FLOW

FLOW’s Customer Statement Lacks Detail

Submitted by Bud Cal
Fair Trading Commission

Fair Trading Commission

It seems there is some truth in the saying that Barbadians are a bunch of timid people who prefer to grumble under their breath rather than speak out when confronted with injustices.

No wonder rather than support Ms Myrie for challenging the system, we were content to castigate her and assassinate her character with impunity. Since August, Flow no longer provides customers with the breakdown of the charges international or otherwise on their bills. I find it appalling that these retrograde changes have not been the subject of debate or protest given the number of persons and businesses who frequently use the international services of the company. Approaches to the Fair Trading Commission whose name should be changed to ‘Fear’ because of its seemingly fear of the utility company – as to whether this dramatic change in service to customers is legal has not been encouraging given the lukewarm responses received such as ‘the company say you can get the information on line or you can go to the company or any outlet and get the information’. When reminded that efforts to get the information from the company or the outlets were to avail and of the difficulty experienced in trying to access the information on line and the problems it would pose for senior citizens or the computer illiterate; the discouraging response from the commission charged with representing the interests of consumers was ‘but we are investigating the matter’. How pathetic!

Government is the largest user of telephone services in the country and I wonder how the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be able to satisfy the Auditor General without appropriate documentation ‘that the information furnished on the claim is correct in all particulars and that the computations, castings and validity of the claim have been verified’.

Tags:

63 Comments on “FLOW’s Customer Statement Lacks Detail”

  1. Adrian Loveridge December 19, 2015 at 9:09 AM #

    They have also withdrawn the REWARD points previoudly earned on residential bills without any notice, therefore effectively hiking up charges with no recourse by the customer.

    Like

  2. David December 19, 2015 at 9:26 AM #

    Is this a reaction by FLOW for having to reverse the earlier decision to charge $6 for a printed statement?

    Like

  3. Shaft December 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM #

    When you have a company that is the sole provider you’ll get slackness… Competition is urgently needed..! Not to worry Barbadians, competition is coming… …a 747 plane load of business people of Caribbean descendants are on their way from the UK, USA and Canada… …if Butch Stewart can do it we can also!

    Like

  4. David December 19, 2015 at 10:04 AM #

    It shall remain a puzzlement how LIME C&W FLOW or whatever it calls itself has been allowed to control the data market especially when deregulation of said market was touted as being the best for the consumer by encouraging competition.

    Like

  5. Anne December 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM #

    The more things change the more they remain the same. Gabby said it best. THE POLITICIANS ARE MAKE MOCK SPORT at the people. Only in this country can something like this occur.

    Like

  6. Anne December 19, 2015 at 10:19 AM #

    word should be making not make

    Like

  7. Vincent Haynes December 19, 2015 at 10:27 AM #

    Note the Auditor General’s comment that he is yet to receive documentation from many departments spanning many years,so MoF’s department’s tardiness will just be another one.

    We like it so…….

    Like

  8. David December 19, 2015 at 10:27 AM #

    @Anne

    Implied by you an acknowledgement the FTC is NOT an autonomous body. Something Jeff is likely to reject out if hand!

    Like

  9. Well Well & Consequences December 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM #

    How can the FTC handle this, I am sure FLOW is breaking all types of contractual agreements re best practices. Who will rein them in, government is not known for upholding consumer’s rights, but are famous for breaking civil rights themselves.

    It’s left to the consumers to let their displeasure known, in as loud a voice as possible. If no one says anything, so it will remain. No one should tolerate receipt and paying a bill that is not itemized, you have rights as a consumer to know what you are paying for.

    Like

  10. TheGazer December 19, 2015 at 11:19 AM #

    The difficulty to access the information online is a bit surprising. US companies have been trying their utmost to eliminate mailing bills to customers and to have them access their bills online. At logon for most of the sites I deal with, the first thing I encounter is a prompt for going paperless.

    Requests for payment for a paper statement are often used as an effort to drive customers towards paperless billing. It seems as if we there is a need to invest in software for billing, and to providing customer support.

    Like

  11. TheGazer December 19, 2015 at 11:28 AM #

    I wanted to paste a snipped from one of my bills where it shows the company is always offering me the option to go paperless. (A picture)

    Like

  12. balance December 19, 2015 at 4:01 PM #

    commerce and Small Business Development

    Role of office of Public Counsel

    The Office of Public Counsel has a mandate to protect and promote the individual and collective interests of domestic consumers of utility services.
    The post is structurally separate and distinct from the Fair Trading Commission to ensure that the Office is able to act independently and provide effective representation of consumer interests.
    The primary role of the Office is to represent the interests of domestic telephone, electricity, water, gas and transport consumers in utility regulation matters before the Fair Trading Commission and in appeals from decisions of the Commission. Domestic consumers are a vulnerable market who need robust and impartial representation of their interests.
    The Office will also assist individual consumers taking proceedings before the Fair Trading Tribunal on matters related to the proposed Consumer Guarantees Act. The Consumer Guarantees Act will replace the Sale of Goods Act in respect of consumer transactions and will detail the rights and remedies of consumers in consumer contract transactions. Although the Fair Trading Commission will enforce the provisions of the proposed Consumer Protection Act, the proposed Consumer Guarantees Act will not be enforced by the Fair Trading Commission but will rely on action being taken by private consumers.

