Smart charges 34,500 pesos for 81 seconds of alleged roaming in Hongkong

Just 81 precious seconds, and the poor guy was charged 34,500 pesos. Sounds familiar to me. But the guy was really astonished---how in the world did his phone ever do that? He just used the phone for instructions on the map, and never downloaded anything.

In fact, in his Smart post-paid billing statement, when he asked for specifics, he found out that 12 seconds cost him 630 pesos. Wow. If that is the case, then, what then is the cost of 81 seconds? For sixty seconds, it should have stated 3,000 plus pesos. But no. The amount says everything--34,500.

Of course, Smart would rationalize that those charges were charges made by their counterpart in Hongkong.

But, really now, that is astonishing to say the least. How in the hell can a phone accommodate that amount of data worth 34,000 pesos in just 81 seconds??? Can anyone explain this to me please??? Is it possible to manage data that huge in 81 seconds, in a phone which was not used for downloading anything?

This is precisely why I made the conscious decision to form a consumer group that will be used as a platform for ordinary citizens like me who are being victimized by these corporations.  However, I am still open to suggestions. Will anyone explain this to me, if it is really, really possible to be billed for 34,000 pesos for 81 seconds worth of data which Smart claims is equal to 3.4 million bytes?

AKO MISMO advocacy & Monetizing Nationalism Part 2

I don't question the core of AKO MISMO's ADvocacy---people need to be roused from their apathy and make them realize that every small thing or act they do right could lead to change, however small it is. That's admirable.

Yet, there is nothing revolutionary nor new about AKO MISMO's advocacy. Simply put, it is as traditional as any other Corporate Social Responsibility campaigns, albeit, deceptive at its best. It puts the onus of change in the individual, which, by itself, has been a tried and already much tested strategy in change movements.

Put it in the present context and you have people who'll really question the very purity of its motives. First, why is DDB Media so protective of SMART Communications as a backer or sponsor? Are they ashamed of the telecommunications giant? No SMART or PLDT logo in their website when everyone knows that its SMART or any of its affiliates is behind them?

Second, they tried to pull a fast one by employing the age-old marketing tactic of tribalism, which is a good strategy. If they did the launching in a more non-fanciful way, it could have been better and more effective.

For example, it would have been better if they allowed their message of change to sink in first in the consciousness of the people before they aired that TVC in primetime television, yes? Naging masyadong atat ang DDBMEDIA in airing those TVCs because it's plain and simple money for them. In legitimate change movements, they don't air TVCs or ads immediately simply because they don't really have money and it puts to waste those precious hours spent in making the advocacy as pure as possible.

The very fact that they immediately launched their "online movement" in the traditional medium shows you the innate desire to commercialize a pure change advocacy. Simply put, they are after ad money---not what they wrote in their website.

That's the thing---DDB MEDIA should have been forthright with us, the People, about their motives.