At the beginning of the year, GT&T indicated that they would be offering a reduced fare structure for some overseas destinations for a minimum of three months. On the face of it, the reductions offered appeared to be quite acceptable. When we at the Guyana Consumers Association and Consumers Advisory Bureau however analysed the offering, we concluded that consumers were being short-changed.
We came to this conclusion because of the following:-
(1) GT&T already offers an off-peak overseas rate for $40 per minute which is not very different from what they are now propagating as a new gift.
(2) GT&T’s offering to be realistic should have been at least lower than the rates of the internet cafés.
GT&T makes a profit from the internet cafés which in turn make a profit for themselves. We believe that had the PUC pressed GT&T, they would have dropped the rates to a realistic level and not charged the high rates they are offering as an alleged “promotion.”
(3) GT&T’s offering compels the landline user to pay more than the cellular user for the same allegedly reduced rates. All telephone users should be treated alike and there is no justification for this high charge on landline consumers.
(4) In these allegedly reduced rates, the consumer must pay a high rate for the first minute, several hundred per cent more than the other minutes. There could be no justification for treating the first minute differently from the other minutes except to exploit the consumer.
(5) The offer by GT&T covers only 86% of outgoing calls. The other 14% must pay the high rates. The Guyana Consumers Association and Consumers Advisory Bureau reiterate that no group of consumers should be discriminated against and this discrimination against consumers who use the other 14% is unacceptable.
(6) GT&T have already indicated that they would be raising landline rates if or when their monopoly on overseas calls is removed. We suspect that GT&T are using this ‘promotion’ as one of their first gambits in increasing landline rates. The Guyana Consumers Association and Consumers Advisory Bureau feel that landline rates cannot be facilely increased without a proper enquiry, as the landline has been subsidizing both the cellular and out-bound systems.
We are of opinion that GT&T should withdraw their unsatisfactory offering and come up with an offering which is far lower and more realistic. And the PUC may be able to help in the process of serving consumer interests.
In their letter to the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission GT&T includes:-
Table 1
Promotional Landline Subscription Plan International Outbound Retail Rate to Selected Destinations
(Rates Shown do not include VAT)
Table 2
Proposed Promotional Non-subscription Rates International Outbound Retail Rate to Selected Destinations
(Rates Shown do not include VAT)
The note to Table 2 states
1. “For all calls, the first minute will be charged at the existing tariffed rate. The second minute and all minutes thereafter will be charged at the promotional rate.”
Then there is an explanation.
“While landline customers can, by opting to pay the additional monthly fee, capture the benefit of the lowest possible peak and off-peak rates, they are not obligated to do so.
As a result, consumers can decide, based on their own calling patterns and budget, what makes sense for them. All other customers of GT&T (and Digicel), landline or cellular, derive an immediate and without obligation benefit of lower rates to these selected destinations, and simple mathematics will show that as the customer talks longer, their average per minute rate will decrease. Below is a typical example of what GT&T and Digicel consumers would save.”
5 mins call to USA Existing rate (Peak) Proposed Rate (Peak)
Rate $100.00 $90.00 1st Mins
$30.00/mins thereafter
Charge $5.00.00 $210.00
Saving: $290.00
Percentage Savings: 58.00%
The Public Utilities Commission should have held a public hearing before acceding to GT&T’s request.