    Utility Regulation

    The work of the Office in utility regulation matters includes the following:

    (a) ensuring that the interests of domestic consumers are taken
    into account in the price control review process, at rate hearings and in any determinations on quality of service;

    (b) assisting domestic consumers in presenting arguments at price control reviews or rate hearings;

    (c) representing domestic consumers at hearings before the Commission relating to complaints on billings and standards of service; and

    (d) advising and educating domestic consumers on the provisions of the Utilities Regulation Bill.

    The establishment of this department will therefore ensure that the
    information presented at reviews and hearings before the Commission are more effectively and critically examined and that the consumer’s view is fully taken into account in any determinations made by the Commission.
    The Office of Public Counsel will also aid in the streamlining of utility regulation hearings before the Commission, by promoting compliance with procedural rules and encouraging objectors on similar topics to combine their submissions.
    Although it is expected that the quasi-judicial adversarial method of rate-setting will change with the introduction of incentive compatible mechanisms, such as price caps, the Office of Public Counsel will continue to play a role in representing domestic consumer interests in the consultative process.

    Consumer Protection

    The role of the Office of Public Counsel in consumer protection matters includes:

    (a) advising and educating consumers generally on matters relating to the proposed Consumer Guarantees Act; and

    (b) representing individual consumers bringing civil claims under the Consumer Guarantees Act before the Fair Trading Tribunal where Public Counsel deems this necessary or desirable.

    The Office of Public Counsel will be unable to represent every individual bringing a claim before the Fair Trading Tribunal, as this would require the allocation of greater financial resources to the Office. It is expected therefore that Public Counsel will represent individual consumers in matters that are of general public interest or significance and would set a useful precedent.
    Public Counsel will be expected to assume a high level of responsibility and public accountability. The officer is a legally qualified officer appointed by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission and must be an attorney at law of not less than 10 years standing.

    Like

  13. Well Well & Consequences December 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM #

    Yeah…but does the public counsel actually do anything. Someone approached the Ombudsman, Valton Benn recently to ask a question, he directed them to the same court now trying to untangle all that mess, what does Benn do for taxpayers money.

    Like

  14. Colonel Buggy December 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM #

    Shaft December 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM #

    Monopolies such as Flow, should take note of the almost sudden plunge of the price of local cement from $26 .00 to $17.44 per bag.

    Like

  15. balance December 20, 2015 at 5:06 AM #

    “Colonel Buggy December 19, 2015 at 5:32 PM #

    Shaft December 19, 2015 at 9:56 AM #

    Monopolies such as Flow, should take note of the almost sudden plunge of the price of local cement from $26 .00 to $17.44 per bag.”

    Greed is contagious and I would not be naïve to believe that that price would remain the same when the back of Arawak is broken. By the way, will this new speculator we hail as a messiah in cement price reduction absorb the workers displaced by the closure of Arawak?

    Like

  16. Artaxerxes December 20, 2015 at 8:23 AM #

    According to a source at the FTC, the Commission has been receiving calls relative to FLOW’s decision not to give customers an itemized bill, as was done previously, giving details, for example, of the overseas telephone numbers, duration of calls and amount charged.

    I was told that FLOW DOES NOT have to give customers an itemized bill, since information pertaining to call details can be accessed on line from their web-site. An itemized bill is considered a “luxury.”

    Like

  17. David December 20, 2015 at 8:28 AM #

    @Artax

    Was there communication around the decision by FLOW to show a summary format of billing?

    Like

  18. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right December 20, 2015 at 8:32 AM #

    @ Artaxerxes

    What sort of buhkvunt answer is that the FTC is giving

    Mrs Headley muddah chunt in Baxters road nevah evah see a cuntputer in she effing life and de Fear Trading Commission led by dat Griffith shy.te saying what?

    “…information pertaining to call details can be accessed on line from their web-site..!!!

    Whd de mudda feamle rabbit I hearing doah!!! Dat is why all uh dem got S effing 6 Galaxies

    Dem want tuh get bulled fuh de 30 pieces of Silver dem tekking… widout effing grease!!

    Wunna lucky dat i gine church dis morning cause if I did was not De Blogmaster wudda had was to ban me fuh 25 years or life whichever I demit the first.

