I chose to highlight this aspect as a violation of so called “corporate ethics”.
First, let’s see what Airtel has to say about itself on it’s home page and then compare it what it is doing on ground.
The vision for Bharti’s mobile business is:
“To be globally admired for telecom services that delight customers.”
It further wants to scratch it’s back and on another link ( about Bharti) it says:
Bharti Tele-Ventures Limited , a part of Bharti Enterprises , is India’s leading provider of telecommunications services.
Anyways, it’s disheartening “such” a telecom company is indulging in a legalised loot; Airtel was asked to refund the excess amount collected as “clip charges” in a CLEAR VIOLATION of TRAI ORDER which prohibited it from doing so. According to a news report published ( source) it says:
TRAI had received a consumer complaint from an Airtel subscriber of Andhra Pradesh (AP) stating that CLIP charges were doubled from Rs 25 to Rs 50 shortly after he had enrolled himself for Airtel services.
The Authority took up the matter with the service provider in the light of the provisions of TTO as per which subscriber has the right to avail the service at the chosen price level for six months.
Such excess CLIP charges levied from subscribers have been refunded except in the case of 178 subscribers of AP Circle.
TOTAL REFUND MONEY INVOLVED IS Rs 26.72 LAKHS.
Thats a cost of a Brand new Mercedes!
Did Airtel think that it could get away? What prompted it to levy such charges? Mercifully, the “regulator” did it’s job; still I hold that it’s ineffective step. Why shouldn’t Airtel be penalised for what it has been doing all these days? I am sure that this must have been highlighted in the local press for else TRAI doesn’t act unilaterally.
In any case, CLIP charges are a potential revenue source earner for the mobile companies. It costs them nothing to display the mobile number on the screen. Yes, it costs them nothing.
Is Sunil Bharti Mittal, “the so called leader” listening? Anywhere else this would have been a slap on the face for a company that professes “ethics” but goes on with an intent to line it’s pockets in a clear cut violation of the laid rules.