Once again, Flow cable television company seeks to make significant changes to its cable services to consumers in an amount and in a way that requires examination. Once it was the arbitrary changes in certain channels, and making it worse last year, a confusing explanation by the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (TATT).
This time, Flow, in a small 10cm x 10cm newspaper advertisement (July 25), crisply announces a "change in Cable tv Package Rates." And to find out by how much–assuming you have a computer and internet–you are asked to "visit" Flow's website, etc. Why is Flow allowed to behave so? In a sense, it is a "private" company but, for good reasons, it is regulated under the Telecommunications Act (No. 4 of 2001).
Given the laws as stated in this Telecommunications Act, I feel obliged to ask what is the TATT doing? First of all, there have been many complaints made against Flow services for a long time. So firstly, I now refer to Section 18 (q) of the Act, which clearly requires the Telecommunications Authority "to establish a consumer complaints committee to collect, decide on and report on consumer complaints." Publish the results beyond the cryptic version in its annual report.
But the real issue with Flow's rate increase and arbitrary channel changes (contract violation) arises with Section 18(4)(a), which states: "The Authority shall adopt procedures by which it will afford interested parties and the public opportunities for consultation." Such public consultation, made clear during the parliamentary debate, relates to proposed price increases and service quality. My interest in this section is extraordinary, in that when this Act (then Bill) was brought to Parliament by then Minister Ralph Maraj, as Independent Senator then, I pressed for having public consultation for consumers to raise any concerns or suggestions for service improvement, especially in the context of proposed cable rate increases.
Minister Maraj and his technocrats graciously accepted my proposal–now included as Section 18(4)(a) and otherwise in Section 22(3)(d)(e). Therefore, TATT should now hold such public consultation and make the required report to the Minister for consumer protection. Further, Section 21(10) requires the Authority to conduct a public hearing for Flow as a cable provider of over five years existence to explain its quality of service, consumer complaints, development plans, etc.
Overall, there is too much undue advantage being taken on this country's consumers now. If the TATT does not act, Section 19 gives the Minister the power to act in the public interest, that is, the voters. Hold the public consultation on rate increases and possible contract violations.
Editor's note:
Professor Ramesh Deosaran is a former Independent Senator