    Where Jeff?

    Like

  19. John Everatt December 20, 2015 at 10:08 AM #

    I have been trying to get an itemized printed invoice from FLOW for 2 months now. I have been promised this after dealing extensively on the phone with their call center but as of this date have not received the promised invoice. As a customer I have no alternative other than to pay what they say I owe them without knowing what I am paying for. I switched to Columbus when they first arrived on island in order to get away from LIME. Now I have no choices as there is no competition. The FTC has obviously made a grave error in allowing C&W to have a monopoly again. And the entire population of this island is in the same boat that I am.

    Like

  20. balance December 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM #

    I too share your pain Mr Everatt for I too have been trying to get an itemized invoice from Flow for two months as well but have been unable to do so. On reflection though, for some time now the landline service providers have been using their monopoly of service to take advantage of customers who, though seemingly uncomfortable with the level of existing service judging from the many half-hearted expressions of disgust, seem none the less to prefer to suffer in silence rather than take the fight to the mercenary company. Contempt for the customer and the Office of Public counsel and the Fair Trading Commission is evident in the length of time it takes the company without penalty to respond to complaints from these two bodies entrusted with the responsibility of guaranteeing the rights of consumers against this insensitive -to the needs of the customer-disgraceful utility provider. Visits to the company to resolve complaints are tedious and time consuming and sometimes to no avail. They cut off your service with impunity without informing the customer the outcome of complaints lodged. No one seems to be able to hold the company accountable for the disdainful manner in which customers are treated. I am calling on organisations to launch a protest against the company at their Headquarters to demand better service before it goes from bad to worse.

    Like

  21. balance December 20, 2015 at 11:53 AM #

    “I was told that FLOW DOES NOT have to give customers an itemized bill, since information pertaining to call details can be accessed on line from their web-site. An itemized bill is considered a “luxury.”

    So was I Arta; so was I. but I have been also told that the problem is that Flow since taking over from Lime does not have the wherewithal to produce itemized bills.

    But Arta, there is no “luxury” in business. The only “luxury” in this instance could be that the provider and the customer knows from the outset that the cost of the landline service is X and to that they must both adhere until the contractual arrangements are changed.

    In law, there must be equity, otherwise particularly the uninformed or unsuspecting would be fleeced and surely you would not like that. There is case law somewhere which obligates the devil to seek out to whom he is indebted and pay him. Equally, a company is obligated to ensure that a customer ought to be aware of what he is paying for.

    Are we not stirring up a hornet’s nest and treading on dangerous ground when we allow a company to view the right of a customer to be made aware of what he is paying for to be a “luxury”.

    What happens when all other providers and businesses follow this retrograde step.
    By the way Arta; I have been told that the problem is that the Flow since taking over from Lime does not have the wherewithal to produce itemized bills.

    Like

  22. David December 20, 2015 at 12:13 PM #

    Unless Flow or whatever it calls itself is directed to itemize transactions pursuant to the consumer protection act or some other on the shelf legislation WE the consumers will continue to suck salt.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Well Well & Consequences December 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM #

    Yep….FLOW = Wolf at your door.

    Like

  24. David December 20, 2015 at 6:16 PM #

    Blog amended on the request of the author.

    Like

  25. Artaxerxes December 21, 2015 at 10:16 AM #

    David December 20, 2015 at 8:28 AM #

    @Artax: Was there communication around the decision by FLOW to show a summary format of billing?”

    Apparently FLOW’s contract (please don’t ask me what contract, ask those at Consumer Affairs) states although the company MUST send the customer a bill, the bill does not have to “descriptively detailed.”

    And as long FLOW can satisfy the requirement that customers can access their accounts on-line to view their call details, everything is good to go.

    Like

  26. balance December 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM #

    “Apparently FLOW’s contract (please don’t ask me what contract, ask those at Consumer Affairs) states although the company MUST send the customer a bill, the bill does not have to “descriptively detailed.”

    And as long FLOW can satisfy the requirement that customers can access their accounts on-line to view their call details, everything is good to go.”


    The word ‘apparently’ is instructive. Am I to understand then that telephone providers prior to Flow and the Barbados water authority and the Barbados light and Power were doing customers a favour by giving them a descriptive detail of charges on their bills.

    How long did this requirement came in force?

    Like

  27. Artaxerxes December 21, 2015 at 11:02 PM #

    @ balance

    Rather than trying to quote me “verbatim,” in an effort to disprove my comments, perhaps you should conduct your own research. I find many people on BU try to suppress us (in Bajan terms, with what they feel, rather than with what they know as a fact).

