The true purpose of IDA is to help telcos make more $$$.

IDA feels that ALL Singaporeans are very rich and that NOBODY will want to 'downgrade' from post-paid to pre-paid plan even though such a plan may be more affordable for a user's needs.
Does IDA receive bribes from telcos???!!! Telcos allow 'pre-paid' to 'post-paid' conversion because post-paid plans are more profitable (higher-priced) but IDA says :"IDA notes that all the mobile operators already offer switching of pre-paid services to post-paid. IDA does not currently foresee a compelling reason to require the operators to offer a service that allows switching in the other direction.": do telcos like to offer ex-IDA staffs C-suite/ cushy directorship jobs: thus the bias in IDA's policies towards telcos profitablilty???!!!: why speak of number portability benefits if the underlying purpose seems to be maintaining telcos profitability???!!! Surely there must be some solution for those not keen on there current telcos packaged deals to stick to their old plans (with rebates attached and not discontinued) or else have the option to downgrade to 'pre-paid' plans whilst retaining their old HP numbers.

Instead of relying on biased and one-sided surveys: IDA should phrase the question as such: "if I am short of cash and a 'pre-paid' plan becomes more suitable for my needs: I should have the option of downgrading to a pre-paid plan having satisfied any existing post-paid subscription obligations.": if the IDA places citizen's interest and welfare FIRST that is.

Is the true reason for number portability that of increasing telcos post-paid user base of contracted users since the switch is only ONE WAY???!!!

Even the last line of IDA relpy shows that IDA staffs treat telcos as their true employers: "We note your feedback and will be sharing with the service providers for their consideration. Thank you." So much for probable telco's sponsored golden parachutes, Singaporeans have earned themselves a raw deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agent007bond (Nov2014) Thread source (HWZ): What IDA told me about Caller ID and Postpaid-Prepaid Porting [spoiler: same old story] I emailed IDA: Quote: Originally Posted by A Sinkie I am very dismayed that telcos are not required to do porting of mobile numbers in all possible ways (e.g., postpaid-prepaid or prepaid-postpaid both of them within telco or between telcos). Currently they are only required to do "postpaid-postpaid" and "prepaid-prepaid" while they do offer "prepaid-postpaid" porting within telco. But none of the telco offers "postpaid-prepaid" porting, citing "low demand". I recommend that you perform a new survey to assess the demand as it seems to be changing and it would be higher. I also want to know why telcos are allowed to charge for Caller ID on postpaid plans as a separate chargeable entity over their base monthly fee. Caller ID is a basic need for any mobile user and should not be treated as an add-on privilege that is charged separately. IDA replied (after two weeks): Quote: Originally Posted by Moneyfaced IDA staffs As you already know, IDA has put in place Number Portability requirements to enable consumers to retain their numbers when they switch mobile or fixed-line service providers. The intent of Number Portability is to ensure that there is no barrier to switching service providers because of the number. In order to ensure this, IDA has required that both prepaid numbers and post-paid numbers are able to be retained when customers move from one operator to another. While it is important to consider consumer interests and to meet the changing demands of consumers, IDA needs to balance this against the cost of requiring the industry to implement such consumer initiatives, especially where the demand for such features is low. IDA had reviewed the demand for porting of post-paid services to pre-paid (and vice versa) by surveying consumers and found that the demand for such services to be rather niche at this juncture. Considering that the cost of implementing this feature may not be commensurate with the current demand, IDA has not required mobile service providers to implement the feature. The above is different from customers wanting to switch services within the same operator. In a competitive market environment, IDA leaves it to the mobile service providers on what services they wish to offer to their own customers. Hence, whether a service provider allows its customers to convert from post-paid services to pre-paid services (while remaining with the same mobile service providers), or vice-versa, is left to market forces. IDA notes that all the mobile operators already offer switching of pre-paid services to post-paid. IDA does not currently foresee a compelling reason to require the operators to offer a service that allows switching in the other direction. In the absence of a post-paid to pre-paid conversion service, you may wish to contact the mobile service providers to find out whether there are alternative services that would meet your needs. We note that the Calling Line Identification (CLI) service, more commonly known as ‘caller ID’, is offered by mobile and fixed-line telephone operators under different service packages. While it is positioned as an optional value-added service in most packages, similar to other services such as voicemail and caller number non-display, it is included in some packages as non-optional. IDA understands that there are users who do not subscribe to the CLI service. As different users have different preferences, IDA will allow operators the flexibility to decide the basic and value-added services offered in their service packages. IDA, however, encourages operators to consider the feedback from their customers to offer more packages with CLI service as a basic service feature. We note your feedback and will be sharing with the service providers for their consideration. Thank you.

Biased 2010 survey: Low demand for post-paid to pre-paid porting - Forum Letters Premium News - The Straits Times

What Singaporean civil servants/ Ministers are primarily concerned about:

Quote:

"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity." - MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay [IMG URL]

__________________