Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Premium rate text - 57052

2

Comments

  • #52
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    http://www.prizeclub.ie/howtoplay.php

    Not the worst of them.


  • #53
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    http://www.phonesmart.ie/

    try this crowd before the Small Claims Court, it will take time to get these issues sorted but as long as you keep emailing the regulator whenever the company don't respond to requests for information.


  • #54
    Dostoevsky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Dostoevsky


    Like many others in this thread I received no text, although my Meteor bill says "SMS from 57052". No text was ever received by me, never mind 10 texts.

    If the benighted idiots and apologists in this thread for this scam could stop telling people otherwise that would be appreciated.

    I'll find out this evening the name of the parasite who owns Prizeclub.ie and report to ComReg.


  • #55
    Dostoevsky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Dostoevsky


    So, the scams of this Prizeclub.ie and its many incarnations have been making quite a storm online. Over here is a good thread about them. Also read here, here and here.

    I rang Meteor and told them what happened and the guy said that he had heard many stories about them already. He told me that a company currently named Inkred was behind the number 57052.

    With the name Inkred, I decided to work on the useful suggestion of this poster and go to the Companies Registration Office (CRO) and find out the names of the people behind this scam. It cost me €2.50 for this information, but it's worth it.

    The current name of the company behind Prizeclub.ie is 'Inkred Interactive Limited'. Its current registered office is:

    Unit 1,
    Courtyard Business Centre,
    Orchard Lane,
    Blackrock,
    Co. Dublin,
    Ireland.

    The directors of this company are:

    1) <snip>
    Other directorships:
    Amazon Innovations Ltd
    Com 1 Telecommunications Limited

    Other current directorships:
    Globetrack Technology Limited
    I.V.T. Solutions (UK) Limited
    Mandano Holdings Limited
    Modeva Interactive
    Modeva Media
    Modeva Networks
    Modeva Social Networks
    Monarca Limited
    Rayo Unlimited
    Rock Information Limited
    Votel (U.K.) Limited


    2) <snip>
    Other directorships:
    Amazon Innovations Ltd
    Betto Limited

    Other current directorships:
    Com 1 Telecommunications Limited
    Globetrack Technology Limited
    I.V.T. Solutions (UK) Limited
    Mandano Holdings Limited
    Modeva Interactive
    Modeva Media
    Modeva Networks
    Modeva Social Networks
    Monarca Limited
    Rayo Unlimited
    Rock Information Limited
    Votel (U.K.) Limited


    3) <snip>
    Other directorships:
    Amazon Innovations Ltd
    Com 1 Telecommunications Limited

    Other current directorships:
    Globetrack Technology Limited
    I.V.T. Solutions (UK) Limited
    Mandano Holdings Limited
    Modeva Interactive
    Modeva Media
    Modeva Networks
    Modeva Social Networks
    Monarca Limited
    National Pension & Savings Company Limited
    Netbury Limited
    Phone Paid Services Limited
    Rayo Unlimited
    Rock Information Limited
    St Annes Northbrook Management Limited
    Votel (U.K.) Limited


    They have all built quite a name around the 'Modeva' scams. Here's an article from 2004 about these three buckos: Call providers are dialling up big profits

    There are other companies connected with these three individuals. It seems like Britain has also been graced by their presence. Also, not a word about 'Budget Telecom' in the above CRO listings. However, The Sunday Tribune has these three buckos down as connected with it back in 2000: Your Number's Up

    There is much more to these three individuals. Please add your knowledge here, and let others know about them and whatever scam of theirs you've been affected by.

    Oh how I long for the time when investigative journalism had a role to play in the Irish media.


  • #56
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Dates of Birth and Home addresses removed. Please do not post that information on Boards.

    dudara


  • #57
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    dudara wrote: »
    Dates of Birth and Home addresses removed. Please do not post that information on Boards.

    dudara
    What about their names? All the information is available to the public, though I do agree DOBs and addresses are a bit much.


  • #58
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    I had actually deleted the DOBs and home addresses. But an Admin was actually editing the thread at the same time as me, and they removed the names also.


  • #59
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Ok thanks. What's the logic of not naming them? Any member of the public can access this information.


