As I’m going to be on a short business trip and won’t be here on the 15th, I have taken the liberty in summarising the points raised in the TRA RFC topic and sent them an email outlining our position.
Here is what I submitted:
I have attached the responses to your RFC which we posted on our site: http://boycottbatelco.com, to read the up-to-date comments and suggestions, please go to: http://boycottbatelco.com/?p=54
Our view of the RFC is that:
1. As it is intended specifically for the new Batelco ADSL packages situation, and
2. As we have been discussing this very issue for weeks now,we do not see the value of personalizing the complaint procedure, as providing individual CPRs and personal information would make of the process. We also suggest that as the issue is defined (our objection to the threshold limits) then the TRA need not mount another procedure in order to initiate formal complaint investigation with Batelco. The information has already been provided by the various emails and faxes the TRA has received from named individuals, as well as concerned people who chose to be anonymous for their own reasons.
The issue is that there is a specific complaint against Batelco in it imposing a threshold limit on what were open packages, and its forced migration of subscribers to the new packages, even though their supply contract stipulates that Batelco can change the terms and conditions of the provided service with little or no notice to its subscribers.
Taking the above into consideration, as well as the attached responses gathered from our website, we feel that the proposed complaint procedure against the recently announced Batelco ADSL packages as not necessary; however we continue to urge the TRA to resolve the matter as soon as possible as we see the current restrictions as unfair and detrimental to the pursuit of the individual’s quality of life with all that entails.
Should you wish to provide Batelco with signatories in support of this argument, please point them to http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?bhr where 4,997 individuals signified their objection by signing the aforementioned petition.
We look forward to your response, and sincerely thank you for your efforts in attempting to resolve the matter.
Kind regards,
Mr. Mahmood Al-Yousiffor the Boycott Batelco Initiative
http://boycottbatelco.com
June 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
i guess every body is too busy watching the worldcup matches…
i think we should give as much complaints as possible ..for the tra to realize the issue .. and since all our stuff are legal.. we have nothing to worry … but i’m worried that our names and cPR will be given to batelco.. and that we are raising a resistance against them.. which we are not.. we are loyal customers who need better service..
if not possible.. we should go to another service provider… who would respect a loyal customer..
[ZoDiaC]
June 14th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Does giving my CPR and name to batelco after filing a complain involve a risk?
June 15th, 2006 at 12:38 am
I already sent a letter to the TRA before Mahmoud sent his.. coincidently I had also mentioned the link that he sent them regarding our comments that it should be more general and not in a case-by-case nature.
I don’t think our sending of CPR numbers and names to batelco poses any risk. Unless you are illegalt sharing your internet connection. Not only is it illegal that they explicitly target normal customers because they gave in complaints but also with all the shit that they’re in now I seriously doubt they want to worsen their situation by doing that.
I personally sent Peter K. an email similar to Joop’s with my full name and everything. The point against CPR numbers is that, at least the way I feel, is that it means the TRA will look at issues at a case-by-case nature and not look at the bigger picture of the glaring disadvantages of limited packages as a whole.
I talked to OrbitSatNet in Bahrain. Since I don’t use the internet for games the lag in the sattelite connection will not really affect me. For a 512K connection you either pay 48BD/month if you buy the 260BD modem and dish OR you pay 65BD/month if you decide NOT to buy the modem and dish. Regarding limited downloads the guy said there was no download limit as such but that in extreme cases if my internet usage goes overboard they will limit my speed for that day only and next day my download speeds will go up again.
For me I believe its an ACCEPTABLE, although not perfect alternative, to Batelco’s ridiculous “deal”. Just yesterday I downloaded a 3GB open source operating system. That’s already 20% of my download limit.. used up in a day. I can’t survive the rest of the month like this.
But I’ll wait and see if Batelco will realize their mistake and return the unlimited downloads at a similar price as before but I certainly look down on them now and they permanently damaged their reputation in my mind. The moment there is a GOOD alternative I will swicth without a moment’s notice.
June 15th, 2006 at 8:54 am
EVERYBODY GO TO THE TRA WEBSITE!!
.. turns out they released an ‘emergency’ order’ on Batelco effectively stopping them from selling the 10BD AND apologize publically by 2pm today to all consumers for misleading them and admitting their failure in meeting the conditions set by the TRA
I hope this is just one of many ‘orders’ on the way!! Hey what about penalties??? Fines?? I mean Batelco deserves it as they clearly knew their obligations !!
