The Tribune

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

TODAY, years after it was privatised and sold to Cable and Wireless, the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) continues to be one of the Bahamas’ worst service providers, public or private. Telecoms in the Bahamas have regressed in the last few years.

Quite honestly, “poor” is too good a word to describe BTC’s services. Last weekend’s countrywide black-out of the telecommunications network was most objectionable. Frankly, “absolutely, downright atrocious“ only begins to describe the horrendous service output at our nation’s major telecommunications provider. Those of us who supported BTC’s sale and felt that it would yield great returns were, on the face of it, wrong!

At present, the monopoly on cell phone services still subsists—at least until the beginning of next week — when I will be shouting my hallelujahs along with throngs of other Bahamians. Batelco – as BTC is otherwise called — is seemingly an entity that daily fleeces a largely irritable general public with its poor, overpriced services. No, it does not appear that BTC is hearing the cries of its many customers—neither loudly nor clearly—and its services are far from ever qualifying as second-rate.

In another column, I previously wrote: “The privatization of BTC should foster competition, which would undoubtedly lead to enhanced, cost-effective services—inclusive of improved cell phone service/reception, faster response to technical concerns, better internet service and polite customer service where the customer is treated courteously.” I’m still awaiting the improved services and, quite honestly, I believe that the best services and products will only be offered when one or two other telecommunications companies enter the market.

Contrary to BTC’s self-serving ads, its products and services fall far from putting “connection at the fingertips” of Bahamians. If BTC’s services do not improve, the moment the exclusivity period ends and there are other companies offering better services set-up, it will be “bush crack, man gone” for me and thousands of other Bahamians.

Is BTC obstructing competition? Would a new service provider still have to use BTC’s lines and pay them a fee for usage?

What will Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA) do about last week’s blackout? Not so long before that, BTC had another blackout that officials seemingly blamed on untoward behaviour of insiders. What was URCA’s sanction then and what will it be this time?

In recent times, BTC has spent millions on promotional exercises but has consistently failed to deliver efficient services, particularly as it relates to their “halfway” operational, defective GSM/4G network. How many times must I—and many other Bahamians—be prevented from sending text messages or making phone calls due to system glitches? I have had instances where I’ve sent text messages, some of which have never arrived to the intended recipient and yet BTC proceeded to charge me! Over the years, if I added up the charges for such text messages, BTC would have a reimbursement cheque for me and thousands of other cell phone customers. BTC has become notorious for dropped calls and flawed internet connectivity....and yes, you have to pay for those too, even if the call dropped within seconds of it being picked up!

Why am I still being charged for national toll calls on my monthly post-paid cell phone bill? I want an explanation and, if necessary, to be reimbursed. Didn’t BTC say that all cell phone to cell phone calls carry the same rate?

Here’s the thing, every time I go to the mall to pay my bill and query it, I am told to stand on a long line that creeps along slower than an ailing snail. And so, I don’t bother. I try to call the switchboard to get an explanation, but that again is another long story!

And, what’s with the “thank you for choosing BTC” comment that operators make upon concluding a conversation with them—that is, when one could reach them. I think the comment is silly, cheesy and rather insulting. We have no other choice—particularly as it relates to cell phones—but to “choose” BTC! I’m looking forward to April, with the hope that another entity would hurriedly come into the telecoms market.

How is it that cellular phone services in Jamaica are much cheaper and efficient? Could the reason be that the threat of consumers leaving one company for its competition keeps all service providers on the cutting edge of technology?

Since the late 1980s, the government has sought to privatize BTC, with the expectation of better quality services and that private sector management practices would be adopted. Led by the Deutsche Bank, a group of consultants attempted to guide BTC’s privatization process from as early as 1988—when I was four! Initially, it was suggested that the labour force at the corporation be reduced in restructuring exercises.

Eventually, more than 700 employees were let go, many with hefty severance packages. However, due to political cronyism, BTC is again overstaffed and that fact may discourage potential suitors from purchasing an interest in the corporation.

The original consultants had also recommended that BTC’s sale be initiated through a bidding process, but this has hardly yielded any eager purchasers. During that era, the Public Utilities Commission was also established to regulate the telecommunications industry although it appears to have been a hindrance to BTC’s privatization and moreover, to competition.

Again, I call upon BTC to change its approach to service. Here, the company first teach its customer service representatives to appreciate and value their customers, how to be courteous and polite and, even more ironic, to answer consumers phone calls. The attitudes of BTC staff at the Mall-at-Marathon—especially in client care—is appalling and the long lines—due to everyone taking lunch or some other excuse—are unacceptable. If someone was to venture into that store during their lunch hour, they are almost guaranteed to be late for work!

Immediately, after the internet service was liberalized, hordes of internet users switched to Cable Bahamas (myself included), which offered subscribers faster, less expensive packages.

BTC again lost throngs of customers when fixed voice services came on stream, as many phone users chose Indigo’s cheaper rates compared to the national corporation’s exorbitant charges. Eventually, BTC was forced to reduce its overseas rates (per minute) to compete with Indigo—a Bahamian company operating fixed voice services since 2004—that has rapidly gained market share. At present, this can now be seen in the number of Bahamians going over to Cable’s Revoice platform, which I also hear is having challenges of its own particularly since they might have to liaise with BTC at certain points. Whatever happened to number portability URCA? Why can’t Bahamians carry their numbers from one carrier to another, especially since that was promised months ago? What’s the hold-up?

Although Batelco has initiated an internet phone service called the Vibe—which offers packages for customers to make free calls to the Family Islands or internationally—many customers have migrated to other voice over internet providers such as Vonage, Cable Bahamas and Skype. However, even the Vibe service—I’m told—was recently limited to a certain number of minutes in preference to promoting BTC’s home phone plus offering. In their zeal to compete with Cable Bahamas and push yet another mediocre product offering on Bahamians, BTC seems to be more concerned about sales and marketing than about quality service and customer satisfaction!

I am hopeful that true liberalization will benefit Bahamian consumers and businesses by introducing more competition, which in turn should lower prices, enhance service quality and provide more choice.

If anyone has any complaints about BTC or any comments relative to last weekend’s telecommunications blackout, send me an email and I will ensure that they are all published in my next column (i.e. unless a person specifically wishes that his/her email not be published).

GOOD OLE ISHMAEL AND PERRY CHRISTIE!

I think that certain members of the Free National Movement are being extremely hypocritical relative to Prime Minister Perry Christie’s assistance of embattled VAT spokesman Ishmael Lightbourne. Indeed, while Mr Lightbourne has led to the introduction of a new phrase “Ishmaeling”, which means calling in or having a big favour done, I don’t think the Prime Minister was wrong in helping his friend.

Look, if any of you were in the Prime Minister’s position and had a dear friend whose house was being repossessed and foreclosed on—and we could assist that friend—we all would. I have always heard the saying that “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Indeed, if Mr Christie is to be taken at face value and we are to believe that he was present when the bailiff came by with the court order to foreclose on Mr Lightbourne’s house, can anyone of us sincerely say that if put in the same position we wouldn’t also seek to help out a friend as best as we could?

The issue I have is that Mr Christie flaunted what he claims to be a noble gesture on behalf of a friend. Why did he feel that he needed the public adoration for this gesture? I think he should have assisted Lightbourne and not said anything about it. That said, I think that the condemnation of Mr Christie’s act of kindness and friendship is being unreasonably condemned—critics should put themselves in a similar position and in the same office and ask themselves if they would indeed step in for their friend.

Now, I think that Ishmael Lightbourne should resign or be re-assigned to another job. Lightbourne—when taking on the job to be VAT messenger—should have “cleaned out his closet”, ensuring that all his taxes were paid and that he was beyond reproach. He has put his friend—the Prime Minister—in a most awkward and untenable position. By his silence, he has seemingly left Mr Christie out to dry.

So, why doesn’t Mr Lightbourne simply sell his house? Sol Kerzner had to sell Atlantis when he found himself overextended with debt and the fiscal realities forced upon him by a cash call that he could not meet, notwithstanding the fact that he was probably generating more revenue than anybody else in the Bahamas.

Ishmael Lightbourne has options to restructure his financial situation—businesses, families and individuals do it daily. On the face of it, his beachfront residence is probably worth much more than it is valued and so he could raise enough monies to perhaps pay off his property taxes and then ascertain a sale without any outstanding liens or other encumbrances against the property.

The exposure of Bahamians in general speaks to our debt problems. The Central Bank itself, in its report, speaks of worsening loan performances. We need to talk comprehensively about the entire Bahamian approach to income and spending, about our rampant consumerism and how it doesn’t bring happiness and about the fundamentals of our economy, which are currently not strong. Sadly, most of us continue to live above our means and there appears to be little consumer education initiatives—or for that matter legislation—to protect or educate Bahamians about good fiscal decisions.