    Although I am prepared to “stick” to my contribution, I will not reveal everything my source told me for two reasons;

    1) my source is a close and intimate relative who, similarly to those of you who will post to BU and write shiite under anonymity and expect to earn a legitimate living in this island, they expect to do likewise.

    2) I am not prepared to divulge any more information that will place their job in any jeopardy.

    Sometimes, under some particular circumstance, it is better for you to accept a fact as it is rather to try to force some type of agenda. If the tables were turned, obviously you will do all that is necessary to protect your interest.

    Please afford me the convenience of doing similarly.

    Once again, if you are not satisfied with my comments, please conduct your own research, or move on.

    Like

  28. balance December 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM #

    I was not nor am not trying to quote you to disprove your comments. I am only borrowing some of your expressions to embolden my efforts to wage a war against what I see as another injustice perpetrated by an out of control multinational against ‘we small island people’ for whom those in their board-rooms have little respect and I have no apology to make other than for apparently mashing your corns. Surely, I would not want you to divulge any information to place anyone’s job in jeopardy but this begs the question- Why should any one’s job be placed in jeopardy if they are doing their job? Am I to believe then judging from timidity shown by persons of these accredited organisations when complaints are drawn to their attention that they are indeed under siege? If the laws governing the regulation of Utility companies is lacking with respect to such issues as sending customers itemized bills then there is nothing confidential about the Fair Trading Commission saying their hands are tied in this regard allowing for further debate for strengthening the laws in the interest of the customer but shite or no shite I feel strongly about this issue otherwise I would not have raised it. Apart from that; I have no agenda. When I raised the issue; I did expect support from your pen and others who under anonymity post strong views on issues which they feel impact negatively on the lives of ordinary Barbadians. . Frankly, I am disappointed with your wishy washy response.

    Like

  29. ac December 22, 2015 at 6:09 AM #

    very interesting debate between art and balance .As a customer i am in full agreement with balances comments
    However unless there is a required state law for actionable compliance for companies to itemized bills they are in the clear of having not to do so
    There is law! but there is also a action of moral duty directed by conscious that companies owe as a debt to consumers, as in this case Flow negates that a moral duty to customers is not their best interest but rather see their financial duty to their company interest as their best suit

    Like

  30. David December 22, 2015 at 6:47 AM #

    This is an issue about what is fair and reasonable in the minds of Bajans. Do Barbadians want their telecommunications bill itemized? Is there room within the four walls of the consumer protection act to demand it by Public Counsel? If the law is ambiguous on the matter is it an item for the law makers to fix? As a people we have to demand what we want and pressure the policymakers to act. Bear in mind laws are enacted that are deficient and will have to be fixed based on impact.

    Like

  31. ac December 22, 2015 at 7:21 AM #

    How many bajans including You David BU has an understanding of these laws . ac take note that BU would spend unlimited time fight those issues that are political motivated but little time finding time to sieve through issues such as legislated laws that affect the consumer
    Maybe in the coming year BU would show more concern on advocacy that advocate fighting for laws that would enhance and empower the public well being and avoid the “rush to judgment” appeal that resonates among yardfowls here on BU

    Like

  32. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 7:48 AM #

    balance December 22, 2015 at 4:36 AM #

    Yes, some people are timid, even the police.

    It is a known fact that this administration has been “waging war” against public sector employees. They have placed their cronies in strategic positions to basically to keep people in check if they, in their opinion, commit any act that may be interpreted as being “anti DLP.” Chairmen/women of statutory corporations are known to perpetrate this action. When was Monique Taitt was chairperson of NCF she was known to terrorize the staff; so too was Bispham of UDC (he had an office in the UDC and appointed himself as being responsible for issuing contracts) and there is David Durant at NAB, are just a few examples.

    As recent as Saturday I was in the company of a police sergeant who was reflecting on the direction in which this society was going and the indiscipline being exhibited by the youth. The sergeant also indicated that this indiscipline has also permeated the work environment and has found its way into the police force. They mentioned youngsters reporting for duty wearing dirty shoes and “rough dry” uniforms. If these young constables are asked to give reason why they looked unkempt, some respond by saying: you can’t tell me nuffing, because de minister send me here.”

    As it relates to your being “disappointed with (my) wishy washy response,” so what, who cares. I am not an employee or a representative of the FTC, and as such I cannot respond on the commission’s behalf. Hence, this fact invalidates your comment. If you “feel (so) strongly about this issue,” then perhaps you should send correspondence to the Ministry of Commerce, the FTC and any other associated organization outlining your concerns and wait for the appropriate response.

    I have stated that as long as FLOW can satisfy the requirement of customers being able to access their accounts on-line to view their itemized call details, (which I do not see as such a BIG PROBLEM), matter solved. The world is moving into a more developed computerized age and soon Barbados will also have to move in that direction or risk being left behind.