  • #60
    Dostoevsky
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭Dostoevsky


    All of the information I posted is in the public domain. I paid €2.50 to buy it from the Companies Registration Office of the Irish state. It is all relevant, including their dates of birth so that they are not confused with similarly-named individuals.

    Why was any of it deleted?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    dudara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Yes - it is in the public domain, and anyone who wishes to access it can do so. However, we do not publish the home addresses and personal details of ANY individual on Boards.

    The deletion of this data is consistent with the approach we have taken in previous, similar cases.

    In short, if you want the information, get it yourselves.


  • #62
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    dudara wrote: »
    However, we do not publish the home addresses and personal details of ANY individual on Boards.
    And I agree with that.
    At risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, I asked why their names can't be published. I can appreciate that publishing addresses and DOBs is a bit much, as it could give rise to a 'real life' witch hunt, as opposed an internet based one. I appreciate boards.ie doesn't want to sow seeds of this sort it; it just seems like a bit much in this case.
    I only ask as I would have thought like yourself - that this (names) would be fair game.
    Perhaps an admin could clarify?


  • #63
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    Mum's been hit with this lot. Don't know how they got her number as she didnt sign up for anything. No one answers the phone at inkred. Got their email and asked how they got her number. Missed the call this morning, first they said they got message to call her and didnt iknow what it was about yet all my emails were replys and all corrispondance would be in the email and they said they would write to her with the details. When she asked them if she would get her credit back they just said she would have to reply to the letter. Called comreg, they said inkred have 10 working days to get letter to her. They gave a ref and any issues call back.
    Mum only remembers texts from vodafone and o2. more of them and come through but no credit removed so they are ok.


  • #64
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    jor el wrote: »
    Why? OP didn't read the terms of what they were entering, and signed up to a subscription service. How does one's own laziness translate to the operator being sneaky feckers?

    I'm no fan of these premium services, but if you can't be bothered to read what you're subscribing to, then it's tough titty.
    These subscription services are anything but innocent, they are cunning thieves that will go to any lengths to con people and play on their ignorance to try and get away with it.

    Last year I successfully claimed back €9 from Cuddly TV after I brought the matter up with Comreg. The company deliberately placed a push button add very close to the send button on a subsidized communications app on my IPhone. I forwarded a text message and mistakenly activated their services. It wasn't until I got a bill from 02 that I noticed that the amount of €9 was charged. I was refunded the full amount, there are many out there that would let this slip and let these thieving scum get away with it.


  • #65
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    Mum doesnt have internet on phone just a big button OAP phone. She does facebook, pigsback, gsk media serveys and buys stuff from amazon thats all. She has not signed up for anything that required her number. She knows not to as she was hit a few years back for entering an RTE quide competition. Woman from InkRed was very evasive when questioned.


  • #66
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    Update - Got letter from Inkred and they say my mum entered a comp on their website on the 25th april, a text was sent to mobile with pin and pin was entered on website. This is complete and utter b****x! She never went to site, never got a pin and never entered a pin into any site. Called comreg with update. Have emailed letter, emails to and from them and email from pigsback. lets see will contact o2 to see o2 to see if text was sent to her on the 25th after 9pm. Lying ........ grrrrr


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    Could be as simple as someone entering an incorrect phone number. :confused:


  • #68
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    No way. She is adament nothing like this happened. no text with pin etc. She rarely uses the phone and only to phone my brother. I have to do the texting for her.


  • #69
    Hopi watcher
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Hopi watcher


    This abuse and exploitation could be very easily stopped. All that ComReg has to do is bar the use of the "reverse billing" facility for all "fun" items. In addition those other items to be allowed use that facility, such as news alerts, weather forecasts, travel updates etc, must be registered and licenced to do so. Any abuse should be a criminal offence. Can anyone out there offer an explanation as to why this cannot be done? After the Mahon report surely we are all sick to the back teeth with corruption of all sorts and we want it stopped. Let's have it ComReg, why are you lot sitting on your hands?


