As expected, Maltacom replied to my Talking Point (April 17) through their public relations executive, Grace Pace.
The purpose of my original article, `Phonemail - is it really free?`, was not to "dissuade customers of using the service". I am convinced that nowadays customers can make up their own minds.
The primary purpose was to highlight the fact that Maltacom`s imposition of this service to telephone subscribers is unethical. And whether the service is free or not or whether the service is God`s gift to the Maltese people (as Ms Pace seems to imply) or not, simply does not change this fact, and certainly does not give Maltacom the right to impose it on anyone.
`Phonemail` was introduced under the brand name of `voice mail` over a year ago. I remember receiving a letter from Maltacom ages ago urging me to subscribe to this service free of charge. At that time Maltacom had been more ethical in their behaviour and had given the customer a free choice. Customers at that time could phone Maltacom and have an answering machine activated on their telephone line.
I can think of only two reasons why Maltacom suddenly felt the need to impose this service on subscribers. One is that their marketing of the service last year was a flop, and it did not persuade the people that the service was beneficial to them. The second is that customers simply did not need the answering machine service.
Whatever the reason, Maltacom suddenly decided to impose the service. Probably they thought that "on the eve of the telecommunication deregulation" they might get away with it.
I, like the rest of the people, do not have a means of finding out if Maltacom`s claim that the service is entirely free is true or not, unless I can keep count of all the telephone calls I make from home, which is very impractical. But with the means at my disposal I can prove that Ms Pace`s claim that the service is completely free is not entirely correct.
I bought a brand new phone-card from Go Mobile which is a subsidiary of Maltacom and dialled my own home number with the receiver off the hook. I started getting charged after exactly 10 seconds from the time the machine message (in English) starts and even before the same message informed me that I could cut off. I then used my mobile phone again to dial my home (obviously without answering the home phone) and wait for the answering machine to answer me. Again I started getting charged after exactly 10 seconds which is before the voice message (in Maltese this time) told me I can cut off.
I also bought a brand new Lm2 public phone card with 38 units and tried the same thing from a public phone box. On these two instances I was again charged one unit every time. (One unit is equivalent to 5c3m). This will become even more frustrating to people calling from overseas, because they will be charged an overseas rate.
If people know about the 10-second lapse and they understand both English and Maltese, then they might avoid being charged. But what about the others? The tourists visiting our islands wanting to call a local number? Or foreign businesses wishing to contact companies in Malta? Or the illiterate, or people with no knowledge of English? The hard of hearing? Or even employees calling from government departments or from their place of work who would not be paying the phone bills themselves and would not care less about cutting off within 10 seconds?
And what about those people who simply do not want any messages to be left in their mail boxes? Why should these people have to call Maltacom to deactivate this service when it should have been the other way round?
I must also point out that the service is not as user friendly as Ms Pace claims to be, especially for people who do not understand English. The message informing the caller that the number they are calling is busy is in English and by the time the caller starts to understand or maybe waits until a translation in Maltese would follow, they will be charged.
On the other hand, the Maltese message given when a person does not answer the phone within 30 seconds (seven rings) will be entirely confusing to a foreigner and by the time they try to understand what this is all about they too would be charged.
And what about the elderly who might not be so fast in answering a call? They now have to answer their phone within 30 seconds otherwise whoever is calling them might think they are not in or that something has happened to them. They would therefore try to rush to try and answer quickly. This might result in unnecessary accidents.
Listening to one`s messages on 141 may be free for the person on the receiving end, but chargeable for the person leaving them. And that same person on the receiving end will become chargeable when he/she calls other numbers. And whatever Maltacom says, the aim of this service is to make more money, otherwise they would have to explain to their shareholders why they are wasting money on new equipment which does not bring any returns.
It is also interesting to point out that while I was experimenting and had my telephone line off the hook, I received at least 33 telephone calls on my home telephone. (I say `at least` because my box had reached its full capacity). Not a single person left any message. It took me just over 11 minutes to delete all the `ghost` messages from my line. Isn`t that a frustrating waste of time?
The aim of any commercial company is to obviously make more money and I am in no way criticising Maltacom for exploring new ways to achieve this aim. But so far as I know, when any new service is introduced on the free market, companies spend lots of money marketing this service trying to win customers over.
Why does it has to be different in Malta? Maltacom imposed this `service` on all the subscribers and now are trying to convince us that it is good for us. Something must be very wrong in Malta if things like this are allowed to happen and again I urge the authorities to stop this blatant abuse.
Ms Pace says Maltacom denies my claims that the service was introduced to customers without our `knowledge and consent`. Ms Pace should have used the word `imposed` and not `introduced`. Did Maltacom ask anyone`s consent to activate an answering machine on anyone`s phone line? Did we get this service because we applied for it? Where is the consent Ms Pace is talking about?
It is encouraging to notice that Maltacom feels it is their responsibility to offer customers optimum high-tech solutions on a regular basis and that the company has a drive focused on customer convenience.
Maybe Maltacom will not wait for competition to reduce the astronomically high overseas tariffs and make them at par with overseas rates in other countries. Above all Maltacom should refrain from imposing anything on its customers like they have done in this case.
Unlike Ms Pace, I am not employed by anyone to sing their song but am voicing a personal opinion in favour of the Maltese consumer. After all, if Maltacom are so convinced this service is so beneficial to us, why are they imposing it? Maybe someone more convincing than Ms Pace will enlighten me.