Is Talk 'N Text stealing from its cash-strapped subscriber?

Is Talk 'N Text, "a wholly owned subsidiary of SMART," stealing from a cash-strapped subscriber?

This morning I loaded Gaantxt 10 onto my cellphone, a load equivalent to 55 texts to Talk ‘N Text/Smart + 5 texts to all networks! But when I replied to a very urgent text message, what appeared was not "Message Sent." It was "Check Operator Services." This happened before. Maybe my phone is so dumb that it needs a little time to absorb the fact that I have just loaded onto it. So I waited for about five minutes. Then I resent the message. Still, it was "Check Operator Services."

I refer the matter to my sister, who said maybe I just need to reload it. So I loaded it again with P30 ECONOMY Pack. Still, I was told to "Check Operator Services."

Now, I started to get irritated. No, naglagot na ko. Kita pa nga gatipid, kita pay kuwaan ug load.

I inquired 15001. Then I received a text message informing me that as of 29April 09:03 I have a "Load Bal: P30 Free Txt to Smart/TNT:100 Free Txt to all networks:5.

If so, why can't I text? And every time I do, why am I always told to "Check Operator Services?" Is Talk 'N Text suffering from a Dr.Jekyll-and-Mr.Hyde syndrome? It says that I still have a load, but in truth I don't.

Did Talk 'N Text, "a wholly owned subsidiary of SMART," just steal from me, a cash-strapped subscriber?

I'm afraid it did. The bad news is that I'm one of the many victims of this "cellphone load robbery," as Senator Juan Ponce Enrile put it. The good news is that I'm one of the many victims of this "cellphone load robbery."

I recall that no less than Senator Juan Ponce Enrile also fell prey to this "cellphone load robbery."

Now I begin to wonder: if Senator Enrile fell prey to this, how much more if the subscriber is a lowly one like me, a cash-strapped subscriber?

Update: Talk 'N Text is now back to normal. Which is to say, I can now send messages. But I won't delete this post. Let this be a reminder that once upon a time, Talk 'N Text went awry.

In defense of Osang

I would be the last person to demand an apology from Osang for dissing the teachers. Not that I'm not sympathetic with the teachers. Hello, I'm an education student, a future teacher. How could I not be sympathetic with them? It's just that part of what she said is true. (Admit it or not, there are teachers who just "repeat what was taught to them," to use Osang's words, who use test papers older than my niece...)

And you don't castigate a person for telling the truth, do you? Unless you are Rizal's prosecutors.

What then should teachers do? Nothing.

Teachers are public figures and as such, they may, to use Justice Malcom's words, "suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation." But "the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted."

Not in the mood

The House of Representatives is not in the mood of passing the Right of Reply Bill. One headline goes: Right of Reply bill goes to freezer.

Leaders of the House of Representatives have thrown the Right of Reply bill (RORB) into the freezer to allow lawmakers to deliberate on more urgent bills.

Speaking to reporters during the weekly Balitaan sa Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City yesterday, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia said he doubted that the bill, which media members believe aims to stifle press freedom, would be calendared for plenary debates again.

What seems to be holding them back? Why are they hesitant to act on it the way the Senate did? I'll hazard one answer: Congressmen are hesitant to pass it because the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection.

A torrent of criticisms

The right of reply bill, passed swiftly in the Senate and still to be deliberated in the House of Representatives, unleashed a torrent of criticisms. Here are few:

• 
  

  Insidious censorship by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Stark irony by Juan L. Mercado

  
  


• 
  

  Not enough study went into reply bill by Neal Cruz

  
  


• 
  

  Open Door to Media lynching by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Dictating to the Media--Editorial of the Inquirer
  



• 
  

  Right to edit--Editorial of the Inquirer

  
  


• 
  

  Malice aforethought by Luis Teodoro

  
  


• 
  

  Right to reply: legislative blackmail by Amando Doronila

  
  


• 
  

  Right of reply bill is totally wrong by Neal Cruz

  
  

With huge stumbling blocks thrown its way, it's likely that the next headline will be: RIGHT OF REPLY BILL SHELVED.

Right of Reply: Affront to democracy

In theory, legislators pass laws in the interest of the public. Unfortunately, that is not the motive behind the right of reply bills, which practicing journalists fiercely opposed because a right-of-reply law would violate their constitutionally protected freedom of the press. But the havoc that a right-of-reply law would wreak would be more fatal to ordinary citizens who rely for information on the press or what is sweepingly called media.

Meh! Meh! Meh!

Two years ago, Hector Bryant L. Macale of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility blogged about “the increasing importance of society pages to newspaper publishers and/or editors.” Then he asked if we are “seeing similar trends in the other sections, especially the youth?”

 

Today, a reader in the Inquirer dished out a mouthful of criticisms against society pages parading the profligacy of the upper crust, unmindful of the millions who live in “abject poverty and destitution.” The situation seems akin to what the lunatic Roman Emperor Nero did in the past: fiddling while Rome is burning.

 

How would the “socialites” react to these criticisms? I venture to speculate that they would simply say, Meh! Meh! Meh!

 

Early this month, Collins English Dictionary included the word “meh” in its 30^th anniversary edition. “Meh” is defined as an interjection for indifference or lack of interest.

 

Telling them that they should not flaunt their flamboyant lifestyle because many are living in abject poverty and destitution? Like Bart and Lisa who were invited to a trip by their father Bert (the three are all characters in “The Simpsons”), they would just reply, Meh! Meh! Meh!