  • #70
    doleman2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭doleman2010


    Too many people making very easy money out of this so called industry, the comreg call centre is just an assimilation of the old regtel crowd , who were industry set up and funded anyway.
    Mobile networks dont give a dam as they are making the most from the scams .
    I took on these shower of scum a year ago when they robbed a DECEASED family members phone acc. It took me a year but I persisted and I got the money back from O2 and a written apology from the CEO .
    But along the way they were quite happy to provide totally false opt in logs and to lie to comreg and regtel , both of whom sided with O2 on the matter until their lies fell apart .
    There are some very arrogant and nasty people working in that side of the business .


  • #71
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    I phoned o2 the other day and they say their logs only go back as far as the start of march.thought they had to keep logs back further


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    Remembered something about call activity on o2's site logged in and got the logs going back to the 24th. The first text from them was on the 3/3/12 They say mum went to site on 25/2/12 @ 21.43:44 they texted pin and she put it on site. B*ll*x! At 25/2/12 21.44 mum was talking to my brother on the phone and its listed on the logs no text or anything from them. The previous activity on phone was to brother the previous day. There was no activity on phone till the 3/3/12 and it was from them. Screen shots sent to comreg to update their file. :D


  • #73
    doleman2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭doleman2010


    I can see where this is going , very similar to our situation ,.
    I demanded the call logs from them and got them but when they didnt tally with their story,they done a u turn and claimed that the opt in was not done on the phone after all . O2 claimed the opt in was done via the internet with the texts being sent to the phone also confirming this , but as they were only recieved texts by the phone they couldnt produce any proof of this.
    I demanded they internet opt in times and dates from O2 and was supplied with a totally fabricated document .
    With the time and date given it was absolutely impossible for my dead son or anyone else to have subscibed to the sevice in the way they claimed .
    All this work took months and months .
    When they were caught out and confronted with their fabricted evidence they became extreemly agressive with us , at this stage I had eneough evidence to to to the Gardai with .
    But all we wanted was our dead sons money returned and an apology ,but that itself took further months .
    If you are able and willing to take them on go for it.


  • #74
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    I don't plan on letting this go. Bit more looking o2 are network partners with modeva (modeva.ie), modeva client is inkred (inkred.ie) website ns is modeva.ie, prizeclub.ie is operated by Inkred and powered by Modeva prizeclub.ie ns is also modeva.ie. do a whois on each domain and same names.


  • #75
    doleman2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭doleman2010


    Well done , dont even bother with their customer care division in Limerick apart from using them to get call logs .
    The people who are involved in this are in O2s hq in Dublin , ie their wholesale division where they have the partnerships with the various third parties .
    Some of these content providers or platform providers are located outside of the state so legally they cannot be touched by anyone here also they are untouchable by the authorities in their own countries as any alleged incident has been commited here .
    That leaves the network provider here solely responsible as they are in the juristiction of the state .
    The fraud and security division of that company are also based with the sales division .
    In our situation within a couple of hours of me making our initial complaint to O2, they had amended their records to try to prevent the matter going any further.


  • #76
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Did you report this to the Garda Fraud Squad??


  • #77
    doleman2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭doleman2010


    Yep dealt with Gardai in Harcourt St on the matter , they were more than helpful .


  • #78
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Time to hassle Rabbitte to issue a ministerial directive to Comreg telling them to deal with the Premium Rate scammers. It took years to get Comreg to block porn dialler countries where eircom still charges €3.60 a minute and takes most of the revenue from the scam themselves.

    Of course one can opt in to dial them...but nobody does. The same should be done to the Premium Rate text fraudsters.

    Here is one example pre the blockage from Boards.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=114060&highlight=porn+dialler+eircom

    We organised a bit of a campaign on boards in late 2003 to block the scammers     ( and eircom who creamed most of the revenue)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=121082

    Comreg consulted and finally blocked the scammers about a year later.

    http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0499.pdf

    This premium rate text scamming has been going on for years. Shall you start the campaign Doleman or shall I do so again. Enough is enough :(


  • #79
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    cast_iron wrote: »
    A bank can't sign you up for a loan and just say "read the 10 pages of terms and conditions since you're an adult". They are obliged to tell you what the entire cost will be and what may affect changes in the money owed.

    According to your argument, they should not have to do this since we are all adults?

    Actually this is a big part of the problem, many of the victims are kids.


  • #80
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Time to hassle Rabbitte to issue a ministerial directive to Comreg telling them to deal with the Premium Rate scammers. It took years to get Comreg to block porn dialler countries where eircom still charges €3.60 a minute and takes most of the revenue from the scam themselves.

    Of course one can opt in to dial them...but nobody does. The same should be done to the Premium Rate text fraudsters.

    Here is one example pre the blockage from Boards.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=114060&highlight=porn+dialler+eircom

    We organised a bit of a campaign on boards in late 2003 to block the scammers     ( and eircom who creamed most of the revenue)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=121082

    Comreg consulted and finally blocked the scammers about a year later.

    http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0499.pdf

    This premium rate text scamming has been going on for years. Shall you start the campaign Doleman or shall I do so again. Enough is enough :(

    I don't see this issue as the same. I would have said tough luck if you didn't secure your PC back in 2003 and fell victim to a dialler scam. While phone operators certainly benefited handsomely, I don't believe that they were in cahoots with them. This is different.

    I see no reason why premium rate texting should not be available and accessible to those who want it but there is bad practice going between the operators and the content providers and nothing being done by the regulator. Everybody uses plausible deniability and points to the other fella.

    Those mobile operators who have these "trusted partnerships" need to detail those partnerships on their web sites and explain how these partnerships work.


  • #81
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Nope. What is required is very simple.

    1. Everybody is opted out of every text number above 53xxx straight off.
    2. Everybody over 18 may contact their Operator and Opt in at any time.
    3. Everybody who cannot prove they are 18 or over remains opted out until they prove they are 18. Under 18 year olds are not allowed to enter a contract which is exactly what 3 x €2 premium texts a week amounts to.

    End of sh1te.

    Notes.

    To contact a 159x number you need a pin, that costs around €2.50 a minute where some of these texts cost nearly that much each.

    All 15xx numbers can be blocked free of charge from any landline. Apply this to mobiles. This is an opt out not an opt in by the way.

    Nobody has complained about the Porn Dialler block implemented in 2004 bar the scammers themselves. I never heard a single complaint about porn dialler activity ever again and no consumers were robbed by the scum afterwards.

    Opt In mechanisms work against scammers and fraudsters if UNIVERSALLY applied like the Diego Garcia dialling ban was. Selective banning is not possible or feasible.

    F*ck declarations of interest with content partners. That is worthless. :(

    Unload every premium text number over 53xxx and stop the fraud NOW!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    I agree bob. Won't happen in a hurry though.
    Whatever these guys are making (and it's quite alot), the government takes a nice slice in vat, corporation tax and income tax alone. Assuming they operate in/from ROI.
    That's not to say something shouldn't be done.


  • #83
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Nope. What is required is very simple.

    1. Everybody is opted out of every text number above 53xxx straight off.
    2. Everybody over 18 may contact their Operator and Opt in at any time.
    3. Everybody who cannot prove they are 18 or over remains opted out until they prove they are 18. Under 18 year olds are not allowed to enter a contract which is exactly what 3 x €2 premium texts a week amounts to.

    End of sh1te.

    Notes.

    To contact a 159x number you need a pin, that costs around €2.50 a minute where some of these texts cost nearly that much each.

    All 15xx numbers can be blocked free of charge from any landline. Apply this to mobiles. This is an opt out not an opt in by the way.

    Nobody has complained about the Porn Dialler block implemented in 2004 bar the scammers themselves. I never heard a single complaint about porn dialler activity ever again and no consumers were robbed by the scum afterwards.

    Opt In mechanisms work against scammers and fraudsters if UNIVERSALLY applied like the Diego Garcia dialling ban was. Selective banning is not possible or feasible.

    F*ck declarations of interest with content partners. That is worthless. :(

    Unload every premium text number over 53xxx and stop the fraud NOW!!!!

    Yes but what about charities and the Late Late? :)

    Seriously, there are plenty of legitimate uses of premium rate short codes.

    The operators will wise up once they are named and shamed.

    There's also a lot of consumer ignorance that needs to be addressed. Personally, I'd prefer this route as otherwise you are advocating a "mammy state". If we don't hold our suppliers to account then there will be something else of a similar nature that will happen down the line and the cycle will continue.


  • #84
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Hear all these excuses before with the Porn Diallers. Unload the number ranges.

    You retain teh right to opt in if you are old enough. 53xxx numbers is plenty for the late late.


  • #85
    Hopi watcher
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Hopi watcher


    BrianD wrote: »
    Yes but what about charities and the Late Late? :)

    Seriously, there are plenty of legitimate uses of premium rate short codes.

    The operators will wise up once they are named and shamed.

    There's also a lot of consumer ignorance that needs to be addressed. Personally, I'd prefer this route as otherwise you are advocating a "mammy state". If we don't hold our suppliers to account then there will be something else of a similar nature that will happen down the line and the cycle will continue.
    It is beginning to look as if you are working for one of these cowboys. The fact is that they deliberately use misleading advertising. For example all the ads on TV3 are focused on a prize that could be won. The word "free" is often used. The voice over never explains that a response will entrap the phone owner into a "service" which will take money, up to €10 a week automatically, from call credit and the Operator is under no obligation to provide anything of like value in return. Terms such as "this is a subscription service" are jargon.
    There is currently an ad on the net which actually uses the "congratulations you have won a iPod" as a lure and despite the fact that ComReg have been made fully aware of this nothing has been done. If you click the lure you are than asked to answer a question, text the answer and bang, you are entrapped in a "subscription service" and no sign of any iPod. The same ad has photos of "previous winners" and again ComReg have been informed that these photos are fakes, but again nothing happens.
    This theft is now going on in Ireland for the past 6/7 years, it has all but been stoppoed in the UK by proper regulation and still nothing happens here.
    After the Mahon Tribunal wouldn't you think that someone, somewhere would say, enough is enough, and stop this.
    By the way TV3 must take a lot of the blame, they are the only TV station carrying these ads now. Don't let your children watch TV3 daytime unsupervised--that is when these ads are aired.


  • #86
    Hopi watcher
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Hopi watcher


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Actually this is a big part of the problem, many of the victims are kids.


    Correct. In fact all the TV ads go out on daytime on TV3. There is clearly a very high degree of targeting.


  • #87
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Hopi watcher wrote: »
    It is beginning to look as if you are working for one of these cowboys. .

    Brian, do you or have you worked for a Radio station that uses Text Competitions??? eg Phantom FM

    I confess I do not and have not.

    I have no issues with text numbers up to 53xxx save where texting a 50xxx number in certain cases directly leads to you being victim of a 57052 type fraud thereafter.


  • #88
    doleman2010
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭doleman2010


    There seems to be 3 Basic ways in which these so called services appear on your phone .

    1. Where the phone user is tricked into signing up for a service by either not seeing the hidden details and terms or not realising that they are subscribing to a service long term.

    2.Where some family member, friend or third party uses the victims phone to subscibe to a service either as a prank, unknowningly or deliberatly without the victims knowledge.

    3.Where the victims phone is targeted totally fraudulently ,by using number ranges or targeting a specific number .


    The mobile networks have a lot to answer for, as they seem to always side with their revenue sharing partners .not their customers.
    Comreg-(Regtel) dont seem to be really bothered, they side with the network operators and believe their version of events.


    In our case it was the latter part of no3 and it took me months of work to unravel the web of lies .
    O2 seemed to think that stealing from the phone acc of a person that had only been buried 2 days was perfectly ok and within their standard of business ethics .


  • #89
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    O2 controlled all 5xxx numbers up to 53xxx at one point, from memory. You had to deal with O2 or an agent of theirs to get one.


  • #90
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Hopi watcher wrote: »
    It is beginning to look as if you are working for one of these cowboys. The fact is that they deliberately use misleading advertising. For example all the ads on TV3 are focused on a prize that could be won. The word "free" is often used. The voice over never explains that a response will entrap the phone owner into a "service" which will take money, up to €10 a week automatically, from call credit and the Operator is under no obligation to provide anything of like value in return. Terms such as "this is a subscription service" are jargon.
    There is currently an ad on the net which actually uses the "congratulations you have won a iPod" as a lure and despite the fact that ComReg have been made fully aware of this nothing has been done. If you click the lure you are than asked to answer a question, text the answer and bang, you are entrapped in a "subscription service" and no sign of any iPod. The same ad has photos of "previous winners" and again ComReg have been informed that these photos are fakes, but again nothing happens.
    This theft is now going on in Ireland for the past 6/7 years, it has all but been stoppoed in the UK by proper regulation and still nothing happens here.
    After the Mahon Tribunal wouldn't you think that someone, somewhere would say, enough is enough, and stop this.
    By the way TV3 must take a lot of the blame, they are the only TV station carrying these ads now. Don't let your children watch TV3 daytime unsupervised--that is when these ads are aired.

    not sure how you can draw this conclusion from what I have already written on this topic. I have experience in dealing in short codes on standard rate and premium rate.

