Re: Right of mobile phone companies to pass on third party charges

01-26-2008, 05:52 AM

"tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
> >
> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
> > --
> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
>
> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
>
> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So you
> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
>
> tim
>

WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money from
their customers ? Which law actually says so ? Also, whereabouts in mobile
phone contracts does it say that the customer's money can be handed over by the
telco to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it ? My T&Cs give the impression
that the customer is liable for charges incurred using that mobile phone.
Reverse billed SMS messages patently do not come under that category.

For account customers, losses could be literally unlimited - what's to stop
telemuggers sending thousands of theft messages to the same number over a period
of a few hours ?

At least those with pre-pay phones cannot lose any more than the unspent credit,
though they could find themselves unable to use their phone because their credit
has been stolen, which could be disastrous in an emergency.

01-26-2008, 06:18 AM

"John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
news

b6mp3tbo1b5kgs55pc06ordb4i3iotprl@4ax.com...
> "tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
>> >
>> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
>> > --
>> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
>>
>> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
>> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
>>
>> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So
>> you
>> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
>>
>> tim
>>
>
> WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
> from
> their customers ?

Because it's in their contract that they do this. Even if you succeed in
recinding this clause in your personal contract, it's still in the accepted
MO of the company that they will deduct this money. So, by making a mistake
in your special case and deducting the money, you are not going to prove
anything more than "contractual mistake", which will never ever amount to a
legal fraud (even if they make the same mistake every single time).

tim

01-26-2008, 07:28 AM

"tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
>> from
>> their customers ?
>
> Because it's in their contract that they do this.

Is it not possible (in contracts with consumers) that a clause allowing
the teleco to pass on charges from any third party might fall foul of
'The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999', and thus be
unenforceable?

01-26-2008, 07:53 AM

"tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news

b6mp3tbo1b5kgs55pc06ordb4i3iotprl@4ax.com...
> > "tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> >> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
> >> >
> >> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
> >> > --
> >> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
> >>
> >> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
> >> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
> >>
> >> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So
> >> you
> >> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
> >>
> >> tim
> >>
> >
> > WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
> > from
> > their customers ?
>
> Because it's in their contract that they do this. Even if you succeed in
> recinding this clause in your personal contract, it's still in the accepted
> MO of the company that they will deduct this money. So, by making a mistake
> in your special case and deducting the money, you are not going to prove
> anything more than "contractual mistake", which will never ever amount to a
> legal fraud (even if they make the same mistake every single time).

My contract with Orange does not mention anything about third party charges.
But I may be wrong - if so show me the clause in the T&Cs.

01-26-2008, 08:34 AM

"John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:8remp39h7mcqtcchflnrfm3fr96arlj402@4ax.com...
> "tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news

b6mp3tbo1b5kgs55pc06ordb4i3iotprl@4ax.com...
>> > "tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
>> >> >
>> >> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> >>
>> >> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
>> >> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
>> >>
>> >> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG.
>> >> So
>> >> you
>> >> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
>> >>
>> >> tim
>> >>
>> >
>> > WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
>> > from
>> > their customers ?
>>
>> Because it's in their contract that they do this. Even if you succeed in
>> recinding this clause in your personal contract, it's still in the
>> accepted
>> MO of the company that they will deduct this money. So, by making a
>> mistake
>> in your special case and deducting the money, you are not going to prove
>> anything more than "contractual mistake", which will never ever amount to
>> a
>> legal fraud (even if they make the same mistake every single time).
>
> My contract with Orange does not mention anything about third party
> charges.
> But I may be wrong - if so show me the clause in the T&Cs.

If you think that I am going to read 26 pages of small print, then you can
think again. But it's there (not necessarily in the obvious place)

tim

>

01-26-2008, 08:35 AM

"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87fxwkk96b.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>> WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
>>> from
>>> their customers ?
>>
>> Because it's in their contract that they do this.
>
> Is it not possible (in contracts with consumers) that a clause allowing
> the teleco to pass on charges from any third party might fall foul of
> 'The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999', and thus be
> unenforceable?

