Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47
  1. #1
    When you contact the networks they claim that they can't prevent
    these reverse charge messages but interestingly in Belgium (also GSM
    system) the networks can bar premium text messages for businesses so
    they must be able to do it.

    But of course they don't in the UK as they make vast amounts of money
    out of premium texts - they keep a huge cut of the charge.

    Mike wrote:
    > My wife received three texts from "getzed" this morning, at a
    > reverse charge of £1.50 a shot. She is *not* happy.
    >
    > I have googled this and there are several complaints about
    > "getzed" and their "80078" spam line. www.getzed.co.uk/
    >
    > Having done a little research, it seems that companies of this
    > nature must first be regulated and granted a licence by ICSTIS
    > the "Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of
    > the Telephone Information Services". I will be contacting them
    > later.
    >
    > Once they "getzed" (et al) have their licence, they are then at
    > liberty to spam any 'live' number they can find and reverse the
    > charge, thereby being paid by the customer's service provider,
    > for a "service" which they neither want or requested.
    >
    > In this case, O2 have no proof that my wife requested the
    > service, nor in fact, does getzed.
    >
    > I'm wondering why no-one has challenged this situation. How can
    > it even be legal?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Mike.





    See More: Premium Rate SMS Spammers




  2. #2
    David Hearn
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    I understand T-Mobile can and do block premium rate SMS at your request.

    D


    [email protected] wrote:
    > When you contact the networks they claim that they can't prevent
    > these reverse charge messages but interestingly in Belgium (also GSM
    > system) the networks can bar premium text messages for businesses so
    > they must be able to do it.
    >
    > But of course they don't in the UK as they make vast amounts of money
    > out of premium texts - they keep a huge cut of the charge.
    >
    > Mike wrote:
    >> My wife received three texts from "getzed" this morning, at a
    >> reverse charge of £1.50 a shot. She is *not* happy.
    >>
    >> I have googled this and there are several complaints about
    >> "getzed" and their "80078" spam line. www.getzed.co.uk/
    >>
    >> Having done a little research, it seems that companies of this
    >> nature must first be regulated and granted a licence by ICSTIS
    >> the "Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of
    >> the Telephone Information Services". I will be contacting them
    >> later.
    >>
    >> Once they "getzed" (et al) have their licence, they are then at
    >> liberty to spam any 'live' number they can find and reverse the
    >> charge, thereby being paid by the customer's service provider,
    >> for a "service" which they neither want or requested.
    >>
    >> In this case, O2 have no proof that my wife requested the
    >> service, nor in fact, does getzed.
    >>
    >> I'm wondering why no-one has challenged this situation. How can
    >> it even be legal?
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Mike.

    >




  3. #3

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    network has participated in this Fraud.

    [email protected] wrote:
    > When you contact the networks they claim that they can't prevent
    > these reverse charge messages but interestingly in Belgium (also GSM
    > system) the networks can bar premium text messages for businesses so
    > they must be able to do it.
    >
    > But of course they don't in the UK as they make vast amounts of money
    > out of premium texts - they keep a huge cut of the charge.
    >
    > Mike wrote:
    > > My wife received three texts from "getzed" this morning, at a
    > > reverse charge of £1.50 a shot. She is *not* happy.
    > >
    > > I have googled this and there are several complaints about
    > > "getzed" and their "80078" spam line. www.getzed.co.uk/
    > >
    > > Having done a little research, it seems that companies of this
    > > nature must first be regulated and granted a licence by ICSTIS
    > > the "Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of
    > > the Telephone Information Services". I will be contacting them
    > > later.
    > >
    > > Once they "getzed" (et al) have their licence, they are then at
    > > liberty to spam any 'live' number they can find and reverse the
    > > charge, thereby being paid by the customer's service provider,
    > > for a "service" which they neither want or requested.
    > >
    > > In this case, O2 have no proof that my wife requested the
    > > service, nor in fact, does getzed.
    > >
    > > I'm wondering why no-one has challenged this situation. How can
    > > it even be legal?
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > Mike.





