Vendors could lose licences

By INDERIA SAUNDERS, Guardian Staff Reporter

inderia@nasguard.com

Phone card vendors will lose their business licence for selling GSM and TDMA cards under $20. Such a move will force consumers to buy at a higher price again but this time without the voucher incentives.

The public can no longer buy phone cards from any of the many locations all over New Providence, lower than the face value as vendors are saying the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC) has sent down a mandate making this illegal.

One of the many phone card distribution vendors said he now has to deal with angry customers as well as a drop in sales.

"When the cards were $17.99, sometimes I could sell over 100 cards, but now I sell [anywhere] from 70-80 cards," said the vendor. "Some people come here to buy [a phone card] but when they hear the price, they take their money back and plenty people want to row me."

A customer of this location, Gregory Butler, told the Nassau Guardian that he was especially saddened by this increase in price because there were no more "freebies given to sweeten the deal. Well, I have to buy it now even though it is $20, but I am disappointed because it went back up and you don't get anything in return either. I feel like I am getting robbed because they don't give you the six pack of sodas like they used to nor do they give you the free movie passes that encouraged me to buy the cards," he said.

But vendors say there is nothing they can do about it.

"Well a few weeks ago [BTC] said it was a breach of contract because [as they say] it was stated in the policies earlier on," said a representative from a local phone card distribution company.

"If we don't sell the cards at the $20 face value then this will result in Batelco revoking our licence agreement."

The representative admitted that she knew this would incite the customers but there was nothing that she could do about the rules and regulations that BTC has imposed on distributors. She said her company tried to make the transition easier for their customers by putting up signs before the official date concerning the price regulations to make the public aware of the change.

The Nassau Guardian tried repeatedly over the past week to get a response from BTC on why the mandate was issued, seemingly quite suddenly. The vendor representative said she did not know at this time if they would be giving the incentives that they had given in the past as the company itself is still adjusting to the price change.

"Right now we are just testing the market to see what situation we are in by looking at the sales."

this goes against commen sense and the law of business...a dollar is a dollar...who are these people at batelco...and what are they doing...a dollar is a dollar...you cant tell customers what to buy...they buy what they can afford...and if you dont have what they need they will go elsewhere...blame this on stifling competition and the closed shop tactics environment.

this goes against commen sense and the law of business...a dollar is a dollar...who are these people at batelco...and what are they doing...a dollar is a dollar...you cant tell customers what to buy...they buy what they can afford...and if you dont have what they need they will go elsewhere...blame this on stifling competition and the closed shop tactics environment.


Actually it doesn't. As you said, a dollar is a dollar. A $20 phone card, is designated for resale at $20. You must understand that the vendors do not pay $20 for each card when they get them in bulk, they pay a vendor discounted price.

If you are retailing a product at a "manufacturer's" set price, it is illegal to mark-up or mark-down the price to make a profit. I'm really surprised they took this long to restrain vendors from doing it.

The only way vendors would be able to change the proces of their cards, would be if Batelco decides to release the cards in "minutes value" instead of dollar value. But good luck with that.....

Am I correct in believing that the vendors were the ones who lost a little on the profit, or did Batelco lose money because everyone went to the vendors instead of them.

Am I correct in believing that the vendors were the ones who lost a little on the profit, or did Batelco lose money because everyone went to the vendors instead of them.


Vendors buy the cards from Batelco, they are not losing. The whole problem is that the cards must be sold for $20.00, plain and simple.

Actually it doesn't. As you said, a dollar is a dollar. A $20 phone card, is designated for resale at $20. You must understand that the vendors do not pay $20 for each card when they get them in bulk, they pay a vendor discounted price.
If you are retailing a product at a "manufacturer's" set price, it is illegal to mark-up or mark-down the price to make a profit. I'm really surprised they took this long to restrain vendors from doing it.
The only way vendors would be able to change the proces of their cards, would be if Batelco decides to release the cards in "minutes value" instead of dollar value. But good luck with that.....

but this is buying wholesale...that's what you explained...you pay for convenience...it een no different that buying sodas by the case to sell at a profit...people are in business to make money...it seems to me that batleco doesnt like the idea of Bahamian's make a way for themselves...and they feel that all the money should be going to them...hello!

I still like getting my six pack of sodas!!!!!!! or better still three cards for fifty dollars.

but this is buying wholesale...that's what you explained...you pay for convenience...it een no different that buying sodas by the case to sell at a profit...people are in business to make money...it seems to me that batleco doesnt like the idea of Bahamian's make a way for themselves...and they feel that all the money should be going to them...hello!


No, it's different. The sodas, for example, don't have a set price, or dollar value for retail. This is why you have such a varying price for the price of sodas. Some sell it for $0.50, some sell it for $1.00.

The phone cards have a set price/dollar value of $20.00. It's like paying $17.00 for $20.00 - shouldn't happen.

Like I said, if the vendors want a reasonable solution, BTC would have to issue the cards in minute value, not dollar value.

Batelco was afraid of competition, I guess BTC is the same.

But wasn't Indigo implementing telephone services by land lines?

No, it's different. The sodas, for example, don't have a set price, or dollar value for retail. This is why you have such a varying price for the price of sodas. Some sell it for $0.50, some sell it for $1.00.
The phone cards have a set price/dollar value of $20.00. It's like paying $17.00 for $20.00 - shouldn't happen.
Like I said, if the vendors want a reasonable solution, BTC would have to issue the cards in minute value, not dollar value.

Although I understand your business principle, I disagree with Batelco's position.

On a wholesale purchase vendors wouldn't themselves pay "cost price" for each item or good they will in turn re- sell. If that is the case it makes no sense being in business bcause what the hell would u then do for a profit in competition.

BTC would or should obviously be allowing vendors to compete in selling their cards even if the vendor chooses to discount the cost.... after all BTC is getting their money upfront. And if so it is then in turn up to BTC to put a selling ceiling price by which vendors are required to adhere to.... not a minimum selling price bcause after all BTC is still receiving their money upfront.... It is up to the vendor to recoup their sunk costs and achieve some level of profit once those costs are met. How the hell is it free enterprise and a competitive market if the market players (vendors) aren't allowed to compete? If anything BTC should encourage open competition and allow the dynamics of advertising and market factors to positively drive the demand for their product, I mean damn it seems common sense to me.

Although I understand your business principle, I disagree with Batelco's position.
On a wholesale purchase vendors wouldn't themselves pay "cost price" for each item or good they will in turn re- sell. If that is the case it makes no sense being in business bcause what the hell would u then do for a profit in competition.
BTC would or should obviously be allowing vendors to compete in selling their cards even if the vendor chooses to discount the cost.... after all BTC is getting their money upfront. And if so it is then in turn up to BTC to put a selling ceiling price by which vendors are required to adhere to.... not a minimum selling price bcause after all BTC is still receiving their money upfront.... It is up to the vendor to recoup their sunk costs and achieve some level of profit once those costs are met. How the hell is it free enterprise and a competitive market if the market players (vendors) aren't allowed to compete? If anything BTC should encourage open competition and allow the dynamics of advertising and market factors to positively drive the demand for their product, I mean damn it seems common sense to me.

To me thats the whole point. They done get they money. If the vendors want to take a loss thats their buiness.
I also agree that BTC should only get invloved if the vendors were putting the price above the $20.00.
They just doing petty foolishness cause the vendors them making all the money and no one buying the cards from Batelco.
What they need to do is get the stupid cell phone system working properly so you can use the freaking minuites despite how much you paid for them.:taped: