Premium Rate SMS Spammers

Jon wrote:
>
> There are rules in place to (try) and prevent this. If a company breaks
> the rules then they can expect to lose their licence and face heavy
> fines.

That's nice, but most companies allow for these fines and just pay them.
They're a drop in the ocean.

>> No. But if a company approached Vauxhall and said I'd requested new
>> tyres for my car, then Vauxhall tried to bill me for them, I'd be pretty
>> unimpressed.
>
> Indeed, but that scenario is also completely impossible.

You would think, but this scenario is perfectly possible in the mobile
phone world.. In fact, you're defending it.

---

› See More: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

> That still doesn't mean that you can hold the network accountable for
> that. It's down to the operator of the service. If they break rules
> (like spamming) then they can expect to lose their licence.

This is correct, you cant hold the network accountable for ither
companies actions... fair enough it may be a scam but why should O2
foot the bill for it? (I know the reply will be "well I shouldnt
either") but thats not the point you need to go through the correct
channels to get this money back, withholding the money or refusing to
Pay 02 will just result in them cutting you off.

Phil Brooks wrote:
>> That still doesn't mean that you can hold the network accountable for
>> that. It's down to the operator of the service. If they break rules
>> (like spamming) then they can expect to lose their licence.
>
> This is correct, you cant hold the network accountable for ither
> companies actions... fair enough it may be a scam but why should O2
> foot the bill for it?

They shouldn't.

The telco should contact the company involved and tell them the customer
is disputing the charges, so they won't get paid.

If the company insist that the customer owes them money, the company
should chase that up with the customer.

> (I know the reply will be "well I shouldnt
> either") but thats not the point

That is exactly the point.

If I had a mystery transaction appear on my credit card, the CC company
would refund me no questions asked. Why should things be different here?

> withholding the money or refusing to
> Pay 02 will just result in them cutting you off.

Absolutely, and a black mark on their credit file.

How can this be right? A customer disputes something, but they're billed
for it anyway and have no option but to pay (otherwise they lose service
and risk the whole episode going down on their credit file).. Then to
rectify it, they're completely at the mercy of a company they may never
have heard of... And even if they do get things resolved, they have to
wait a month to get the credits back.

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> >No, the operator of the premium service is obliged to do this. There are
> >already rules in place.

> GetZed do not hold so-called "requests for service" for more than
> a year. They claim to archive anything older and often purge
> their records.

But the record still exists.

> They could not tell me when my wife was supoosed
> to have subscribed to their service.

Then they are in breach of the Data Protection Act for failing to be
able to retrieve such information, there is now a course of action to
follow, complaints to ICSTIS, the Information Commisioner etc.

> They said the only way to
> find out was to write in (via letter post, not fax or email) and
> request the information.
>
> The whole set up is crooked.

Getzed may be crooked, that doesn't mean they all are.

> >> You think it's right companies can just charge amounts to customers
> >> phones without any checks by the operator they're genuine?
> >
> >Of course not, but it's not the network who are putting this charge on
> >the bill.
>
> Yes it bloody well is.

I respectfully disagree. The charge is there because you have been
provided with a service (weather requested or not). The network are not
to know that you have not requested it are they.

> Tell you what, you ring my landline and reverse the charge, see
> what happens.

I would expect you to refuse the charge.

> There should be a system in place, it's not hard to arrange and
> would eradicate all this nonsense.

I agree entirely! But we are discussing the here and now, not the
future!

> Exacty as it ought to be in the mobile telecoms industry.

Quite.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> You really are bonkers. Look, it's simple, if I want a service,
> I'll request it and sign for it. No signature, no contract, no
> service.. Capice?

Signatures are quite impractical in the world of mobile-based services.
--
Regards
Jon

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I respectfully disagree. The charge is there because you have been
> provided with a service (weather requested or not). The network are not
> to know that you have not requested it are they.

The police had a meeting with the telcos something like a year
ago to warn them that attempting to collect charges levied as
a result of deception or fraud is in itself a criminal offence,
even when the deception/fraud was not committed by the telco.
This was in connection with premimum rate diallers where the
the premium rate number was dialled, but as it was a deception
or fraud (done by a virus unknown to the subscriber) collection
of the charges is an offence.

I see no reason why this doesn't apply to premium rate SMS too.

As a result, BT now delays payments to premium rate providers
by 30 days, so it can claw the money back if transactions turn
out to be fraudulant, and it blocks numbers if it finds they
are being used for this purpose.

--
Andrew Gabriel

> > Once the network has been notified of the fraudulent charges imposed on
> > the customer
> A customers word is simply not good enough as proof. There has to be
> auditable records from the service provider. Otherwise someone could
> quite legitimately request a service, obtain that service and get
> reverse-billed for it, and then ring their network and claim they never
> asked for it.
> It would be quite unfair to the service providers for a network to
> operate in this manner.

In exactly the same way that it is unfair for customers billed by a
phone provider for something they haven't asked for, then be stuck in a
position of asking a thief (if they can find them) for their stolen
money back, and hoping they comply.

The difference is the service provider is getting a cut of the money -
and should take the responsibility of verifying any disputed charges.

If the customer claims not to have requested the premium rate service,
it should be between the service provider and the third party to verify
the validity of the claim for money, and then take the end-user to court
armed with the proof of their sign-up to recover their money.

This would automatically invalidate any "web subscriptions" as they are
essentially unauditable, and dramatically reduce the levels of random
theft (which is what it is).

Can I ask Jon, do you prosecute shoplifters ? - what basis of proof do
you use when they're stopped with your goods in their possession ?

Colin Wilson wrote:
>it is unfair for customers billed by a phone provider for something
>they haven't asked for, then be stuck in a position of asking a thief
>(if they can find them) for their stolen money back

Is there no provision to request Premium Rate Call Barring
(both incoming and outgoing) on mobile phones ?

> >it is unfair for customers billed by a phone provider for something
> >they haven't asked for, then be stuck in a position of asking a thief
> >(if they can find them) for their stolen money back
> Is there no provision to request Premium Rate Call Barring
> (both incoming and outgoing) on mobile phones ?

AFAIK only one mobile co. has this option available at present.

Money for old rope, and zero comeback by the sounds of it for the rest
of them.

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> As a result, BT now delays payments to premium rate providers
> by 30 days, so it can claw the money back if transactions turn
> out to be fraudulant, and it blocks numbers if it finds they
> are being used for this purpose.

A sensible idea and one which mobile networks could easily do I expect.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> Can I ask Jon, do you prosecute shoplifters ? - what basis of proof do
> you use when they're stopped with your goods in their possession ?

I've never caught any during my time with Orange, but in my previous
employment I have been to court twice and been involved in approximately
2 dozen arrests.

It would not be for me to decide weather to prosecute or not, it would
be down to our security manager, but I suspect we would.

As for proof, the best way of securing this is to allow the thief to
leave the store, thereby proving intent to remove the item without
payment.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> Colin Wilson wrote:
> >it is unfair for customers billed by a phone provider for something
> >they haven't asked for, then be stuck in a position of asking a thief
> >(if they can find them) for their stolen money back
>
> Is there no provision to request Premium Rate Call Barring
> (both incoming and outgoing) on mobile phones ?

T-Mobile allow reverse-bill SMS opt out, no other network does.
--
Regards
Jon

Jon wrote:
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>> Can I ask Jon, do you prosecute shoplifters ? - what basis of proof do
>> you use when they're stopped with your goods in their possession ?
>
> I've never caught any during my time with Orange, but in my previous
> employment I have been to court twice and been involved in approximately
> 2 dozen arrests.
>
> It would not be for me to decide weather to prosecute or not, it would
> be down to our security manager, but I suspect we would.
>
> As for proof, the best way of securing this is to allow the thief to
> leave the store, thereby proving intent to remove the item without
> payment.

Surely it isn't actually theft until they've left the store? Putting an
item in a pocket is pretty damning but while they're still on the
premises they've always got the chance to go pay for it.

--
Dave
mail da [email protected] (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time

Jon wrote:
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > As a result, BT now delays payments to premium rate providers
> > by 30 days, so it can claw the money back if transactions turn
> > out to be fraudulant, and it blocks numbers if it finds they
> > are being used for this purpose.
>
> A sensible idea and one which mobile networks could easily do I expect.

what about PAYG?

Dave {Reply Address In.sig}" <"noone$$ wrote:
> Jon wrote:
>> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>> Can I ask Jon, do you prosecute shoplifters ? - what basis of proof
>>> do you use when they're stopped with your goods in their possession
>>> ?
>>
>> I've never caught any during my time with Orange, but in my previous
>> employment I have been to court twice and been involved in
>> approximately 2 dozen arrests.
>>
>> It would not be for me to decide weather to prosecute or not, it
>> would be down to our security manager, but I suspect we would.
>>
>> As for proof, the best way of securing this is to allow the thief to
>> leave the store, thereby proving intent to remove the item without
>> payment.
>
> Surely it isn't actually theft until they've left the store? Putting
> an item in a pocket is pretty damning but while they're still on the
> premises they've always got the chance to go pay for it.

AIUI in a department store you have to walk past 3 tills with the item
concealed before a court would be happy to convict. I was in Harrods a few
years ago and got followed all the way round by a couple of security guards,
presumably because of my accent. So I started lifting things, pocketing
them (where they could see me doing it) and then dumping them out of sight
of the guards. They didn`t appreciate it ,nor me running up an escalator
the wrong way. Such fun!