    The usual retort to issues such as these would be that senior citizens or people who do not have the internet would be at a disadvantage. However, their children or grand children have Samsung S6, BLU or Acatel android mobile phones or tablets with the facility to access the internet………. problem solved.

    Like

  33. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 7:53 AM #

    WW&C mentioned this on December 19.
    I see the theme keeps repeating itself, so what I say may simply be a paraphrase or a rehash of what others have already stated.

    I have not been the recipient of a bill and I do not know what is available online; but a good consumer should be able to monitor the outflow of cash from his pockets. An un-itemized bill is equivalent to sending out blank checks.

    I lack the sophistication to differentiate between an un-itemized bill and a rip-off. The opportunity for fraudulent billing is so obvious that this battle that should immediately be taken up by those in authority. The average Joe should not have to fight this battle.

    Like

  34. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 7:54 AM #

    *that this battle should

    Like

  35. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 7:58 AM #

    @Artax
    Protect your sources even if you are called names…

    Is an itemized bill available online?

    Like

  36. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 8:03 AM #

    ac December 22, 2015 at 6:09 AM #

    “As a customer i am in full agreement with balances comments. However unless there is a required state law for actionable compliance for companies to itemized bills they are in the clear of having not to do so. There is law! but there is also aN action of moral duty directed by conscious that companies owe as a debt to consumers, as in this case Flow negates that a moral duty to customers is not their best interest but rather see their financial duty to their company interest as their best suit.”

    You are guilty of “spending unlimited time fighting those issues that are political motivated,” since you always attach political connotations to EVERY ISSUE.

    I know how it is with you, and being the DLP yard fowl lacky you are, when you discover the underlying “relationship” between this DLP administration and FLOW relative to the itemized bill issue, you will be “singing a different tune.”

    Your support of balance’s comments will immediately go through the window as you will desperately try as best as is possible to defend the DLP’s position.

    Like

  37. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 8:12 AM #

    ac has solid proof that he/she is not a yardfowl. In looking at the times of his/her postings, the hour is a bit too early for yardfowls to be up 🙂

    Like

  38. Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM #

    The problem with FLOW goes way beyond them choosing NOT to itemise customer bills. The damn people have an arrogant disregard for stupid-ass Bajans full stop.

    Wunna think that they have not worked out that they can get away with ANY shiite bout here?
    Imagine they have a crew of ONE MAN, working ALONE, up on a pole in a narrow road. No one to direct traffic, no one to warn of danger, no support -if that crewman should fall and hurt himself…
    Imagine we have to endure long, child-like conversations with simple-minded jackasses in South America to report faults on our phones….. always with the same lame response and 20 digit ‘work order number’…
    Imagine these sLIMEs are allowed to FLOW into a single monopoly at a time when EVERYONE knows that market competition is the best way to ensure quality and price competitiveness…..instead, our politicians create a WOLF.

    Bottom line…. we MUST be ‘real-real’ brass bowl jackasses ..to have GIVEN such power to foreigners …and we are SO DAMN STUPID, that despite these experiences, we continue to look for MORE WAYS to find unscrupulous foreigners to screw us in more and more holes…
    Banking, Electricity, Food, Beer….

    Bajans are the ultimate in brass bowl idiocy…

    Like

  39. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM #

    TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 7:58 AM #

    “Is an itemized bill available online?”

    Yes, there are, all you have to do is to “sign on” to the FLOW website. I have been receiving my telephone bill via e-mail since about March this year, when the company was then known as LIME.

    But before those persons who are not versed in the art of comprehension interpret my comments to be in support of FLOW, I too support the issuing of itemized bills.

    Like

  40. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 8:25 AM #

    Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 8:16 AM #

    “Imagine these sLIMEs are allowed to FLOW into a single monopoly at a time when EVERYONE knows that market competition is the best way to ensure quality and price competitiveness…..instead, our politicians create a WOLF.”

    Exactly, Bushie, your above comments (especially: “our POLITICIANS create a WOLF)” ACCURATELY describes this issue.

    Like

  41. balance December 22, 2015 at 9:59 AM #

    Thanks Arta for re- stoking a fire which should ought not to be stuffed out.

    Like

  42. ac December 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM #

    Yet you have no qualms in stating an untruth that Flows actions falls under an unknown category to the consumer call “luxury” Art would please provide sufficient proof to your mouthings

    Like

  43. balance December 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM #

    “The usual retort to issues such as these would be that senior citizens or people who do not have the internet would be at a disadvantage. However, their children or grand children have Samsung S6, BLU or Acatel android mobile phones or tablets with the facility to access the internet………. problem solved.”

