In the world of business, it is common sense that you get what you pay for.
When parents thought they found a bargain and bought toy jewelry made in China, some children ended up playing with charm bracelets and pendants that turned out to contain cadmium, a cheap toxic metal, as a substitute for lead, another toxic metal that manufacturers knew they could no longer get away with. In the end, the quality of the product was so low that the price savings to the consumer were not worth it.
The same concept holds true for telecom services.
Brand-mimicking shanzha (“bandit”) cellphones are never as sturdy or stable as the originals like Apple Computer Inc’s iPhone or HTC Corp’s Diamond smartphone. Pirate handset users can testify that the quality is inferior, even though some users may be satisfied and say the non-branded phone’s features are “good enough” because they consider the genuine product too expensive or too complicated.
Thus after the National Communications Commission (NCC) rolled out a rate reduction plan last week for the nation’s telecom carriers set to begin in April, the regulator must pay further attention to quality.
Compared to the commission’s 2007 rate cuts of 5.35 percent and 4.9 percent respectively for fixed and mobile telecom services, the suggested rate cuts announced last Wednesday were slightly larger at 5.686 percent and 5.87 percent respectively for the retail rates of fixed and mobile services next year after factoring in inflation in the previous year.
The regulator’s recent rate cuts sound reasonable compared with the legislature’s and the Consumers Foundation’s request for an eventual 50 percent and 44 percent rate cut for the services over the next three years.
Operators have been handed reasonable profits to fund their operation and no public utility business is expected to be highly lucrative. With that in mind, it is reasonable to offer rate cuts to consumers.
Nevertheless, quality must not be sacrificed.
For the time being, five major domestic telecom operators — Chunghwa Telecom, Taiwan Mobile, Far EasTone Telecommunication, Vibo Telecom and Asia Pacific Telecom — have all opposed the commission’s rate cut plan, threatening to implement self-imposed rate cuts at a smaller scale despite a fine of up to NT$5 million (US$157,282) each.
Their opposition is understandable since the cuts will eat into profits. Three publicly traded telecom operators — Chunghwa Telecom, Taiwan Mobile and Far EasTone Telecommunication — suffered a 12.64 percent decline in revenues, or NT$25.8 billion, over the past three years after the commission enforced the first rate cut in 2007.
However, one of the companies’ arguments against the rate cut does not add up: They complained that their research and development efforts in higher-end wireless services would suffer if the rate cut puts a squeeze on their profits.
Such research and development issue is part of a company’s internal investment strategy for long-term sustainability; it is not part of the service they are offering current customers, so why should customers accept an increased rate?
Until the new technology is launched and applied successfully, no consumers should have to pay higher rates for services they cannot even subscribe to yet.
After all, it is also common sense that businesses cannot expect consumers to pay for what they don’t get.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS