寬頻服務，有貨不對辦之嫌，電管局早已知悉， 只是未採取有力措施，要求網絡商改善，致使事態日益惡化。 證諸電訊服務出現的問題， 許多時候都與電管局後知後覺或視而不見有關。 例如去月中揭發電訊商涉及近乎欺詐的收費短訊事件，宰割消費者， 負責發牌的電管局最初說「冇得管」，不過在市民群情洶湧、 經由商務及經濟發展局局長劉吳惠蘭責成下，電管局180 度轉變，改認為「有得管」。電管局的被動和顢頇無能，可見一斑。 因此，政府要把電訊業納入正軌，要先整頓電管局，加強領導， 困擾市民的電訊服務問題才有改善之日。
| 
沒有留言:
張貼留言