Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Modern Theft – DU They Think They’ll Get Away With It?

DU are modern thieves. There’s little more to this story than that. But bare with me anyway, assuming false charges against Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Makhtoum triggers your curiosity, that’s where this is going. And yup, that’s exactly what DU’s done.

I bought a flat from Nakheel. No, that’s not correct; I bought a flat that was developed by Nakheel from a real-estate agent. For a moment, let’s assume it wasn’t a flat but a vehicle developed by Mercedes, and sold to me by some authorized distributor. Does Mercedes, or say Eppco petrol station have the right to sign a contract with each other, giving Eppco exclusive rights to my petrol needs, banning me from using Emirates petrol stations? What if Eppco didn’t have any petrol in stock and probably wouldn’t for the next 3, 6, or even 9 months, while Emirates was fully equipped to serve my needs today? What if I bought my Mercedes with the intention of using it as a taxi; my only form of income? Does Eppco have the right to financially handicap me that way? No logic, no matter how bent, twisted or exaggerated, can convince me that such a contract would be ethically, morally, or economically fit, anywhere on the planet between any two companies. On the contrary, every singe day that went by, Mercedes & Eppco both would be stealing my consumer rights and my daily income.

And that’s exactly what DU is attempting to do to me and any other Nakheel, (and even Emaar, so I’ve heard) property owner right now. You see, DU’s signed contracts with Nakheel, giving them exclusive rights to the communication infrastructure of all the new properties. To make simple, it means they’ve build all their tunnels banning Etisalat from doing the same, but they’ve not got any active wiring to actually install people’s communication needs in their houses. Letters have been sent to Etisalat banning them from serving any Nakheel property owner, so Etisalat can’t just run their wiring through and give us all internet, cable and telephones. No, no without a no objection letter for Etisalat, we’re forced to wait out DU. And as we all know, DU isn’t prepared to serve anyone anything yet, despite their multiple promises concerning their completion dates, they’ve ye to come through. What logic gives DU the right to enforce some bizarre ban on my property, literally stealing my consumer right to chose, simply because they’ve got infrastructure rights to this building, regardless of DU’s current consumer incompetence, is truly beyond my comprehension. And since both Nakheel & DU repeatedly tried to place the blame on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, claiming he had signed a decree making all of *New Dubai* exclusive to DU and banning Etisalat from serving the same area, I have an inkling it’s beyond these company owners conscious ethics, as well. Infrastructure rights and consumer rights are two completely different things. A lesson DU’s manager needs to learn.

You see, after hearing this excuse from multiple staff members in both DU & Nakheel, who I’m more than willing to name, I called the executive office of HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid and inquired about it. I couldn’t believe that man with such a gleaming reputation for logical morals would consider such a decree. And of course, no decree of such consumer thievery was ever signed, according to a gentleman who has given me permission to also pass on his name to the appropriate parties. But DU still doesn’t want to admit it. And they’ve done a fantastic job of convincing their staff, because even as I heard it pretty much from the concerned mouth itself; offered a name and the telephone numbers to them, many of DU’s staff members still argued that this decree was a fact. Tell me, are DU staff members calling the Executive Office liars? And if so, where should that leave them and their company all together?

Nakheel on the other hand, was immediate to apologize for the mistake. Nakheel on the other hand, has more ethics than DU ever will. Nakheel, though a company I was almost outraged by initially through this entire scenario, eventually gained my respect. They gave me my letter.

I need internet. I want it from Etisalat. ‘Why’ is irrelevant to DU and they have no right to inquire. But to state the obvious, it’s because DU isn’t prepared yet. To state the unobvious, I never intended to shift to DU and I won’t even consider it now, after speaking to DU’s grossly rude, completely egotistical, incomprehensibly arrogant manager, who has no problem stealing from me and forcing all us property owners to use DU’s services against our wills. All of which he was more than happy to make clear during my conversation with him, “I am not willing to break my contract with Nakheel for you.”

Haven’t you already broken multiple contracts concerning deadlines, which assuming such contracts existed, would make you in void of them anyway?

To which I actually shouted back, “All of your staff is telling me it’s ok to have Etisalat installed, but you’re not willing to give it in writing. What you mean is, you intend to deceive the public by stating you never forced us to use your services, knowing Etisalat can’t do anything without a ‘No Objection’ letter from you, effectively binding us to you by force?”

“Yes. Maybe if you learned to speak nicely to people, you’d get somewhere in life.”

