The Four-eyed Journal » Regulation

Vanishing prepaid loads – who’s really to blame?

jhay — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:55:57 +0000

It took years and for a Senate investigation to finally get something done about the long-standing issue of vanishing prepaid mobile phone credits or loads here in the Philippines.

It all started when Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s prepaid load had disappeared before he could even use it. He detailed his experience in his privileged speech at the Senate last June 2;

“Last Monday, May 25, 2009, I used my prepaid unit to make a call. A voice recorder intoned that my prepaid unit had no load, that it had a zero balance. I was amazed because at seven o’clock in the morning of that day my prepaid unit had a balance of Three Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos [P389.00].

“The next day, Tuesday, May 26, I loaded Six Hundred Pesos [P600.00] in my prepaid unit. At eight o’clock in the evening of that same day, the Six Hundred Pesos [P600.00] load was down to Five Hundred Nineteen Pesos [P519.00]. I never used the cellular telephone at all that day.

“The next day, Wednesday, May 27, at seven o’clock in the morning, the Five Hundred Nineteen Pesos [P519.00] balance the night before went down to Four Hundred Forty-Five Pesos [P445.00]. My prepaid cellular phone was closed and never used throughout the night before.

“This unusual happening made me wonder. I asked my secretary to report the matter to Globe Telecom and request for an explanation. I was simply curious to know why my load was declining even though I was not using my prepaid unit. I was not thinking of any misconduct or wrong-doing on the part of the service provider. I just wanted to unravel the mystery of my dwindling load.

“On my way to the Senate, I called Chairman Rowell Canovas of the National Telecommunications Commission. I related to him about my disappearing load. He promised to check it immediately. My conversation with Chairman Canovas was in the morning.

“At eight o’clock in the eve-ning of that same Wednesday, May 27, I was even more dumbfounded when I found out that the dwindling load of my prepaid unit suddenly and mysteriously rose to Five Hundred Thirty-Four Pesos and Thirty Two Centavos [P534.32]. I did not add any additional amount to the load of my prepaid unit, and no one ever did.”

It’s all too familiar now, as this has been what we ordinary consumers have been struggling with for the past years of using mobile phones with prepaid accounts. As I’ve blogged about last year, the telcos are not just spamming us, they’re even stealing our money.

The result of the Senate investigation was a revision of rules and the issuance of memorandum circular from the National Telecommunications Commission ordering the telcos to extend the shelf-life of prepaid load.

On top of that, the rules have been amended so that push messages, promotional and commercial advertisements and other broadcast messages shall only be allowed if the subscribers have given their consent via a subscription to the said service.

Well and good. Finally, something tangible was done by the government to address this issue. However, the issue it seems is far from over.

Finger pointing

During the Senate investigations, the telcos have washed their hands of the blame and instead pointed fingers to the content providers as the real cause for the vanishing prepaid loads.

They now have come out and said that the new NTC rules will kill their businesses. Plus, they’ve also denied the accusation that they are the root causes of vanishing prepaid load;

“We categorically deny that Value-Added Services are the reason for the so-called ‘vanishing load’ issue. It is impossible for VAS providers to cause vanishing load as we do not have the ability to deduct load from subscribers,”

It is a valid point and something that is worth looking into. Besides, they are just “content providers” after all, and the telcos are really the ones in control over their networks.

So who’s to really to blame? What is the real story behind our so-called vanishing prepaid loads? How come we consumers get these so-called messages without even subscribing to them to begin with?

Clearly, we just scratched the surface of this issue and it seems though, a can of worms has been opened up.

Vanishing Cell Phone Load? Nawalang load? May magagawa ka!

jhay — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:22:30 +0000

The pressure on the NTC and the telecommunications companies to come up with solutions to the problem of vanishing prepaid credits seemed to have paid off now that new rules will come out that require the telcos to extend to shelf life of prepaid credits (load) here in the Philippines.

Part of the draft NTC rules lays down the new shelf life of prepaid credits:

credits of P10 to P20 will be valid for seven days; over P20 to P30 for 10 days; over P30 to P40 for 14 days; over P40 to P50 for 17 days; over P50 toP60 for 20 days; over P60 to P70 for 24 days; over P70 to P80 for 21 days; over P80 to P100 for 30 days; over Pl00 to Pl50 for 45 days; over Pl50 to P200 for 60 days; over P200 to P300 for 90 days; and over P300 to P600 for 150 days.

Aside from the extension of prepaid credit’s shelf life, another set of rules will:

clamp down on the activities of third-party “value-added service” firms that send unsolicited text messages to mobile phone owners.

Well and good. Finally, the public seems to have gotten something really good from a Senate hearing. Though it took one of them to be a victim of the “vanishing load” for the whole Senate to act on the matter, but it’s better to be late than never right?

Of course, we’ve been all too familiar with this problems by now. It’s just comforting to know that at last, something is being done by the higher-ups and the public.

Updated: Globe Broadband denies capping P2P traffic

jhay — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:31:53 +0000

Update

Globe Telecoms has issued a statement denying that they have implemented any bandwidth capping for peer-to-peer traffic in their network. Yuga shares the important parts of the company’s statement:

What is our official message to NTC and to subs who have complained?

There was a network activity last Friday, May 15, that affected P2P applications. This is being corrected today and your connection experience will be back to normal by tomorrow.

Is Globe implementing Bandwidth capping?

No, we are not implementing any capping at this time.

Will Globe implement bangdwidth capping in the future?

We will have to review our network set-up and take appropriate action, if we detect abusive usage that degrades the quality of the network and affect other subscribers’ experience.

Why will Globe do this?

This measure will only be taken if there is a clear need to protect all Globe subscribers from a few abusive users.

Another look at the Unified Globe Broadband thread at TPC shows that subscribers mostly from Luzon report that their P2P download speeds have returned to normal levels depending on their subscribed speeds.

It’s either an experiment of Globe to test its bandwidth capping system failed miserably proving once more that consumers in this country could influence big businesses.

There’s still one question that lingers in my mind though, is it true that the new service agreement contracts for new subscribers does contain the clause they are restricting P2P traffic at 20% the subscribed speed?

There’s a brewing thread over at TipidPC.com about Globe Broadband’s throttling of peer-to-peer traffic among its subscribers. They’ve put in a cap of 20% of the subscribed maximum speed regardless of type of plan.

Here below is a scanned image of service contracts for ‘new subscribers’ to Globe Broadband:

Globe broadband's service contract specifically mentions that P2P traffic is being capped at 20%

Reading the ever-growing thread at TPC, it’s clear now that this clause is found in service contracts for new subscribers as part of their Acceptable Use Policy or UAP. I’ve been a Globe Broadband subscriber for four years now and I’ve had my share of their crappy, no-good internet and frustrating customer services.

So now I’m uncertain whether this new policy of putting a limit on P2P traffic would also affect me because I can’t recall this provision in the service agreement when I signed up years ago. If it does, it could constitute a breach of contract as I was not informed of this changes to the agreement before it came to effect. But that still remains to be seen.

However, I don’t use P2P services that much and the last time I downloaded a file via a torrent was last month when I completed the full second season of the Gundam 00 series.

Still, what concerns me is the way or the technology Globe uses to throttle peer-to-peer traffic in its network. This concern is about my privacy which is explained fully by a online petition calling on Globe to remove the broadband traffic shaping policy.

Even more alarming, Globe, in order to achieve its goal, has possibly violated sacred principles of privacy by employing Deep Packet Inspection mechanisms. DPI goes beyond port and protocol blocking by including packet content analysis. This can be likened to the post office screening mail by looking inside of it instead of merely checking the addresses.

Whatever the reasons or motives of Globe’s decision to shape traffic in its network, it must always be for the best interest of us, the paying customers and it must not violate our legal rights.

This issue is not something new, as ISPs in the United States, like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, have implemented the same traffic shaping techniques/policies in their networks which of course have sparked outrage from net neutrality and consumer groups. I’m not sure but lawsuits have been filed against such ISPs with the consumer rights group winning the battle.

Now that the same issue has landed on our shores, it remains to be seen how it will develop given our country’s internet history and the issues that highlight it.

For now, like Alex Maximo, I’m still on the sidelines watching how this issue would turn out.

I don’t mind putting some controls on network traffic as long as it improves the quality of connections but what I won’t stand for is for my ISP to look into my traffic completely violating my privacy rights.

Skype for iPhone banned by US & European carriers, would Philippine telcos do the same?

jhay — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:56:53 +0000

There has been much hype, talk and excitement about Skype for iPhone. Imagine all the free calls you could do with it thanks to VoIP, the iPhone and Skype.

However, carriers in the US and Europe have made moves to limit the use of Skype for iPhone only to WiFi hot spots. The ban has sparked outrage and legal moves from net neutrality and consumer rights groups from both continents. IntoMobile has more info:

In the US, AT&T (NYSE: T) has reportedly restricted the use of the Skype iPhone application from being used on the carrier’s 3G network. The move would keep Skype for iPhone relegated to WiFi hotspots. The UK’s O2 (NYSE: TEF) has likewise restricted the use of Skype’s mobile application to WiFi hotspots. T-Mobile (NYSE: DT) Germany, on the other hand has taken things a bit further and banned Skype from their network altogether.

In response to the ban, The Free Press, a Net Neutrality group in the US, has filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the regulatory body to investigate whether AT&T is violating the Internet Policy Statement. European Net Neutrality advocate group Voice On the Net (VON) has asked that European lawmakers enact policies that ensure wireless customers can access whatever services they choose. They argue that consumers’ choice is being limited by carriers.

The report adds that the move made because carriers didn’t want to become nothing more than “data pipes” for consumers.

Here in the Philippines, the iPhone is officially distributed by Globe and so far it has developed a dedicated group of followers among techies, Apple fanboys and the elite.

Local iPhone users have also been excited about Skype for iPhone and it is now available from the iPhone App store for free. However, it remains to be seen whether local telcos, would follow their US and European counterparts in banning or restricting the use of Skype for iPhone on their networks.

A few thoughts on the Teen who broadcast his suicide via webcam

jhay — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:37:00 +0000

The suicide of 19-year old Abraham Biggs which he broadcast via webcam last November 19 on Justin.tv is now making the headlines and posts of the blog-o-sphere.

Sad and tragic really. Background details could be read here, his family particularly Biggs’ father has already spoken about it and is angry to those who watched his son end his life via the web but did nothing to stop him from doing so.

I’m not really going to discuss the issues this tragedy has raised, but ask questions instead.

Are any of the audience liable, in any way, for watching the suicide?

According to ITProPortal.com, the suicide was apparently watched by some 1500 viewers. Some of them even egged Biggs on to take those pills which took his life. Others, did nothing but watched to see if it was the real thing, lastly there were some who notified Justin.tv who then called the police to look into the matter.

Legal experts can answer this, but could those who urged Biggs to take those pills be held legally or criminally liable?

Is Justin.tv liable for hosting such a webcast? Or something in their Terms of Use agreement could save them from being held liable?

Would this incident justify the call for tougher regulation of internet sites?

There are many more questions but these are just some that are really nagging my mind. Teen suicide is not something unheard of in American society but what if it happened here in the Philippines?

I suppose it will be another reason the Catholic Church would rile against the Internet and other modern communication technologies.