Premium rate text - 57052

Solair · 28-03-2012 8:51pm

Given that it's a transaction network, perhaps it should be regulated by the Central Bank?

Hopi watcher · 30-03-2012 1:23pm

cast_iron wrote: »

While I'm not exactly in agreement with an opt-in system either, the reason you give is quite bizarre.

No it is not Bizarre, you see Brian is an advocate for the cowboys. Note he never responded to the suggestion that all phone owners should be immediately opted out after each contact
As for educating children, that is just a plain silly cop-out. What should be banned is adults interacting with children and the onus musr be on the adult to ensure that who they are interacting with are not children. Do you have a problem with that Brian?

BrianD · 30-03-2012 2:36pm

Hopi watcher wrote: »

No it is not Bizarre, you see Brian is an advocate for the cowboys. Note he never responded to the suggestion that all phone owners should be immediately opted out after each contact
As for educating children, that is just a plain silly cop-out. What should be banned is adults interacting with children and the onus musr be on the adult to ensure that who they are interacting with are not children. Do you have a problem with that Brian?

Hopi What you have said is incorrect and wrong so I presume you'll be editing and you can pop on the apology at your leisure. I think you should have a good old read of what has been posted by me and others before posting a load of cobblers like this. I'm actually against these cowboys. Furthermore, I've probably made more of a contribution to this crusade than other posters here. I have also used standard rate and premium rate before (in the past) which affords me a view from the other side of the fence. Also to note that almost all people with a mobile will use a short code on a regular basis to receive and send information.

"Note he never responded to the suggestion that all phone owners should be immediately opted out after each contact." I didn't respond as I don't see it as one of the important issue.

I am anti-ban as I think that this is a nonsensical approach and legit operators should be allowed full access to the market. An opt-out only ban kills off all operators good or bad.

If you give a phone to a child you should educate them in it's use and teach them about the dangers. Common sense approach but all to many parents seem to opt out of their responsibilities. Now that's a cop out and all of course we want mammy state to bail us out when it costs us.

Let's all be candid about the numbers of people who willingly engage with these services without reading what the advert says or educating themselves. Banning means that there's no teaching people to be wary and then the bad guys move on to the next scam.

As already stated, there are other more methodical ways rather than a hysterical call for a ban. These aren't companies in the south pacific thousands of miles away. They are companies largely based here using numbers issued here and should be and can be brought to account.

Anyway, I see the BAI have brought out the Childrens Advertising Code consultations this week. It has no direct reference to PRS advertising so an opportunity lost.

cast_iron · 30-03-2012 3:39pm

BrianD wrote: »

Banning means that there's no teaching people to be wary and then the bad guys move on to the next scam.

Your argument for not making them opt-in is "to teach people a life lesson"?
That is a bit absurd to be fair. That is not, and never would be a good reason to keep the setup as is. There may be other valid commercial reasons, but that one is off the wall if you ask me.

Hopi watcher · 30-03-2012 4:06pm

BrianD wrote: »

Hopi What you have said is incorrect and wrong so I presume you'll be editing and you can pop on the apology at your leisure. I think you should have a good old read of what has been posted by me and others before posting a load of cobblers like this. I'm actually against these cowboys. Furthermore, I've probably made more of a contribution to this crusade than other posters here. I have also used standard rate and premium rate before (in the past) which affords me a view from the other side of the fence. Also to note that almost all people with a mobile will use a short code on a regular basis to receive and send information.

"Note he never responded to the suggestion that all phone owners should be immediately opted out after each contact." I didn't respond as I don't see it as one of the important issue.

I am anti-ban as I think that this is a nonsensical approach and legit operators should be allowed full access to the market. An opt-out only ban kills off all operators good or bad.

If you give a phone to a child you should educate them in it's use and teach them about the dangers. Common sense approach but all to many parents seem to opt out of their responsibilities. Now that's a cop out and all of course we want mammy state to bail us out when it costs us.

Let's all be candid about the numbers of people who willingly engage with these services without reading what the advert says or educating themselves. Banning means that there's no teaching people to be wary and then the bad guys move on to the next scam.

As already stated, there are other more methodical ways rather than a hysterical call for a ban. These aren't companies in the south pacific thousands of miles away. They are companies largely based here using numbers issued here and should be and can be brought to account.

Anyway, I see the BAI have brought out the Childrens Advertising Code consultations this week. It has no direct reference to PRS advertising so an opportunity lost.