If it was, then the whole mobile business model would be broken.

tim

01-26-2008, 11:03 AM

"tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>> Is it not possible (in contracts with consumers) that a clause allowing
>> the teleco to pass on charges from any third party might fall foul of
>> 'The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999', and thus be
>> unenforceable?
>
> If it was, then the whole mobile business model would be broken.

Why? The vast majority of charges for mobile phones arise from voice
calls/SMSs/WAP/GPRS made from the customer's handset. Surely third party
charges are only in a minority, and the mobile business model (though
not of the ringtone etc suppliers) could survive without reverse
charging.

01-26-2008, 12:46 PM

Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> Is it not possible (in contracts with consumers) that a clause allowing
> >> the teleco to pass on charges from any third party might fall foul of
> >> 'The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999', and thus be
> >> unenforceable?
> >
> > If it was, then the whole mobile business model would be broken.
>
> Why? The vast majority of charges for mobile phones arise from voice
> calls/SMSs/WAP/GPRS made from the customer's handset. Surely third party
> charges are only in a minority, and the mobile business model (though
> not of the ringtone etc suppliers) could survive without reverse
> charging.

If sufficient dissatisfied customers switch to those telcos offering the option
of refusing reverse charge messages, the scammer-friendly telcos will either
offer the same or go to the wall.

01-26-2008, 02:53 PM

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:52:17 GMT, John Youles
<jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote:

>"tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
>> >
>> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
>> > --
>> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
>>
>> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
>> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
>>
>> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So you
>> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
>>
>> tim
>>
>
>WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money from
>their customers ? Which law actually says so ?

Nobody says so.

*You* are the one using the word "thieve" - but you are using it
wrongly.

These charges may be immoral, but in law they are NOT theft.

>Also, whereabouts in mobile
>phone contracts does it say that the customer's money can be handed over by the
>telco to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it ? My T&Cs give the impression
>that the customer is liable for charges incurred using that mobile phone.
>Reverse billed SMS messages patently do not come under that category.

Which Telco?

I'm sure I can find the part of the contract which says it.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Predestination was doomed from the start.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

01-26-2008, 03:06 PM

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:53:58 GMT, John Youles
<jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote:

>"tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news

b6mp3tbo1b5kgs55pc06ordb4i3iotprl@4ax.com...
>> > "tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
>> >> >
>> >> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> >>
>> >> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
>> >> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
>> >>
>> >> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So
>> >> you
>> >> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
>> >>
>> >> tim
>> >>
>> >
>> > WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money
>> > from
>> > their customers ?
>>
>> Because it's in their contract that they do this. Even if you succeed in
>> recinding this clause in your personal contract, it's still in the accepted
>> MO of the company that they will deduct this money. So, by making a mistake
>> in your special case and deducting the money, you are not going to prove
>> anything more than "contractual mistake", which will never ever amount to a
>> legal fraud (even if they make the same mistake every single time).
>
>My contract with Orange does not mention anything about third party charges.
>But I may be wrong - if so show me the clause in the T&Cs.

It does say there will be charges for services not supplied directly
by them, although they only give the example of roaming charges for
that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
People who live in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

01-26-2008, 04:12 PM

Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:52:17 GMT, John Youles
> <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"tim $not at home$" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Juan Kerr" <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> >> news:fc9b621f-13a4-49c2-8c44-cee23d613ffc@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 21, 9:40 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I now perfectly well that is how it works.
> >> >
> >> > But that is STILL not the telco defrauding you.
> >> > --
> >> > Alex Heney, Global Villager
> >>
> >> I don't really know how much simpler I can make it for you to grasp
> >> that it IS the telco doing the defrauding?
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> You CAN'T make it simple enough for us to understand this.
> >>
> >> It is perfectly clear why you think this, but legally you are WRONG. So you
> >> will never persuade us otherwise, however simply you put it
> >>
> >> tim
> >>
> >
> >WHY do you say it is legal for telcos to act as agents to thieve money from
> >their customers ? Which law actually says so ?
>
> Nobody says so.

Exactly.

>
> *You* are the one using the word "thieve" - but you are using it
> wrongly.

Seems a fair description to me and any right-thinking person.

>
> These charges may be immoral, but in law they are NOT theft.

The recipients should not have to pay without their permission, as in reverse
billed phone calls.

>
>
> >Also, whereabouts in mobile
> >phone contracts does it say that the customer's money can be handed over by the
> >telco to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it ? My T&Cs give the impression
> >that the customer is liable for charges incurred using that mobile phone.
> >Reverse billed SMS messages patently do not come under that category.
>
> Which Telco?

Orange.

>
> I'm sure I can find the part of the contract which says it.

I've looked and it doesn't.

01-26-2008, 04:59 PM

"John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:gpvmp3tmfge7it3s0rti6e0ljqos5ga9qc@4ax.com...
> Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> > "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
> If sufficient dissatisfied customers switch to those telcos offering the
> option
> of refusing reverse charge messages, the scammer-friendly telcos will
> either
> offer the same or go to the wall.
>
AFAIK only T Mobile offer reverse charge SMS barring.
Are you suggesting we all migrate to them?

Steve Terry

01-26-2008, 05:24 PM

"Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gpvmp3tmfge7it3s0rti6e0ljqos5ga9qc@4ax.com...
> > Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> >> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >> > "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > If sufficient dissatisfied customers switch to those telcos offering the
> > option
> > of refusing reverse charge messages, the scammer-friendly telcos will
> > either
> > offer the same or go to the wall.
> >
> AFAIK only T Mobile offer reverse charge SMS barring.
> Are you suggesting we all migrate to them?

Thanks for the tip.

01-27-2008, 04:32 AM

Steve Terry wrote:
> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gpvmp3tmfge7it3s0rti6e0ljqos5ga9qc@4ax.com...
>> Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>>> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>> "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
> <snip>
>> If sufficient dissatisfied customers switch to those telcos offering the
>> option
>> of refusing reverse charge messages, the scammer-friendly telcos will
>> either
>> offer the same or go to the wall.
>>
> AFAIK only T Mobile offer reverse charge SMS barring.
> Are you suggesting we all migrate to them?
>
> Steve Terry
>
>

Do you have a reference? When I contacted them about this, the reply
indicated this was not available (though I have now deleted the reply,
so cannot give actual response).

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

01-27-2008, 05:00 AM

"PeeGee" <triessuk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fnhmju$21j$1@aioe.org...
> Steve Terry wrote:
>> "John Youles" <jyoules@this.address.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:gpvmp3tmfge7it3s0rti6e0ljqos5ga9qc@4ax.com...
>>> Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>>> "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>> If sufficient dissatisfied customers switch to those telcos offering the
>>> option
>>> of refusing reverse charge messages, the scammer-friendly telcos will
>>> either
>>> offer the same or go to the wall.
>>>
>> AFAIK only T Mobile offer reverse charge SMS barring.
>> Are you suggesting we all migrate to them?
>> Steve Terry
>
> Do you have a reference? When I contacted them about this, the reply
> indicated this was not available (though I have now deleted the reply, so
> cannot give actual response).
> PeeGee
>
When I had a T Mobile contract I was able to switch barring on myself
from my T Mobile online account.
Or you can call T Mobile CS and get them to do it.

I believe Ofcom should make all the networks should offer reverse
charging SMS barirng as an opt in.
Only T mobile offer it at all as an opt out.

Of course the networks would lose a lot of money if you had to opt in,
and i'm sure so few people would, it would mean the end of reverse
charge SMS.

Steve Terry