June 15th, 2006 at 9:46 am
this emmergency order came out in today’s GDN as well.. here’s the link:
http://gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=146300&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29087
Batelco is expected to release a counter statement on their website today..
on a side note it seems that the pressure has shifted from Peter K to Nick who’s GM of Batelco’s Consumer Division, and is under pressure to produce
June 15th, 2006 at 9:47 am
And support from the BIS:
Bahrain Internet Society chairman Ahmed Al Hujairi told the GDN that the public refused any package, which limits usage to the Internet.
“Whether it’s BD10 or anything else, it is good that the TRA has ordered Batelco to stop,” he said.
“The Internet service should be unlimited as in neighbouring GCC countries.”
June 15th, 2006 at 10:14 am
and here’s the emmergency order which the TRA sent to Batelco…it’s 12 pages and not 24 pages as Batelco PR — Ahmed Janahi claims to be:
http://www.tra.org.bh/en/pdf/Emergency_Order_14_June_2006.pdf
Worth noting that the TRA’s Emmergency Order states that Batelco should issue the following statement without any ammendment along with the other steps outlined:
“Batelco has today been ordered by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority to cease to offer a BD 10 per month, 256 kbit/s DSL package. This is because Batelco failed to meet its obligations under the Telecommunications Law and its License. Batelco apologizes to its consumers in that it has misled them throught the advertisements issued that it could offer such packages when it was aware that it could not do so legally. This announcement is issued pursuant to the order of the Authority”.
—-
IMHO, it seems that once Batelco knew that the TRA director had resigned, they thought they could take the law into their own hands… it seems that the TRA might have been in Bed with Batelco before but not any longer… batelco got dumped!
June 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
This is good, it’s also good to see that the BIS has took a firm stand and tied in the threshold issue with this.
Let’s see what they do next! Drama Bahraini style.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
yahOoo Well done TRA
Qouted from TRA statement:
” The TRA is concerned that Batelco is using its dominance in the telecommunications market to prevent or delay competitors wishing to offer competing packages.”
Well said !
June 15th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
The 2pm deadline as set out by the TRA requiring Batelco to issue their statement or appology has no come and gone.
so what is going on? Batelco’s lawyers come up with a way to scrape through some loophole in the telecom law?
June 15th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
TRA’s emmergency order to batelco is out in the mideast press world, AMEinfo Just posted about it:
http://www.ameinfo.com/88929.html
and the batelco news site just got updated with the prepaid service offering but no mention of an appology:
http://www.batelco.com/newslist.asp
June 15th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Batelco responds! check the http://www.tradearabia.com website and u can see the response.. frankly, they’re crazy! To this moment they are denying their crime and they claim they didnt know anything wrong?!?! … what do u all think of this?????
June 15th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
it’s up on Batelco’s site now:
http://www.batelco.com/news.asp?ArticleID=1266
“Batelco is in the process of initiating legal action against the TRA regarding an “emergency order” issued by the TRA to stop offering customers a BD10 internet package. Batelco is forced to pursue all legal means to defend itself against such unprecedented and arbitrary approach by the TRA.”
Batelco have also published the TRA’s ordered press release but them mention the following:
“We have published the above statement for the sake of transparency and compliance without accepting its contents and to avoid any arbitrary action, which the TRA may take against us. Batelco has offered on repeated occasions to meet and resolve this matter with the TRA - Batelco will continue to do so in good faith.”
What’s alarming is that the press release by batelco says that they will use all avenues of the legal system to take action against any individual or body for any alleged defamation. … what are they trying to say? are they hinting that they’re going to sue BoycottBatelco now? I’d like to see that happening! Time seems right for the law of the land to intervene and the CP or the King stepping to address these issues.
It also seems that the big boys at Batelco are upset that the TRA set out the conditions in their emmergencyorder to Batelco via the TRA’s site:
“Batelco is also concerned about the publishing of confidential information in the TRA’s non-confidential version of its Emergency Order.”
Let’s revisit what some of those TRA conditions were prior to this whole Batelco Vs. TRA saga:
Batelco must, four weeks prior to the launch of the 256kbps retail service by any licensed operator in the Kingdom of Bahrain, including Batelco or any company in which Batelco has any form of commercial interest, directly or indirectly, have available, and have informed all other licensed operators, of a TRA approved “fit-for-purpose” wholesale DSL product, together with all related terms and conditions, which can be readily used by those operators who wish to provide a 256 kbps Downlink / 64 kbps Uplink with a 2 GB threshold in the retail market. The wholesale product must be priced so that any competiting licensed operators are able to provide a similarly priced retail product and make a reasonable rate of return.”
June 15th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Figured that at 2.18pm that would’ve been the case:
http://boycottbatelco.com/?p=55#comment-810
June 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
http://www.batelco.com/news.asp?ArticleID=1266
“Batelco would like to clarify that it is not holding any payments for the BD10 package ”
^^^^
Meaning : oops, we didn’t get any money and we even if we did, we don’t know!
Translation : HAHA WE GOT YOUR MONEY!!!111
“Batelco continues to be concerned as to why the TRA now will not approve this lower priced internet package which will benefit consumers in the Kingdom of Bahrain.”
Translation : Blame the TRA.
“Batelco encourages consumers to directly appeal to the TRA if they want better and lower prices for internet and other services.”
I suppose all this crying for unlimited bandwidth packages is not considered appealing?
Bah, :P.
June 15th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
We all know about the yellow journalism that happens in Bahrain so Al Hilal/tradearabia’s report isn’t anything new, the don’t do some research first before issuing their news but the following statements made by Batelco looks as being very irresponsible and ingorant:
“Batelco continues to be concerned as to why the TRA now will not approve this lower priced internet package which will benefit consumers in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Batelco can only conclude, that whilst the BD10 retail offer meets the cost criteria under the Telecommunications Law, the TRA’s action is primarily aimed at preventing Batelco from offering this product, and from effectively competing in the market.”
Batelco conveniently doesn’t bother telling the public or the press about the concenrns raised within the Reccomendations Report issued in April this year by the 2006 TRA Development Panel chaired by Prof. Martin Cave, Director of the Centre for Management under Regulation at the Warwick Business School and two panel members who are Mr. Ian Martin, Senior Telecommunications Analyst at ABN AMRO in Australia, who is also a returning member, and Mr. Robert Bruce, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Digital Strategies at the Tuck School of Business in Dartmouth, United States of America.
One of the specific advisories that resulted from the report was that the TRA should not approve Batelco’s 10BD package until 2 main conditions were met:
“Hold in abeyance proposed 256 kb/sec (2 gb) DSL offering for 10 BD as “too limited in speed” and potentially market
pre-emptive pending (1) substantial completion of 3.5 Ghz fast track procedure and (2) implementation of wholesale
business unit reform outlined”
(1) refers to the “Fast Track” for Spectrum Initiatives:
• Need for “fast track” procedure to deal with certain issues in spectrum policy consultation—3.5 Ghz FWA and “light
license” WiFi
• Assign 3.5 Ghz licenses for wireless local access as supplement and alternative to wholesale wire-line loop access
(2) refers to the Current Challenges Faced with the Regulation of Batelco:
• Prioritize the implementation within Batelco of wholesale business unit consistent with good practice in competitive
markets—with adequate staffing and commitments to regular reports on agreed performance indicators
• Refine and finalize RAO offerings to be effective not later than June 30, 2006 that are responsive to actual and
“immediate” business requirements of current entrants
• Rigidly enforce equivalence of wholesale inputs to Batelco and new entrants
June 15th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
The fact is simply this: Batelco’s desparate to make a case, any case to defend itself and repair it’s image.. as far as I can see it, they’re digging a deeper hole than they did 1 month ago, and I think this one will go wayyyyy deeper.
They’re like: What the heck, we got our image tarnished, we’re being slapped with an Access Order later this month, we might as well tick the TRA off while we’re at it and launch the 10BD package!
Anyway, the facts remain clear: Batelco disobeyed the law (this time officially and all) and for this they should be mistrusted at all times. They are the ones who are not allowing competition, in which all will compete and provide the best prices and services they can give to the consumer.
Don’t you notice Batelco is living in another planet?? Aren’t they aware of the Law? Aren’t they aware that they have to obey it as well? Don’t they know they are tons of competitors in the marketplace?? and what do they do?? play the hard way and sue the TRA??!!! They’re simply out of their minds!