Funny, I got further than you did. Right now, Etisalat is running their wires in your infrastructure and will be providing me the services I want. Seems like you lost a potential customer – and are now being rightfully slammed on the net, while I got what are my rights; what I wanted from the start.

It was that simple. The man admitted to being a deceiving, money-grubbing thief, with the audacity to give me life advice. Personally, I’ll never deal with a company managed by such a person, even if it somehow evidently means reselling my flat and never dealing with Nakheel as well, again – though that would be a pity as they’ve been more than helpful in sorting this issue out. I don’t recommend you deal with DU either.

What I want to know now, is why haven’t any of the local newspapers reported this pretty massive (for us and for potential future property owners) issue? Had I known about DU’s attempts at modern thievery, I’d not have bought here in the first place. Or I’d have been damn sure I sorted this all out before I considered purchasing. I wasn’t lucky. I was pushy and demanding about my consumer rights. And eventually, I got exactly the help I needed from Nakheel. But it was only after so much effort I was almost exhausted. And I don’t imagine many people would bother taking it as far as I did simply due to lack of required energy. And I wonder if Nakheel will eventually be forced to write a “No Objection” letter for 70,000 + individual property owners before DU realizes they can’t force anyone to use their services – regardless of their infrastructure rights.


Blogger psamtani said...

This is actually not uncommon in other parts of the world. For example, Comcast has the cable rights to my apartment. I cannot get cable from anyone else, but if I pay extra, I can install a satellite dish from another provider. But the 'wiring rights' for cable are reserved for Comcast.

10:51 PM, January 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think sooner or later the owners will discover that they will have to deal only with DU as you discovered, but some (and maybe many) will not do such effort to claim their consumer right. I am just guessing…
Why? Because maybe some of them are already willing to deal with DU from the beginning, and maybe others won’t care if there is no difference in quality of service and in price.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that your fight was for the concept itself and not for Etisalat; so not everyone has the concept that being forced to deal with some specific company is a wrong concept, or the effort and energy - as you said - that you spent is more worthy than changing from DU to Etisalat.
I am not judging what you did. It sounds right, but I guess it’s different from one character to another, and if they won't ask as you did, they won't discover that DU is lying according to what you say; so there will not be hard feelings to motivate them to do the same effort of changing to Etisalat.

11:23 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...


long, long, long time. :) The difference between my flat and yours I'm guessing... is that I bought this one. I did not rent it. When I buy something, anything, it should logically be my right to use whatever 'add-ons' I chose. I believe if you owned the flat, then the contract for 'wiring rights', if any would be between you and the company that wants those rights. Not the developer of the building.

Hatem, two things then... what you're saying is you personally don't mind being deceived, so long as you don't learn about it? And that the fact that DU isn't prepared to offer anything at all in terms of service and probably won't be ready for months is irrelevant to your comparison stating the same quality services, the same price, etc?

There is no comparison. DU has nothing to offer yet. How dare they force me to wait. And actually, my fight was for Etisalat. I NEED INTERNET NOW. Not when DU might be ready for it.

Thanks for your thoughts guys.

11:45 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger psamtani said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:23 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger psamtani said...

But out here even if you bought a flat, or a house for that matter, the cable rights for an area belong to a single company.

1:31 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

Interesting Pras...

Can you point me somewhere that this is written officially or legally? I'm interested in knowing the specifics of such a decree.

I mean, if I was the president of Cable Company A, I'd NEED my own company's services in my house, along with competitors if it were technically possible to have both. Would that mean I'd have no choice but to buy a place in some allotted area where I have one of those options rather than wherever I wanted?

And who is responsible for the contractual rights over my belongings? I mean, who is signing away my wiring rights on my behalf, from my house?

8:54 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger psamtani said...

From the wikipedia entry:

Cable television is normally regarded as a natural monopoly, and most areas are served by a single provider, though Australia is characterized by extensive duplication.

In the U.S., the right to provide cable in a particular geographical area typically belong to a single provider. The local governments are the ones who signs away the wiring rights.

11:12 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Taunted said...

Glad to see you're ranting and raving as usual kidda.

Take a look at this thread, Du and others are all mentioned (sorry, still can't do the html link thingy.

And good to have you back, smiling sweetly and being all demure!!

12:34 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

If you read that whole article Psamtani… it doesn’t say anything about government regulations, contractual agreements, or laws that make the monopoly so – and it states nothing solid concerning the US either. In fact, it sounds more or less like it’s simply the companies own availability or unavailability to prove to certain areas because they’re not equipped.. like DU isn’t equipped to provide me my telecom needs.