  4. #4

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    Well it's good that t-mobile can but O2 and Vodafone don't want to
    know..
    David Hearn wrote:
    > I understand T-Mobile can and do block premium rate SMS at your request.
    >
    > D
    >
    >
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > When you contact the networks they claim that they can't prevent
    > > these reverse charge messages but interestingly in Belgium (also GSM
    > > system) the networks can bar premium text messages for businesses so
    > > they must be able to do it.
    > >
    > > But of course they don't in the UK as they make vast amounts of money
    > > out of premium texts - they keep a huge cut of the charge.
    > >
    > > Mike wrote:
    > >> My wife received three texts from "getzed" this morning, at a
    > >> reverse charge of £1.50 a shot. She is *not* happy.
    > >>
    > >> I have googled this and there are several complaints about
    > >> "getzed" and their "80078" spam line. www.getzed.co.uk/
    > >>
    > >> Having done a little research, it seems that companies of this
    > >> nature must first be regulated and granted a licence by ICSTIS
    > >> the "Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of
    > >> the Telephone Information Services". I will be contacting them
    > >> later.
    > >>
    > >> Once they "getzed" (et al) have their licence, they are then at
    > >> liberty to spam any 'live' number they can find and reverse the
    > >> charge, thereby being paid by the customer's service provider,
    > >> for a "service" which they neither want or requested.
    > >>
    > >> In this case, O2 have no proof that my wife requested the
    > >> service, nor in fact, does getzed.
    > >>
    > >> I'm wondering why no-one has challenged this situation. How can
    > >> it even be legal?
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Mike.

    > >





  5. #5

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers


    [email protected] wrote:
    > My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    > messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    > subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    > network has participated in this Fraud.
    >


    At the barest minimum, a material breach of:

    Section 16 of the 1968 Theft Act (obtaining pecuniary advantage by
    deception).

    Section 17 of that Act (false accounting) is probably relevant as well.


    Report it to the Police and *insist* they give you a CRN (they won't
    want to because the Police are fundamentally lazy but be persistent).




  6. #6
    Pete
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers


    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    network has participated in this Fraud.

    They have actually facilitated a criminal offence which IS fraud. Customers
    should report this to police and insist they take action.





  7. #7
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
    > My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    > messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    > subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    > network has participated in this Fraud.


    Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through a website or
    some other method. The network operator cannot be held accountable for
    that.

    > They have actually facilitated a criminal offence which IS fraud.


    Nonsense.

    If a Vauxhall Astra was used in a bank robbery would you say that
    Vauxall have facilitated a fraud by manufacturing the car? Of course
    not.
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  8. #8
    Colin Wilson
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    > > My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    > > messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    > > subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    > > network has participated in this Fraud.

    > Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through a website or
    > some other method. The network operator cannot be held accountable for
    > that.


    No, but the premium rate scammer should be easier to track and hold
    accountable.

    IANAL

    Once the network has been notified of the fraudulent charges imposed on
    the customer, any further breach means they *are* assisting in theft,
    and this should be actionable - the loss should be theirs to sustain as
    they permitted the known theft to continue (to their advantage !).



  9. #9
    Ivor Jones
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
    > > My view is until someone takes companies that spam
    > > premium text messages to court then nothing will be
    > > done. If no request was made to subscribe then surely a
    > > Fraud has been committed and the relevant network has
    > > participated in this Fraud.

    >
    > Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through
    > a website or some other method. The network operator
    > cannot be held accountable for that.


    It *is* possible to receive these messages without ever having
    "subscribed" by any method. I know, I got one.

    Ivor





  10. #10
    Simon Dobson
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    Jon wrote:
    > [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
    >> My view is until someone takes companies that spam premium text
    >> messages to court then nothing will be done. If no request was made to
    >> subscribe then surely a Fraud has been committed and the relevant
    >> network has participated in this Fraud.

    >
    > Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through a website or
    > some other method. The network operator cannot be held accountable for
    > that.


    They should be held responsible for ensuring the request was valid. A
    text or other confirmation should be received from the handset before a
    penny is added to the customers bill.

    You think it's right companies can just charge amounts to customers
    phones without any checks by the operator they're genuine? What's
    stopping some unscrupulous company just making numbers up and reverse
    billing folk? Nothing it seems, as some people do get billed.

    >> They have actually facilitated a criminal offence which IS fraud.

    >
    > Nonsense.
    >
    > If a Vauxhall Astra was used in a bank robbery would you say that
    > Vauxall have facilitated a fraud by manufacturing the car? Of course
    > not.


    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.

    I'd expect Vauxhall to ask me if I had in fact requested tyres, and when
    I told them I hadn't to refund me any money immediately.



  11. #11
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    [email protected]lid declared for all the world to hear...
    > > Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through
    > > a website or some other method. The network operator
    > > cannot be held accountable for that.


    > It *is* possible to receive these messages without ever having
    > "subscribed" by any method. I know, I got one.


    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.
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  12. #12
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    [email protected]lid declared for all the world to hear...
    > They should be held responsible for ensuring the request was valid.


    No, the operator of the premium service is obliged to do this. There are
    already rules in place.

    > 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. It is the operator of the premium rate service.

    > What's
    > stopping some unscrupulous company just making numbers up and reverse
    > billing folk? Nothing it seems, as some people do get billed.


    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.

    > 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.
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  13. #13
    Jon
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
    > 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.
    --
    Regards
    Jon



  14. #14
    David Hearn
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    Jon wrote:
    > [email protected]lid declared for all the world to hear...
    >>> Not knowingly. The subscriber could have opted in through
    >>> a website or some other method. The network operator
    >>> cannot be held accountable for that.

    >
    >> It *is* possible to receive these messages without ever having
    >> "subscribed" by any method. I know, I got one.

    >
    > 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.


    And whilst the highest fine ICSTIS can give is £250,000, the largest
    they've done to date (for a single company) is, AFAIK, £100,000:

    "Does any single adjudication stand out in your mind?

    Yes, a case of competitions of a spurious kind distributed by mail
    shots. Not mass SMS messages but around 20 million individually
    addressed envelopes saying “Congratulations, you have won a prize”.
    There were very serious difficulties with this promotion exacerbated by
    the fact that the letter was personally addressed. Recipients thought
    “it must be true, it has my name on it”. This led to a major
    adjudication on this predecessor of spam SMS. It resulted in the largest
    fine that ICSTIS ever imposed: £100,000 because public harm and public
    distress were very widespread, not least because of it being addressed
    individually to everyone who got it. This was early on and it made a
    very strong impression in my mind."

    So, this scam occurred way before spam SMS (not premium SMS) came around
    (so quite a time ago), they targeted 20 million people and they got a
    fine of £100,000 and that's the largest they've done to date (this was
    in the Summer 2006 ICSTIS magazine).

    That scam required people to respond to the letters, which many people
    wouldn't (so a low hit rate). In the case of premium rate SMS spams,
    they can bill anyone, and if they didn't notice their bill (and many
    people don't have bill now with non-itemised billing and PAYG) then the
    scale of the problem may be bigger than the vocal few who complain.

    Considering ICSTIS can fine companies up to £250,000 - and the largest
    they've ever done is £100,000 many years ago (most one I can fine
    involving SMS being £75,000) - their fines are likely to be
    insignificant compared to the amount of money they're making from it.

    D



  15. #15
    Allan Gould
    Guest

    Re: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

    David Hearn wrote:
    > I understand T-Mobile can and do block premium rate SMS at your request.


    I can confirm that you can ask T-Mobile to bar Mobile Terminating SMS
    Premium (or similar phrase - that's what I used).

    I am only a T-Mobile customer - no other connection to T-Mobile or its
    parent.

    [snipped rest]



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast