For a time we swore not to write negative things about the country’s pioneer telephone company – the Philippine Long Distance Co. (PLDT), Inc. This we did after our experience with a previous landline disruption which lasted for almost a month before it was acted upon. We were then forced to take it up in our column because apparently our calls for repairs were not acted despite the fact that we were never delayed in the payments of our monthly dues on this particular number – 237-2169 installed in our rural residence in Barangay Talandang, Tugbok district.
After the issue came out in this column the telephone firm sent us a highly qualified technician who changed our receiver unit. The guy was very courteous and he even told us to call him directly should we have problem again in our telephone connection. That was over a year ago.
Towards the end of the fourth quarter of last year our PLDT connection conked out again. We cannot call as the dial tone keeps on steady. Friends and our column readers who called us on the above number claimed that our telephone just keep on ringing but no one answers. Meaning, the ring is not audible so we really have no way of knowing that calls have been made.
Because of this condition every time we go to the downtown area we find ways to call PLDT to manifest our complaint. Usually we use pay phones or go to friends’ or acquaintances’ residence to make our call to PLDT. Our youngest daughter who works with an Aboitiz subsidiary company made several calls. But she was only up to the designated numbers with recorded instructions. By the time she reached the number supposedly devoted for complaints calls the number becomes busy.
Actually we were tempted to call directly the technician who earlier did the repair in our unit. However, we resisted the temptation as we know companies, telecommunication firms included, have rigid protocols in customer interactions especially when it has something to do with its services. And we do not want to break any such policies.
However, we feel that our almost five months wait for the PLDT to address our complaint is already too long. So we tried to seek some favor from a close friend of our niece working with the telecommunication company hoping that the said PLDT personnel could help us.
But it’s been two weeks since we were told our problem was already referred to the proper department. Yet, as of the writing of this column no PLDT personnel has come to our house despite the fact that we were asked to give a specific location of the area complete with identifying markers.
Now we are starting to believe that our case is one of the negative outcome of automation where the complaining subscribers can hardly have any personal interaction with those they are hoping to respond to their complaints.
Yes, as far as our personal experience, reaching PLDT takes too lonnnnnnnnnnnnng a time as if there is no end in the cyber distaaaaaaance. If the PLDT landline is not only critical to our job as opinion writer we could have long discarded our subscription with the telephone company. Or, possibly we could have already changed service provider. Unfortunately, here in Davao, PLDT does not have any credible competitor in the business. So, we are always at its mercy. And we supposed we are not alone on this predicament.
******************************
Now they are at it again. Meaning the sudden floating of a report that the International Court of Justice (ICC) has already issued the Warrant of Arrest for former President Rodrigo Duterte. And the “floated” story was picked up by certain newspapers with national circulation and by radio and television networks. Above all, it was carried with utmost speed by the various platforms of the social media.
Which political camp could have floated the supposed issuance of an ICC arrest warrant? And which camp has benefitted immensely by the coming out of the story? Is the camp that appeared to have earned the most advantage in the warrant issuance story the source?
Meanwhile, the reported issuance of the arrest warrant and the supposed serving of the same to the former President have jibed with two incidents, one of which was some kind of intriguingly coincidental. The first was the travel of the former chief executive to Hongkong together with his daughter Vice President Sara. The second was the sudden swarming of policemen members of the Regional Mobile Force Battalion at the vicinity of the Davao International Airport on the very same day that the reported arrest order was to be served.
On the first event it cannot be denied that the reception of Duterte’s Hongkong visit cum campaign activities gained a lot of attention and even attendees of Filipinos in that former British colony. The former President was supposed to be arrested in that territory. Of all places, a city that is under China where Duterte is very likely to be assured of maximum protection from a friendly government.
On the Police Mobile Force “invasion” of the Davao Airport building vicinity, what a coincident was it that such simulation exercise to test police readiness for any eventuality, happened on the very day of the reported serving of the warrant.
And what did the police get from that simulation exercise but suspicion that it was part of warrant service process.
Then this report, again published in a mainstream national newspaper and picked up by the social media. According to the report some 7,000 policemen are mobilized for the arrest of the former President. Are the 7,000 intended to facilitate the arrest, assess, or secure the arresting agents? How ridiculous? Seven thousand armed policemen needed to arrest a single and ageing subject of the warrant?
Now who could have floated the story on the ICC warrant issuance? If it is the national administration, then it was one serious mistake and miscalculation. If the report emanated from the Duterte camp then clearly it was a product of one genius mind in strategy development.
But as far as we are concerned, we have an idea from whom.
-30-
