ComReg and Mobiles

foggy_lad

found out recently ComReg are only any use if you have a problem with basic mobile services like calls and texts and that "mms and wap/mobile broadband services do not fall within their remit"

maybe this is why people can get no proper service from mobile companies regarding boradband issues? they know they cant be touched by ComReg?

Bluefrog

When they told me that it got me thinking and it really seems in indefensible position if you consider the fact that at least in some cases, people choose their mobile company on the basis of their data offerings.

Haven't had to push this point with them yet but I have come pretty close in the last few months and may soon.

However, they are pretty toothless even for the areas they do claim to regulate so I would never depend on them in a dispute. Better to go via a consumer protection angle.

foggy_lad

yes it seems very strange that an official watchdog is refusing to bark! or has it something to do with producing higher figures for broadband usage to keep a minister in his post?

The Corinthian

foggy_lad wrote:

found out recently ComReg are only any use if you have a problem with basic mobile services like calls and texts and that "mms and wap/mobile broadband services do not fall within their remit"

maybe this is why people can get no proper service from mobile companies regarding boradband issues? they know they cant be touched by ComReg?

The problem is that there is a bit of an overlap between them and RegTel. RegTel was originally set up to regulate premium rate phone numbers, while ComReg was as a result of Telecom deregulation in Ireland. Unfortunately where the two overlap who has jusridiction becomes a little fuzzy.

As a rule of thumb, you can generally go to RegTel if there's an issue with something if it's outside ComReg's remit. Good news is that RegTel tends to have sharper teeth than ComReg on a practical level, bad news is that in my experience and opinion, in the case of emerging technologies ComReg seems to at least know something, while RegTel is pretty clueless.

foggy_lad

maybe there is an over lap but technically and every other way there is no regulation of mobile phone services above simple calls and sms messages once your operator can handle those then your covered and neither REgTel or ComReg will take it any further as it falls outside their remit and heaven forbid they might do something of benefit to thousands:p

The Corinthian

Actually RegTel is presently attempting to bring many of these into their remit.

foggy_lad

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually RegTel is presently attempting to bring many of these into their remit.

best of luck to them and i hope ComReg get to play a part too as there has to be some regulation of this ever increasing market which appears to have ever lowering standards. are the powers that be afraid to speak on this or just happy to accept the "favourable statistics"?

The Corinthian

foggy_lad wrote:

best of luck to them and i hope ComReg get to play a part too as there has to be some regulation of this ever increasing market which appears to have ever lowering standards. are the powers that be afraid to speak on this or just happy to accept the "favourable statistics"?

As someone who works in this industry, I would have to point out that there is a growing tendency for people to assume that the consumer is always the victim. Abuses (more commonly genuine mistakes) do occur, however service providers are not always at fault.

Even here there have been numerous threads by people who have felt they were victims, when in reality they had either not bothered to read the T&C of a service or (commonly) tore the arse of one because they did not get billed immediately and so felt they were getting something for free.

It's important that if there is any additional regulation that it balances the needs of both sides of a dispute, something which - for political reasons - is increasingly not occurring.

foggy_lad

very true that the customer is not always a victim and is often just confused by legal jargon used by companies to make them think they dont have rights when they do. and a nice start would be honesty from customer care instead of trying to waffle try saying "we got a small problem which will take approx xxhours to sort." customers wont be any happier but will at least know they are not imagining a problem:)

The Corinthian

foggy_lad wrote:

very true that the customer is not always a victim and is often just confused by legal jargon used by companies to make them think they dont have rights when they do. and a nice start would be honesty from customer care instead of trying to waffle try saying "we got a small problem which will take approx xxhours to sort." customers wont be any happier but will at least know they are not imagining a problem:)

I'll be honest and say that when someone comes out with an argument such as that they're not being terribly objective.

Ultimately most services don't really have a lot of 'legal jargon' attached, what there is tends to be easy enough to follow if people actually bother to do so. The reality is they often don't but still whinge how they were hard done by when the bill kicks in.

Suffice it to say that there are two sides to every story and while there are many abuses by service providers, there are also a lot of dumb, lazy consumers out there.

foggy_lad

well its not meant as an arguement at all am speaking about people being mis-led by customer care into thinking they have handset issues when customer care are clearly well aware that their own network issues are causing the problem but all this is well in hand and being investigated as we type:)

Doctor DooM

foggy_lad wrote:

well its not meant as an arguement at all am speaking about people being mis-led by customer care into thinking they have handset issues when customer care are clearly well aware that their own network issues are causing the problem but all this is well in hand and being investigated as we type:)

As someone else who worked in the industry, and has had experience in stores, it serves no actual purpose for a phone company to say that. The sooner the network is up, the sooner you can spend money. Implicating the handset is in fault involves triggering a repair/ RMA process which costs money and wont resolve the issue.

I have worked in retail/ customer care for 11 years and every single company I worked for bashed tranparency into our heads. In my experience, often "legal jargon" comes up when, as the corinthian stated earlier, the customer has not read the t's and c's.

Anyway, OT.

Comregs remit is supposedly laid out here:

http://www.comreg.ie/about_us/roles_what_we_do.523.html

Regtels charter is here:

http://www.regtel.ie/charter.htm

To me it looks like regtel are keeping it wide open there to assume more responsibility.

Their code of practice is here.

http://www.regtel.ie/codeofpractice.htm

foggy_lad

why then would customer care continously blame handsets when there are network issues unless to alter/manipulate statistics? if they can deny a problem for long enough then maybe they can get it fixed before it gets too serious?
ha slightly off my own topic. reply i recieved from ComReg was they have NO control over mms or gprs or any mobile internet services they only cover basic calls and text messages! have this in writing from them.

Doctor DooM

foggy_lad wrote:

why then would customer care continously blame handsets when there are network issues unless to alter/manipulate statistics? if they can deny a problem for long enough then maybe they can get it fixed before it gets too serious?

Have you got evidence for this? The company I worked for announced on the phone line automatically when there was a network outage. I have never had an experience where CC deliberately blamed a handset for a network issue. The closest thing I have seen is them directing a customer who doesn't know what they are doing to a shop so someone competent can have a look at the handset to confirm its alright. I'm not in the business anymore so I've no need to defend them, just telling the truth here

It seems very odd that MMS etc are currently unregulated. Especially as some issues arise with incorrect settings, etc, and can be charged.

The Corinthian

SDooM wrote:

To me it looks like regtel are keeping it wide open there to assume more responsibility.

RegTel, in my personal opinion, lack either the transparency to handle those areas they already cover and, in my experience, the technical understanding.

foggy_lad wrote:

why then would customer care continously blame handsets when there are network issues unless to alter/manipulate statistics? if they can deny a problem for long enough then maybe they can get it fixed before it gets too serious?

They "continuously blame handsets when there are network issues"? Where are you getting your information from? Seriously, are these accusations based upon facts or tinfoil hat conspiracy theories?

ha slightly off my own topic. reply i recieved from ComReg was they have NO control over mms or gprs or any mobile internet services they only cover basic calls and text messages! have this in writing from them.

Good for you, but this was already explained to you here.

foggy_lad

Almost every call to meteor during 2006 and more recently the three network have been blaming handsets when they are fully aware their network is at fault! also had issue with o2 earlier this year again they blamed everything else except thier policy of blocking downloads over 1.6mb on i-mode phones!

honesty would not have made me any happier but would have saved countless long and unnecessary calls.

The Corinthian

foggy_lad wrote:

Almost every call to meteor during 2006 and more recently the three network have been blaming handsets when they are fully aware their network is at fault!

Almost every call? Your calls? All customer calls? If the former, do you really expect us to take your word for it? If the latter, where are you getting your data? Also, how do you know they are "fully aware their network is at fault", especially in light of your claim that they are not admitting it?

also had issue with o2 earlier this year again they blamed everything else except thier policy of blocking downloads over 1.6mb on i-mode phones!

Again, are you simply talking about your own experience or in general? What facts have you got to back any of this up?

Doctor DooM

The Corinthian wrote:

RegTel, in my personal opinion, lack either the transparency to handle those areas they already cover and, in my experience, the technical understanding.

I would gladly help them with that for a decent wage.

As far as I know, OP, downloads on imode phones take place in exactly the same way as normal gprs/ 3g. imode effectively is an efficient business model for creating speedy downloadable pages which are secure and purchasable.

There is no way for O2 to discriminate between the two unless you are downloading from the imode portal.

foggy_lad

my own experience and have recordings of calls to various customer care reps, my own notes and anecdotal evidence, it really is not that important that you should be getting so animated over it. apologies for offending i did not realise the mobile phone industry was so close to your heart.

Sam Vimes

To those asking for evidence of 3 blaming phones for network problems:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055153263

that is by no means unusual. This mobile broadband problem is going on over a week now and they still suggest i do a factory reset every time i call

and i can confirm that meteor were and i think still are having a problem with half the network not being able to receive mms and it took them ages to acknowledge it wasn't the handsets at fault

o2 have never done that of course, they have good customer care

The Corinthian

foggy_lad wrote:

my own experience and have recordings of calls to various customer care reps, my own notes and anecdotal evidence, it really is not that important that you should be getting so animated over it. apologies for offending i did not realise the mobile phone industry was so close to your heart.

I'm not getting animated over this, however when someone makes such accusations they should be tested rather than accepted blindly.

Essentially, you're telling us that in your experience this was the case. You've not explained how you know they we're lying or that they were imposing conditions that were not already documented in their T&C's. You're just stating a number of fuzzy accusations and asking us to accept them as fact.

Given I don't sport a tinfoil hat, you'll forgive me I will treat your accusations with skepticism.

foggy_lad

as far as i remember it took over two months to get o2 to resolve an issue over napster site on i-mode! napster tracks over 1.6mb would not play properly cos o2 do not support any download over 1.6mb even when they were charging for the track and also 1cent per kb to download!

The Corinthian

Commander Vimes wrote:

To those asking for evidence of 3 blaming phones for network problems:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055153263

Finally, someone who knows what making a case for something means.

foggy_lad

absolutely dont mind a bit or even a lot of scepticism!