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

Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:50:16 -0800 (PST), Juan Kerr
> <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
> >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?
> >
>
> It doesn't matter in the least ho "simple" you make it.
>
> It isn't about "simplicity", it is about whether the telco is
> deliberately taking money from you under false pretences.
>
> If they are not doing that, then they are not defrauding you, no
> matter what it may feel like.
>
>
> >As an analogy, let's assume you employ Bob The Builder to build you a
> >garden wall. When he's finished, he presents you with an inflated
> >invoice and when you query it he says "oh yes, the local garden centre
> >instructed me to put up a shed and bill you".
> >
>
> You would, of course, refuse to pay him for that, since your contract
> with him does not allow for such things.
>
>
> >You wouldn't expect to have to pay the builder and chase the garden
> >centre for a refund............there's no contract between you and the
> >garden centre, you've paid them no money so why would they feel the
> >need to refund you?
> >
>
> There was no contract between you and *anybody* for the shed.
>
>
> >Deducting the cost of the shed and paying Bob the remainder isn't an
> >option either; it's all or nothing I'm afraid in this analogy.
> >
>
> Which makes it a rather silly "analogy", since that would most
> certainly be an option in that case.
>
>
> >So you pay the builder the full amount at which point he then says
> >"sorry, no refunds, go and talk to the garden centre".
> >
> >That's as accurate an analogy as there is and it probably highlights
> >how corrupt the reverse-SMS system is.
>
> It is a completely inaccurate analogy, because you would never have a
> contract with a builder allowing them to put up other buildings then
> charge you for it.
>
> You *do* have a contract with the Telco allowing them to pass on third
> party charges for "services" provided by those third parties.

No I don't. And in fact some telcos have paid out.

>
> And in theory, you *do* have a contract with said third party. The
> telco are just acting as a payment mechanism for that contract.

That's easily dealt with. Require the recipient to reply to a message in order
to pay the third party.