    The way people reacted to the porn diallers was nothing short of hysteria and very Irish. It was nothing short of ridiculous and pandered to mammy state rationale and lack of personal resposibility. However, it doesn't bother me that these numbers were eventually banned and technology has leap frogged that particular issue for most people.

    Premium rate service - I'm all for them and if somebody wants to part with their money for them, let them at it. However, let's play fair and square and these arrangements with mobile operators are unacceptable and need to be discontinued. My own operator is one of those who seem to have "trusted partners" and that annoys me.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    O2 controlled all 5xxx numbers up to 53xxx at one point, from memory. You had to deal with O2 or an agent of theirs to get one.

    In the early days there has a lot of "reserved" numbers. I believe that ComReg have stopped this practice. You can reserve a number but you have to then lose it or use. The process of getting a shortcode is straightforward enough. You then have to go and deal with each network to get connected.


  • #92
    Hopi watcher
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭Hopi watcher


    BrianD wrote: »
    not sure how you can draw this conclusion from what I have already written on this topic. I have experience in dealing in short codes on standard rate and premium rate.

    The way people reacted to the porn diallers was nothing short of hysteria and very Irish. It was nothing short of ridiculous and pandered to mammy state rationale and lack of personal resposibility. However, it doesn't bother me that these numbers were eventually banned and technology has leap frogged that particular issue for most people.

    Premium rate service - I'm all for them and if somebody wants to part with their money for them, let them at it. However, let's play fair and square and these arrangements with mobile operators are unacceptable and need to be discontinued. My own operator is one of those who seem to have "trusted partners" and that annoys me.

    I'm sure you are deliberately missing the point here, the point is that entrapping people with misleading ads and jargon is not a case of "somebody wanting to part with their money", they are being conned and an awful lot of them are children. What should be happening here is that ComReg and the Minister must state clearly to all in this business that if the abuse and exploitation continues than the use of the "reverse billing" facility will be curtailed, licenced and controlled--with all "fun" items specifically excluded.


  • #93
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    BrianD wrote: »
    Yes but what about charities and the Late Late? :)
    For each €2 charity donation text the charity gets about 50cent with the company offering the service getting about 40cent and the mobile operator getting more than half! by far the biggest slice of the pie!
    Seriously, there are plenty of legitimate uses of premium rate short codes.
    None that offer any value for the costs involved.
    The operators will wise up once they are named and shamed.
    They have already been named and shamed but still continue their seedy trade.

    Hopi watcher wrote: »
    Correct. In fact all the TV ads go out on daytime on TV3. There is clearly a very high degree of targeting.
    They are Targeting adult services at children by having them on in the daytime. The satellite children's channels don't help either as the advertisements on those channels can't be regulated. They bombard children with offers and free prize draws etc which are all subscription services, these can't be accessed here in Ireland but it makes children think similar services here are free.


  • #94
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    BrianD wrote: »
    The way people reacted to the porn diallers was nothing short of hysteria and very Irish. It was nothing short of ridiculous and pandered to mammy state rationale and lack of personal resposibility.

    Bollocks. Eircom were providing a "service" that none of their customers wanted but profited them greatly. This has nothing to do with the nanny state. The nanny state seeks to protect people from their own choices, not to protect them from underhanded businesses.


  • #95
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Zab wrote: »
    Bollocks. Eircom were providing a "service" that none of their customers wanted but profited them greatly. This has nothing to do with the nanny state. The nanny state seeks to protect people from their own choices, not to protect them from underhanded businesses.

    It certainly was nanny state material when people didn't secure their own equipment and turning around and blaming Eircom was laughable. Anyway that was 2003.

    What people are advocating is a ban rather than addressing the issue. Doesn't make sense. I have zero problems with premium rate and long may they continue to be around. However, I do have problems with operators surrepticiously facilitating them through unusual banner advert arrangements which should be banned and the operators named and shamed. Unlike Eircom back in '03, these operators have direct relationships with these operators and these need to be stopped.

    As for kids - There is an onus for parents who give their kids a phone to educate them in its use and restrict access.


  • #96
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    BrianD wrote: »
    It certainly was nanny state material when people didn't secure their own equipment and turning around and blaming Eircom was laughable. Anyway that was 2003.

    It was extremely difficult to harden Internet Explorer in 2003 and that was the loophole that the fraudsters exploited to ring up enormous porn dialler charges for the unwary in 2003.

    However eircom, in creating the Band 13 porn dialler band were off with most of the money from 2002 onwards and the exchequer was off with around 60c a minute of it. The original fraudsters had to share the remaining 40-80c per minute.

    The Commercial Director of eircom at the time of that obnoxious scam, David McRedmond, is Managing Director of TV3 today.
    What people are advocating is a ban rather than addressing the issue.

    I advocate no ban, let me restate the simple principles.

    1. Everybody is opted out of every text number above 53xxx straight off.
    2. Everybody over 18 may contact their Operator and Opt in at any time.
    3. Everybody who cannot prove they are 18 or over remains opted out until they prove they are 18. Under 18 year olds are not allowed to enter a contract which is exactly what 3 x €2 premium texts a week amounts to.
    4. EVERY Billable event must originate on a mobile phone for all bands up to 53nnn. No Network orginated billable events are to be permitted. You can be billed for a one off you sent only.

    If you want to buy €1 coke cans from vending machines at higher prices then you may opt in by all means. Your choice as an adult.
    Doesn't make sense. I have zero problems with premium rate and long may they continue to be around.

    Do you or have you had any connection with Phantom FM.???
    Do Phantom FM make money on Premium Texts.???
    However, I do have problems with operators surrepticiously facilitating them through unusual banner advert arrangements which should be banned and the operators named and shamed. Unlike Eircom back in '03, these operators have direct relationships with these operators and these need to be stopped.

    The principles I stated above will protect the consumer as did the mandatory opt in for Band 13 in 2004. Nobody will opt in to be defrauded. Sorted.
    As for kids - There is an onus for parents who give their kids a phone to educate them in its use and restrict access.

    There is NO WAY for a NORMAL PARENT to restrict access. It has to be done on the network.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    BrianD wrote: »
    It certainly was nanny state material when people didn't secure their own equipment and turning around and blaming Eircom was laughable. Anyway that was 2003..

    I disagree on the nanny state part and I believe you are misusing the term for the reason I've already stated. Blaming Eircom is not laughable, there's no reason they should knowingly profit from computer fraud, regardless of whether they're directly in cahoots with the fraudsters or not. In my opinion you're underestimating the responsibility of a large entity such as Eircom in modern society.

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Do you or have you had any connection with Phantom FM.???Do Phantom FM make money on Premium Texts.???
    I don't think it's necessary for him to name the company? He's already said he's worked with premium rate SMSs so clearly he's at least indirectly benefiting from them.
    The principles I stated above will protect the consumer as did the mandatory opt in for Band 13 in 2004. Nobody will opt in to be defrauded. Sorted.
    If I'm reading you correctly you're advocating a ban on recurring charges, which I'd agree with, but that would seem to clash with your reason for #3? There's also the option of some sort of operator confirmation, such as when you try to send a premium text you get a message from your operator saying SENDING YOUR RECENT PREMIUM SMS WILL COST €2, RESPOND 'Y' TO CONTINUE, or something like that. Lack of clarity is one of my big issues with all of this, people thinking they're doing one thing and ending up spending a lot more.


  • #98
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Zab wrote: »
    If I'm reading you correctly you're advocating a ban on recurring charges, which I'd agree with, but that would seem to clash with your reason for #3?

    In practice the only one of those 'open' bands where recurring charges make economic sense is 53xxx so ban recurring network originated billable events there, eg daily celebrity tripe at a cost of 50c per day.

    There is a further problem with 53xxx, texts cost anywhere from 40c to 80c in that band.
    There's also the option of some sort of operator confirmation, such as when you try to send a premium text you get a message from your operator saying SENDING YOUR RECENT PREMIUM SMS WILL COST €2, RESPOND 'Y' TO CONTINUE, or something like that. Lack of clarity is one of my big issues with all of this, people thinking they're doing one thing and ending up spending a lot more.

    In some cases a person sending a text at cheap rates, eg 50xxx or 51xxx then finds themselves being bombarded with 57xxx texts @ €2 each. IN order to get out of the 57xxx scam they must text that STOP out to the 57xxx number (where it is often completely ignored by the fraudsters) despite never having opted in through the 57xxx number. This should be illegal but Comreg are being their usual useless selves. If you can opt in on 50100 you shoul be able to opt out on 50100. End of. :(

    In many cases people get themselves a new sim with a recycled number that was abandoned by someone else in the past and the fraud starts up the minute they activated the new sim.

    But there is no question that the premium text industry is full of scum that give it a bad name. I propose to disrupt the activities of the scum while leaving space for genuine PR text services where a text is sent to competitions etc ( one off) as long as the consumer gets some certainty.

    RTE, which behaves in a principled and transparent manner unlike the likes of TV3 and their PLAY TV scam of recent times has published a helpful guide to what they are up to. The complexity of this single statement shows how little chance the consumer has..and that with the honest operators. Meanwhile the scum make like bandits with their frauds. :(

    http://www.rte.ie/about/interactive.html


  • #99
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Do you or have you had any connection with Phantom FM.???
    Do Phantom FM make money on Premium Texts.???

    I certainly did but I don't see the relevance to this discussion. We used two numbers during my time there. One was an (083) number and the other a 51xxx. Both were standard rate so not premium and it was up to the listener to use it if they wanted to. One of the resaons we went with the standard rate 51xxx number was that it was standard rate and a fair price for the listeners. Radio stations tend to use 51xxx (standard) or 53xxx (20-30c) numbers. One of the reasons for using a shortcode is memorability and they can handle higher volumes of incoming messages. Anecdotally, I have heard that stations using the 20-30c short codes increased their traffic considerably


    Outside of this I have also used premium rate in other situations where there was a value for what was being offered.

    So I would be in favour of shortcodes being available to all by default with the option to block. Would be in favour of blocking by default for under 18s but parents need to educate their kids if they give them a handset.

    ComReg need to grow some balls and start proactively policing the sector. If they upped this and the fines they would probably be self financing.

    Broadcasters need to show some responsibility with the "barely legal" adverts they run.

    Operators need to end any "trusted partnership" arrangements that exist and stop facilitating the transfer of customer numbers via ad banners. They also have to stop the "wasn't us, boss" plausible deniability that they persist with when they are also pocketing a cut of the call.

    I'm anti-ban because it means that personal responsibility is avoided. I see reform as the way forward and naming and shaming the operators to get them to act in the interest of their customers.


  • #100
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    RTE, which behaves in a principled and transparent manner unlike the likes of TV3 and their PLAY TV scam of recent times has published a helpful guide to what they are up to. The complexity of this single statement shows how little chance the consumer has..and that with the honest operators. Meanwhile the scum make like bandits with their frauds. :(

    http://www.rte.ie/about/interactive.html

    It would be my opinion that RTE dodged a bullet over whatever that show was with the Healey Rae voting controversy. They do have clear T&C's for interactive but somehow the large number of calls from a small group of incoming numbers (Dail Eireann it would seem) went either undetected or ignored. Any sane person would see this activity as unusual and a potential breach of the T&C's.

    Most of these services have a management dashboard or at the very least you can get a csv file of calls/entrants. A quick data sort in excel would have revealed any oddities. I'd be surprised if this wasn't done as the numbers would give you some idea of the geographic spread of votes (from the area codes).

    I admire your kick ass approach to this but I'd stop an outright ban as this would equally affect the principaled operators.


  • #101
    cast_iron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    BrianD wrote: »
    I'm anti-ban because it means that personal responsibility is avoided.
    While I'm not exactly in agreement with an opt-in system either, the reason you give is quite bizarre. :confused:


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement