Complaints about prices and the level of service from telecommunications companies are nothing new, nor are they restricted to this country. It seems that we all have a love-hate relationship with the companies that provide the services – specifically home broadband and mobile internet – that have become essential to our lives. While we can download a television show in a minute, it can take substantially longer to access customer service.
As The National reported yesterday, some customers of Etisalat and du are objecting to the lack of choice available from these telecoms providers, and say they are being forced to pay for services they do not use. Specifically, they are complaining about having to pay for the bundling of television and landline telephone services that they don't want with their broadband connections. Some customers said they were told they could not have broadband internet on its own, and some were told they would have to visit the provider's head office if they wanted to switch to a broadband-only package. Others were told that an internet-and-phone service could be provided, but only at a lower broadband speed than they required. This has been particularly frustrating for customers who know that a variety of options are available elsewhere in the world – and often at a lower cost.
Etisalat and du are, of course, a duopoly. When it comes to television and home-internet connections, they serve different areas, meaning that they are, in effect, monopolies. This situation will change, with the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority indicating that a new infrastructure-sharing agreement will enable competition at retail level. However, while there are just two players in any market, they only have to match each other's prices, products and service. It takes the entry of at least one more company to ensure vigorous competition and more choice for customers.
While such competition is unlikely in the near future, Etisalat and du still must pay attention to the public mood and offer products that are affordable and fit for purpose. History has shown that if any company builds up too much ill-will over time, customers will shift to competitors as soon as they get the chance.