    Quite a valid retort Arta with the solution not as easy as we are led to believe judging from your above comment with respect to your reflections with the police sergeant about the indiscipline exhibited by the youth. Do we really expect these same youth to suddenly put aside their addiction with their technological toys and suddenly don the armour of righteousness to help their grandmothers and grandfathers access the internet. The youth of today in got no respect for God, man, woman or beast. They will tell them outright that ‘wunnah shouldn’t be pun no internet. Go and res wunnahselves nuh.”

    Arta, I think we have to take a stand. We cannot allow these multinational vagabonds to wipe their feet on us all the time just because they are providing us with a service we can’t provide.

    Like

  44. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM #

    ac December 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM #

    “Yet you have no qualms in stating an untruth that Flows actions falls under an unknown category to the consumer call “luxury” Art would please provide sufficient proof to your mouthings…”

    You are being your usual dishonest self by “stating an untruth” that I wrote “that Flows actions falls under an UNKNOWN CATEGORY to the consumer call “luxury.” I wrote information that was given to me by someone from the FTC. You are also implying that the individual is being “untruthful” as well.

    DLP parliamentarians feel much more comfortable in DLP environments explaining issues to DLP pimps and yard fowls. This is evidenced by the fact that information is revealed and explained at DLP constituency branch meetings, annual conferences and overseas branches of the DLP.
    Unlike me, you are close to the “action” and in a better position to ask Donville Inniss a question or two to solicit an answer from him.

    Since you stated I “have no qualms in stating an untruth that Flows actions falls under an unknown category to the consumer call “luxury,” can be interpreted as you having asked Donville Inniss and personnel from the FTC, who informed you an “untruth” was stated.

    Therefore, the ONUS is on you to “please provide sufficient proof to your mouthings…”

    And PLEASE, present the proof and NOT your usual rhetorical generalized statements.

    Like

  45. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 11:57 AM #

    Merry Xmas Artax. I was silly enough to wish a few Merry Xmas eseewhere and omitted your name. Merry Xmas

    Like

  46. TheGazer December 22, 2015 at 11:59 AM #

    *elsewhere.

    Like

  47. ac December 22, 2015 at 12:21 PM #

    Art are you fuh real. Hiding beneath the
    Cloak of the DLp ministers .really !asking ac to present proof as to what you stated. Sir your request goes beyond reasonableness and rationality
    Should i once again assumed that your intelligence has been broadside by your lack of ability to present credible arguments sufficient and plausible enough to sway ac on the position which you have taken in favour of Flow deceptive practices

    Like

  48. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 12:22 PM #

    balance December 22, 2015 at 11:38 AM #

    “Do we really expect these same youth to suddenly put aside their addiction with their technological toys and suddenly don the armour of righteousness to help their grandmothers and grandfathers access the internet.”

    Ask PUDRYR, he does always ask he grand childrun to help he post information pun BU.

    On a serious note, I agree with your comments re: “I think we have to take a stand. We cannot allow these multinational vagabonds to wipe their feet on us all the time just because they are providing us with a service we can’t provide.”

    How many of us, for example, can call the BRA or National Insurance (unless we know someone working at these offices) to ask about an income tax refund or a sickness benefit and receive a satisfactory answer, other than the cheques are being processed or are in the mail?
    As a tax payer, I cannot call the Transport Board to ask how many buses were “decommissioned” during the past 2 years. Nor can I call any statutory organization or access their web-sites for information relative to annual reports inclusive of audited financial statements.

    As Bushie always states, and rightfully so, we have allowed pertinent decisions about our future to be made in board rooms in foreign countries. The South Americans are now controlling our beverage and dairy products, which means they will ultimately control what we drink; we have to rely on the Canadians and Trinidadians for loans to purchase homes in our country, buy cars and other consumer products; Trinidadians are controlling warehouses, making sure we consume Trinidadian food products; Barbados Telephone Company/Cable & Wireless/LIME/FLOW have been doing shiite to us for years and we accept it as though it was candy; and successive governments have created monsters such as Sandy Lane, which are allowed to blatantly flout our labour laws, because “tourism is our industry.” And now this shiite administration gave Butch and his Jamaican employees 40 years of tax free concessions, just to brag that there is a Sandals hotel in Barbados.

    Pass in front the Cheapside Market any day and you will see a number of Guyanese outside ILLEGALLY SELLING produce, and we REFUSING to buy from our Barbadian counterparts who are vending legally inside the market.

    These things could only happen in Barbados.

    Like

  49. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 12:39 PM #

    Thanks, DeGazer, merry Christmas to you as well.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    More shiite coming from the poison pen of the AC consortium.

    As I stated in a previous post, you will desperately try as best as is possible to defend the DLP, and in true form, you have stuck to the script. Your comments are written in such a way so as to absolve the DLP of any blame in this matter.

    Again, you have been dishonest and untruthful by writing that I have taken a position “in favour of Flow deceptive practice,” since there is not anything in my contributions that would suggest or be interpreted as this being the case.

    Additionally, I wrote: (The below comments were meant specifically for people like you):

    “Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 8:17 AM #: But before those persons who are not versed in the art of COMPREHENSION INTERPRET my COMMENTS to be in SUPPORT of FLOW, I TOO SUPPORT THE ISSUING OF ITEMIZED BILLS.”

    All the shiite you gine write ‘bout my “intelligence has been broadside by your lack of ability to present credible arguments,” YOU wrote that I presented an untruth. Therefore, the ONUS is on you to present proof to substantiate your claim.

    It is that simple.

    Like

  50. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM #

    I wrote my information came from the FTC. You wrote I was being “untruthful.”

    The ONUS is on you to present BU with the information to prove my “untruthfulness.”

    Like

  51. ac December 22, 2015 at 2:01 PM #

    Art you are being disingenuous in your response the first part of your response give sufficient information that gives reason as to why the bills are not itemized
    However the second detail as to luxury veers of course in detailing and confirming where the information came from
    Be that as it may the word “luxury”should be co-joined with demonstrative action or reason as to why a luxury of any kind voids out the paper billing process of itemized statements
    ac finds it hard to belive that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation

    Like

  52. David December 22, 2015 at 2:36 PM #

    Oh shiirt!

    Like

  53. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM #

    You are continuing to make erroneous assumptions and wild speculations relative to my contributions and the information contained therein. This clearly demonstrates your inability to comprehend what anyone writes. The “mumbo jumbo” you spewed as an analysis of what I wrote is symptomatic of one who engages in “below the line thinking.”

    I clearly wrote: “Artaxerxes December 20, 2015 at 8:23 AM #: I was told that FLOW DOES NOT have to give customers an itemized bill, since information pertaining to call details can be accessed on line from their web-site. An itemized bill is considered a “luxury.”…..”

    Balance responded accordingly: “balance December 20, 2015 at 11:53 AM #: So was I Arta; so was I. but I have been also told that the problem is that Flow since taking over from Lime does not have the wherewithal to produce itemized bills.

    If I were to follow your line of thought, surely I have to assume you are implying Balance was being “untruthful” as well.

    Only someone who is not of reasonable thought would conclude that the two sentences in my above comments are mutually independent (i.e. the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of the other). It seems as though you read and interpret each sentence in a paragraph as being independent to the context of that paragraph.

    If each member of the legion “finds it hard to believe that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation,” it is your prerogative to ignore what was written and move on, rather than trying to engage in a useless and unnecessary tit for tat.

    However, the crux of the matter not lay in your “finding it hard to believe that that a source form the FTC would apply such wording for explanation,” it is the unpleasant emotion you are experiencing, caused by the belief that this DLP administration has given FLOW the “luxury” of NOT sending itemized bills to customers. I am not responsible for initiating policy for the Ministry of Commerce…. Donville is. Hence, you should apportion blame to whom it is due.

    Take example from what you wrote: “ac December 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM #: The truth of the matter that whether one wants to believe it or not, govt has a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that no failures occur with established rules and guidelines.”

    FINALLY, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RISE TO THE OCCASION AND ADD VALUE TO THIS “DISCUSSION” BY PRESENTING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO PROVE WHAT I WRITTEN IS SHIITE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO BE A “PSEUDO” ANALYST.

    Merry Christmas, and I hope that in 2016, “before (you) put pen to paper, do the necessary research so that you can give an unbiased analysis of what anyone writes in reference to any matters.” [Reproduced from AC, December 11, 2015 at 6:08 am]

    Like

  54. ac December 22, 2015 at 6:23 PM #

    Sir i also took full note of your comment where you specifically stated that the given source was the FTC in reference to your earlier comments on the issue
    Therefore i sent out a challenge to you for further clarification of the word “luxury ” and its application of the avoidance by Flow for paper billing which at present you have avoided.
    Sir if by chance you happen to stumbled upon or come across any laws or guidelines that give rise to a business using a termed inference of “luxury ” as an option where it is permissible to cease being transparent in its billing methods to the customer please post with immediacy
    I also would refer you to go back to the source the FTC just maybe they might be able to give you more clarification on the interpretation of the term “luxury” pertaining to its overall application and billing practices
    Having said all of the above ac would like to close out on a much happier and merrier note wishing you and your household a Happy Xmas

    Like

  55. Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM #

    @ Artax
    Reflect on this riddle….
    One day long ago, in a place far away, a fellow was seen arguing extensively with his donkey. When passers-by stopped to listen in, he was hears huffing and panting and trying to explain certain matters to the donkey… while repeatedly asking of the animal..
    “Are you an ass?”

    After some brief reflection, a bushman in the crowd led the fellow off to Jenkins….to clear braying / laughter from the ass…
    The problem was NOT with the donkey (…who IS after all, an ass), but with the poor chap …who expected too much of an ass…

    Like

  56. ac December 22, 2015 at 7:48 PM #

    Piss off bush shite yuh always sticking yuh stink mout up everybody rear end
    Who de hell is you to tell people how or what they should engage
    Yuh ole a.ss ripe fuh knocking over wid two big rocks
    Yuh need to mind yuh f..ing business
    Merry xmas ole boar

    Like

  57. Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 8:21 PM #

    @ AC
    Heehaw !!

    Like

  58. Artaxerxes December 22, 2015 at 10:25 PM #

    Bush Tea December 22, 2015 at 7:01 PM #

    “The problem was NOT with the donkey (…who IS after all, an ass), but with the poor chap …who expected too much of an ass…”

    Lol, point taken, Bushie.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Let me try one final time to explain this matter as simply as I could. Since the consortium likes to “talk” about “facts” and “truth” and refer to BU as the “COURT of public opinion,” I will use a simple scenario to illustrate my point.

    Unfortunately, Bob had reason to be in an area at the same time a crime was being committed. Jean, a witness to the crime, relied on her unfamiliarity of Bob as the main determinate in vaguely identifying him as the perpetrator of the offense and gave what she thought as the necessary details to the police.
    Acting on the information received, the police see Bob and after informing him of their suspicions, asks him to accompany them to the police station. In the interrogation process Bob is asked why he was in the vicinity, as well as to account for his whereabouts at the time the crime was committed. Not being satisfied with his responses, the police decide to caution him before placing under arrest and charging him on suspicion of allegedly committing the crime.

    Remember, Bob’s constitutional rights afford him a “presumption of innocence,” (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). In other words the state is required to prove his guilt, while relieving him of the burden of proving his innocence.
    Hence, ONUS is on the police and the prosecution to PRESENT the necessary EVIDENCE to the court, which would prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, he actually committed the crime.

    You wrote you “took full note of (my) comment where (I) specifically stated that the given source was the FTC in reference to (my) earlier comments on the issue.” And suggested I stated an UNTRUTH and found it “HARD to BELIEVE” my source gave me certain information.
    Since you accused me of being a liar, in keeping with the principle of “DUE PROCESS,” you have to PRESENT to BU, EVIDENCE to substantiate your claim and PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, I am GUILTY of presenting false information to BU.

    As it relates to your comment, re: “I also would refer you to go back to the source the FTC just maybe they might be able to give you more clarification on the interpretation of the term “luxury” pertaining to its overall application and billing practices.”

    I made a statement, and as such I do not have anything to prove or clarify. The ONUS remains with you to secure the relevant information from the FTC for your own clarification.

    Wuh suh hard ’bout dis you cahn understand?

    Like

  59. ac December 23, 2015 at 2:08 PM #

    How come the instigators and agitators both on the left and right of barbados political spectrum who regularly frequents BU has not voiced their appreciation on the Mahogany coconut article in which the writer has given BU a vote of confidence on its pristine accomplishment with added voices to impact the necessity for change on the political landscape

    Like

  60. David December 23, 2015 at 9:45 PM #

    Here is a question posed.

    Never did check the VAT on mobile services before. The question is since government needed to make legislative changes to increase the vat… Was the vat properly being charged in the first place.

    I wasn’t aware that vat was deducted from pre-paid service until very recently.

    Like

  61. pieter pieper December 30, 2015 at 10:32 PM #

    In commerce, where there is competition, the public benefits ! In its absence , the public is held hostage !

    Like

  62. Yatinkitessy January 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM #

    I had Lime for home phone and internet, and Flow for TV only . Both services were fibre optic . Then the famous merger came and that whole physical process was a mess that took over five months before the fifth technical crew could figure out what had to be done . That was Oct 15th. Since then I have been plagued with confusing bills from Flow, using my old and new account numbers, charging for the same services for the same time frames, and not crediting payments I made to the correct account. So , going into December I had a huge bill which had to be settled or I would be disconnected. I demonstrated to the clerk at their office in haggat hall that I had already paid the bill on the previous account with lime, and they agreed , but said that the accounts had not yet been merged, even though the services were, and that it was beyond their control.,So I paid the bill cash as their card machine was not working. ( no Barbados 10c stamp was put on the receipt by the way) I’ve now gotten another bill for the old account that shows a credit, and a new bill for the same service which I had to pay by Dec 31st or face disconnection. I’ve spoken to agents from both divisions of Flow, all with strange accents. None of them could resolve my problem . Monopolies are very bad for the consumer, and this is proving to be no different.

    Like

  63. David January 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM #

    Please refer the matter to Public Counsel.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: