Service provider clients in the utilities and electronic communications category are now available where to choose but in the necessary choice made by them they must consider, First, quality of services related to utilities / communication and only in the subsidiary (not exclusive) tariffs related to the provided services.
Continuous supply to individuals and legal entities utilities (electricity, natural gas, drinking water, drainageetc.) and for electronic communications (Internet access, mobile and landline communication, TV programs – via coaxial cable, optical fiber or electromagnetic waves -, e-mail, SMS, etc.) represents for us, now, an increasingly large and profitable business, which creates for the involved suppliers and distributors a constant increase in income and profits, as well as for consumers an increasingly important cost that affects their standard of living.
The full privatization of the former public utility providers after 1989, and the diversification of new providers and the technologies they use, have removed serious old inconveniences associated with territorial monopolies of distributionme and with “slave customers” (depending on availability, configuration and parameters of various distribution networks). But they also diversified the characteristics of delivery services and distributed utilities/communications, as well as their tariffs and structures… Consumers of these services expected that the new private providers would first of all want to know and satisfy as much as possible their demands, needs and expectations of their customers/subscribers. But, unfortunately, they gradually discovered that they were satisfied with only some of the possibilities of the offered services client/subscriber requirementsthat some features requested by customers/subscribers are prohibited and that more and more features are satisfied exclusively interests of suppliers and distributorsespecially with the aim of reducing its operating costs, thus increasing its own revenues and profits.
Including, under the pretext of technological innovations… The proof of this is an extremely superficial assessment in our country (when and where it is assessed!), consumer satisfaction with these services – e.g. on a single issue (irrelevant in context to existing inconsistencies/deficiencies) “How likely you are to recommend our services to others?”. But on the Facebook pages of such providers – if they exist and are known about – you can find numerous messages, criticisms and complaints (which are sometimes answered superficially or not at all, unless they are deleted or blocked from the beginning). .
However, consumers in Romania can now fully enjoy their rights and, above all – compared to the situation before 1992 – the right have a choice and what he chooses (did not exist before 1992) – also applicable on the ground utilities and providers of electronic communications…
According to OG 21-1992 on the protection of consumer rights,
The recent liberalization of electricity and natural gas tariffs has driven consumers of these utilities almost exclusively to single-rate suppliers minimum (per kWh – for electricity or per cubic meter, mk, for gas) – and perhaps with more attractive commercial terms – but not for those who offer “quality” included and auxiliary services, that is, maximally satisfying the requirements of consumers. .. But unfortunately, we can find it there are more and more diverse situations where consumer requests for such services are not met or even rejected. Here are some examples:
I. Subscribers’ communication with affected providers’ personnel for this purpose (especially by email or telephone) becomes increasingly critical, lengthy, irrelevant, inefficient, ineffective, etc. (besides the fact that email addresses reported to subscribers are sometimes inactive, multiple or frequently changed) – by the abundance and ubiquity of first-party advertising (sometimes irrelevant, annoying and uncritical), through the generalization of telephone robots (or chat), lack of staff empathy, insufficient/inadequate responsibility and technical training of possible respondents, mismatch of written and verbal messages and relevant employees, inability of subscribers to communicate directly with responsible managers (their identification and location are not transparent), etc.
Some providers respond – e.g. to email inquiries (the preferred method due to the many benefits for subscribers) – after only 3-6 weeks (if they respond at all!), sometimes sending unnecessary interim messages to confirm receipt and the prospect of a response, but sometimes nothing at all without deciding!! Some refer to the 30-day response period (according to OG 27/2002 on the regulation of petitions) even though this provision is addressed exclusively to the public administration!!. And sometimes responses sent very late are also irrelevant (in context), partial, late, verbose, with spelling/grammar errors, and sometimes even nonsense! Apparently, the former fictitious socialist “cooperative”, named in an instructive and generalized way
II. Although every consumer has the right to see their monthly bill before paying it, although more and more consumers are opting for an electronic bill (a printed bill is still available on request for those without access to electronic communication), more and more providers are now refuse to send this invoice attached to the monthly issue notification message, forcing consumers to spend a lot of time searching for their own invoice on the supplier’s website (via the My… page), but it is sometimes not functional or poorly designed . Or it cannot be accessed from certain browsers, without informing the client owner! Lack of experience and empathy of programmers and vendor decision makers identified ignoring the real conditions/requirements of subscribers (under the influence of their experience, as well as the quality of everyone’s access to the Internet – a network in which frequent “congestion” / blocking / interruptions – or even non-functioning of the My… page of the provider, although they have entered/updated access credentials). Also, by design, this page does not allow, as a rule, to establish repeated and permanent sending,but automatically, invoicing to the subscriber’s email address! On purpose, probably!
III. Consideration of proposals/requests, messages and complaints received from subscribers is sometimes refused without the right of appeal, including and especially when the subscriber reports non-compliance with regulatory documents (for example, regarding the conditional sale of some goods/services) or requests the fulfillment of specific requirements or the performance of services/performances advertised but not actually available. Suppliers and distributors usually know better than their subscribers, how hard it works sometimes our authorities (ANRE, ANPC, ANCOM etc.) and how unpredictable, time-consuming and expensive our justice is, if they are asked to resolve such disputes. Consumer protection associations, which in other countries also mediate/facilitate filing, collection and resolution of consumer complaints in courts, should have intervened here. _
Read the entire article and comment on it at contributors.ro
Source: Hot News
James Springer is a renowned author and opinion writer, known for his bold and thought-provoking articles on a wide range of topics. He currently works as a writer at 247 news reel, where he uses his unique voice and sharp wit to offer fresh perspectives on current events. His articles are widely read and shared and has earned him a reputation as a talented and insightful writer.