” Beginning in 2004 in the United States, the traditional cable television providers and traditional telecommunication companies increasingly compete in providing voice, video and data services to residences. The combination of TV, telephony and Internet access is commonly called triple play regardless of whether CATV or telcos offer it.”

The same article talks about competition. If “monopoly” as you’ve quoted above, meant legal or binding rights, there would be no competition. Or am I sorely mistaken?

12:52 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

taunted! long time no see. I'll take a look a t the thread as soon as I've got a better connection. Right now, what I'm using is slower than dial up. Takes me a long time to just get to the places I normally frequent!!!

12:53 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger adevents said...

wow i have friends having the same problem i will direct them to your post i am sure they will know what to do , how you doing TF long time no see

3:17 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...


I've already sorted it out for myself. They need to get a letter from the nakheel giving them no objection to install etisalat in their houses. Etisalat is more than willing to help them out.

And I'm alright. I've been super busy moving houses and stuff, and I've got a bit of a cold. But otherwise I'm well. How are you?

6:31 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger psamtani said...

I didn't necessarily mean legally binding monopoly. Presumably, a customer could pay to lay down wiring from another provider (which would probably be in another geographical area, so thats a lot of wiring), but the costs would be astronomical. But its a natural monopoly in that the customer typically does not have a choice (unless they are willing to pay unreasonable amounts of money).

8:52 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

"But its a natural monopoly in that the customer typically does not have a choice (unless they are willing to pay unreasonable amounts of money)'

Read the post again, and you'll note that this is about the choice rights of the consumer - making you point irrelevant, here. There is an 'unless' in your point. What Du is attempting to Du, and the lies they've told about Shk Mohammed, leave no room for 'unless'.


10:35 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger psamtani said...

Alright tainted, you win... jeez!!

Im just trying to make you feel better by letting you know that the majority of people do not have a choice when it comes to cable.

4:52 AM, January 26, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

awwwe psamtani...

I know you better than that. You weren't trying to make me feel better about anything. You were trying to debate with me. It's in your blood when it comes to conversing with me. ;)

One of the many reasons I love you, too.

8:46 AM, January 26, 2007  
Blogger Seabee said...

And go back to the beginning when Du was announced - it was all going to be about breaking the monopoly, about competition and giving us choices, remember!

6:47 PM, January 29, 2007  
Blogger black feline said...

meow...anybody home?heard baluchi is on the run? pls confirm..i need to get back my wig!

8:08 AM, January 30, 2007  
Blogger Destitute Rebel said...

Yup and we thought there would be real competition and some improvements in service and pricing.

1:06 AM, February 03, 2007  
Blogger Shaykhspeara Sha'ira said...

You're back! :) Hope you and the boy are doing well inshallah. I'm back myself after a long leap around the world. See you around :)

2:45 AM, February 09, 2007  
Blogger i*maginate said...

"Letters have been sent to Etisalat banning them from serving any Nakheel property owner"

You say there was no such decree, so why would Etisalat comply with a ban if it didn't come from the relevant authorities in one form or another?

There must be some logic in why Du and Etisalat cover separate areas in Dubai. That's why some properties were already served by Tecom and DIC Telecom, as previously known, and now du. Etisalat were never an option for Emaar residents.

It appears that although Du has been formed to create competition, it's our place of residence that determines which service provider we end up with - and that is not a "choice".

To sum it all up, du are a bunch of morons, and worst of all, their huge ad campaign has failed to "build their brand" and help people remember their name is spelt in lowercase - they could have signed more people up, had they spent that wasted money on giving away free mobile phones!

12:41 AM, February 11, 2007  
Blogger Tainted Female said...

'You say there was no such decree, so why would Etisalat comply with a ban if it didn't come from the relevant authorities in one form or another?'

Etisalat was informed that du has the infrastructure rights for Nakheel properties, by Nakheel & du because of the contract both companies signed together - it doesn't take a decree from Sheikh Mohammed's office to stop Etisalat from touching something that belongs to Nakheel & du. Though both companies wanted to blame some mythical decree.

And I couldn't agree with the rest of what you've said more.

By the way, their advertising campaign (even to teach us du is spelled lowercase) hasn't gotten very far. I didn't realize it, until you said it, here.

Thanks for the thoughts.

10:25 AM, February 11, 2007  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home