First of all will you get off the "teach the kids" nonsense. That is like saying if we teach the kids we could avoid all crime. This is the line that InkRed etc take when cornered, "Its not our fault, its the fault of the parents" It is utter nonsense to try to pass the buck to parents for not teaching their child. Taken to its logical conclusion you could claim that all crimes perpetrated on children could be avoided if only parents would teach them:mad:
Those minded to rob people should not be allowed to operate for the fact is that they repeatedly find ways to circumvent regulations.
Another fact is that there is no need whatever to allow the use of the "reverse billing facility" for those items involved. What is a wrong with sending a text invoice and payment made by a return text which will have the payment attached to it. All willing customers will have no problem replying. No reply indicates phone owner not interested. Any money due can be claimed via the usual methods.
If you look at the ads you will conclude that they a deliberately designed to hide the "subscription" element, a blind man can see that, (why do you think so many opeople get entrapped in the first place?) yet ComReg allow this stuff. Wonder has it anything to do with the photo from the New York Stock Exchange
Regarding your overall point re: allowing Operators access to all markets, they themselves have f**ked it up by their repeated entrapping of people and it is now clear to all that they cannot be trusted with a facility that allows them direct access to other people's money.
Finally, I maintain, and you haven't address it, that it is very dangerous to allow adults to interact freely with children, and that is what precisely happens here, professional adults at that conning children of their few euros. These guys are the scum of the earth, full stop and they should not be allowed any latitude.

Sponge Bob · 30-03-2012 9:11pm

Hopi watcher wrote: »

It is utter nonsense to try to pass the buck to parents for not teaching their child. Taken to its logical conclusion you could claim that all crimes perpetrated on children could be avoided if only parents would teach them:mad:
Those minded to rob people should not be allowed to operate for the fact is that they repeatedly find ways to circumvent regulations.

Kids get new prepaid phones every day of the week in Ireland and their credit is sometimes robbed off them by midnight as the scammers reactivate an old mark of theirs as soon as that new sim goes live.

That is because most numbers given out are recycled from previous users of yesteryears excepting 089 numbers which are new by and large.

How can ANYBODY protect them against that level of fraud save with a blanket opt in mechanism.

These guys are the scum of the earth, full stop and they should not be allowed any latitude.

Exactly. Worse than bankers. The premium text 'industry' in Ireland is wall to wall scum by and large.

There are plenty of honest operators but they are in outbound bulk text services not in reverse billing in the 53xxx and higher premium ranges.

doleman2010 · 31-03-2012 11:46am

Would anyone be able to shed some light on the way comreg works .

From my information the comreg that you would report any alleged problems to are just are mirror of the old REGTEL that were funded by the so called industry. In fact a lot of the staff are supposed to be the same? and that they are just an outsourced call centre.?

I know that comreg itself is a statutory body , that employ professional qualified staff in their head office , It was with the assistance of comreg itself that I was able to get to the truth of the matter in my case and they in turn were able to handle the issue with O2 , as O2 refused to deal with me on the matter once they were caught out.

Sponge Bob · 31-03-2012 11:19pm

You must formally complain to O2 first and when O2 don't deal with it you may escalate to Comreg after roughly 10 days. Do not complain to the premium text ex Regtel crowd in there as they are captured by the scammers and have long been, go higher.

Keep at barbara delaney and shay o malley and michelle townshend his assistant whose emails are name.surnameATcomreg.ie

Also batter george merrigan who licences mobile operators and sinead devey his assistant.

The big bosses are alex chisholm and kevin o brien.

They created this nest of thieves, they are responsible for sorting it out.

Comreg get 500 complaints a week about premium rate texts but these are handled by a call centre in waterford not by the big bosses.

spookwoman · 01-04-2012 2:09pm

Not looking good with comreg

Sponge Bob · 01-04-2012 2:22pm

spookwoman wrote: »

Not looking good with comreg

Take it to their management especially if you sent a stop.

Sponge Bob · 01-04-2012 2:38pm

The Multiple Competition Scam.

Comreg currently allow a many competition and one number scam running off 57xxx numbers. Here is what they allow.

1. Entry on free or low cost number, eg 50xxx or 51xxx,suddently 57xxx messages appear at €2 each.
2. You text STOP to a number like 57052 when you get some BS text about some celebrity competition.
3. Then a number like 57052 sends you more premium texts about, say, some TV3 program. This is an ENTIRELY separate competition that they have enterd you in. You text stop again.
4. Amazingly a number like 57052 then sends you EVEN more premium texts about, say, some cookery competition. This is an ENTIRELY separate competition AGAIN that they have entered you in. You text stop again.

Repeat ad infinitum. This is because Comreg let them run multiple competition off one number and you must stop each and every one of them.

This is an impossible situation because the fraudsters make up a new competition every week to evade the last stop instruction ( which cost you €2 of course). Welcome to Premium Text Fraudster Hell.

And there is no way to send a cheap stop message to the 50xxx or 51xxxx number you originally entered through.

Once they got you they got you, Comreg generally believe the fraudsters not their victims.

Simply a disgrace. Even the most corrupt FFer could not keep up with the Premium phone industry and its many scams.

BrianD · 01-04-2012 10:26pm

@hopiwatcher The reason why I say education is really important is because it is, like everything else in life, buyer beware. I would be of a view that the majority of people who use PRS and then end up being caught up in any subsequent scams did so because they simply did not read the advert. Even if they did read the advert they may not fully understand what happens next. It is therefore the responsibility of the parent or guardian who gives their kid a phone that just like you don't get into a car with a stranger that you don't text these adverts. It is as simple as that and it's an important part of educating kids as consumers.

@spongebob Some of these companies are also using long codes (normal numbers) to hook people in.

Sponge Bob · 01-04-2012 11:53pm

Yeah but it is relatively easy to bar longcodes. Around 10% of all eircom customers have barred premium 15xx calls from their landlines...ie opted out. Others have blocked them on PABXs etc.

However a 15xx longcode will not contact you and get you stung for €2 a pop unlike the premium rate text lot.

I have received a few PMs on that suggested mods to that code of practice of mine above and as well I examined what the Australians did a few years back. I think one weakness in my code was what to do about Charity Donations and I propose to vary the scheme somewhat.

Code of Practice.

1. Everybody is opted out of every text number above 54xxx straight off.
2. Everybody over 18 may contact their Operator and Opt in at any time to 55xxx and higher numbers.
3. 53xxx Numbers are to be capped at 30c per text and no reoccuring/reverse events. You get billed if you send it...once only. It must traverse your operators SMSC outbound and a delivery report return path must be supported from the target SMSC.
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 by law 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 54nnn. No Network orginated billable/reverse billable events are to be permitted including banner clicks where your sim data is read ona web server. You can be billed for a one off you yourself sent through an SMSC only.
5. A new band, 54xxx is to be created for Charities. The donations are to be flatlined at 50c ( no more no less) and mobile operators and service providers are to be limited to 5c each with 40c guaranteed for the charity. This band to remain outside the Opt In wall but only if the charity is guaranteed 40c out of every 50c. Charities are not liable for VAT on fundraising I understand.
6. YOU MAY OPT OUT of Bands 53xxx and 54xxx any time by calling your provider.
7. Bands 50xxx and 51xxx are to be unregulated save for child protection and decency issues. They are either free or 10c.

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.

All premium texts over 50c in value together with reverse variants of same are available to opted in customers only.

Thoughts. By PM if you wish.??

I also note here and here that Vodafone UK have a facility that allows an opt out from Reverse billed texts...unlike Vodafone Ireland who seem not to give a toss.

And the problem as I understand it is a lot worse here than in the UK.

Zab · 01-04-2012 11:59pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Thoughts. By PM if you wish.??

What happens if I send a text to a number I'm opted-out of?

Sponge Bob · 02-04-2012 12:42am

It should be blocked, therefore it should fail as the SMSC won't accept it.

Solair · 02-04-2012 10:08am

It should work like this :

Customer sends subscription SMS to premium service.

Network operator sends : you have requested to subscribe to a premium rate SMS service at 4 Euro per week. To confirm,reply "yes" to decline reply "no". To report spam reply "report"

Until that is received by the customers network no subscription should exist.

This should not rely on some third party service provider, after all the mobile network is handing your money over. They should be responsible for security verification.

It should also be possible to block premium SMS entirely.

If any service is generating a lot of "no" or "report" replies, it could be flagged for investigation by ComReg and possibly referred to the Gardai if it's a genuine fraudulent SMS or, the network could just temporarily block it pending an investigation.

Something like this would clean up the industry in weeks!

spookwoman · 02-04-2012 11:46am

Totaly agree and the sods are putting their buttons right next to others so its easy to hit I'm hearing.
Noticed the stop text cost 13 cent. Have never heard of a prem service waiting a week before it starts texting you.

Dodge · 02-04-2012 12:00pm

Just a quick word to say fair play to Sponge Bob and Solair (and others) on this issue. Keep up the good work

Always beter to have clear facts on issues like this

Solair · 02-04-2012 1:19pm

It's actually one that's worth raising with any TD you meet too. They like votes more than they like protecting SMS businesses !

It's a nice, simple, practical thing for a local TD to get sorted!

If enough people complain to them, It becomes a political issue.

So definitely get onto your local TDs

foggy_lad · 02-04-2012 3:09pm

All "STOP" texts are supposed to be free Afaik

Sponge Bob · 02-04-2012 5:56pm

At this stage the whole industry is so disreputable and the treatment of the fraud victims is so despicable that we need a fresh start. Kids getting their credit robbed on brand new sims ( that were 13 months minimum in quarantine and out of use) shows how corrupt the whole system is.

Sponge Bob · 03-04-2012 6:07pm

Conor Pope has done some research today. This happened to an O2 customer and that is not a co-incidence. It probably would not have happened to a customer of Three or Vodafone or Meteor.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0403/1224314286336.html

LATE LAST MONTH, Eleanor McCarthy got a text message from 57756 telling her she was subscribed to some service and that the charges were €4.50 every five day.“I am not aware of ever subscribing to such a service,” she writes. She did get some random unsolicited texts from something called “cuddlytv” periodically over the last month or two, which she ignored. “Today was the first time I was told of any charges and that to unsubscribe I should text back ‘stop’ which I did. I then checked my bank account which was okay, but my O2 bill was unduly high and there was €36 worth of charges from this premium number.”
She rang O2 and was told they accept no responsibility for the charges “or feel any duty to care towards me, their customer.

So far so normal. O2 never accept any responsibility for anything. But how did Eleanor get into this situation??

She says she suspects the problem started when her four-year-old was playing a game which our reader downloaded from the app store and a banner appeared on the screen which she “tapped” into.“This ‘tapping’ appears to be acceptance of some ‘subscription’ to which I am liable to pay fees for.

So a Banner ad tap by a 4 year old playing a gam is a contract in the eyes of O2.

It is beyond high time that the Irish Consumer is allowed to blanket block this scum from their mobiles.

doleman2010 · 03-04-2012 6:23pm

Thanks for that information , I think that I might try and contact Mr Pope and tell him of our appalling treatment by O2 when they robbed our dead sons account and then tried to blame him for subscribing to their service .
Just because these scumbags and scumbagesses wear suits they think they can do and say anything they want to people and get away with it.
Is there a link between O2 , Zamano and rugby by any chance , ?

Sponge Bob · 03-04-2012 6:26pm

There is a link between O2 "Trusted Partners" and onward transmission of personal data pertaining to O2 customers.

spookwoman · 03-04-2012 6:57pm

Thanks for that. Just tweeted Conor Pope ref mums issues. Comreg not returning my mums calls

doleman2010 · 03-04-2012 10:11pm

Are there 2 different locations for comreg ? I know that the main one where I got assistance in the end is in their Hq in Dublin , a statutory body staffed by professionals .

The other arm of comreg that deals with consumers seems to be an outsourced call centre operation in Waterford , run by the same crowd that answer the phones for a mobile phone co.

Going by the posts about the staff in that place you could have little trust in reporting anything to that part of comreg ,
I did report the matter to them in the first place , and they were most unhelpful and done everything in their power not to proceed with the complaint.

jluv · 03-04-2012 10:46pm

I too got stung by a scam like this.I think my pride was more hurt than my bank balance that it could happen to me. I would have thought i am a very careful person when it comes to signing up for anything on the internet. However entered a competition run by a major supermarket chain as I thought.Did check for Ts n Cs.Saw nothing unusual. As soon as that text came through I knew I'd been had! Text stop immediatly and thought oh well theres €2 down the drain. The texts kept coming in and as soon as I'd top up all my credit would be gone!! Called my provider and they gave me the number of the company to call and if not satisfied to call Comreg. Called said company and I have to say they backed down pretty fast.I was really upset as I didn't have the ability to top up for essential calls as the money would go right away. The person in this company while offered me a refund on all credit used explained that other texts had already been programmed to my phone so there were still more suffering to come.Was reimbursed for my credit but not the inconvenience.And I thought I was savvy:(

spookwoman · 03-04-2012 10:47pm

Sent email to someone higher up the food chain. Showing phone logs from o2 with no texts from prize club. Also stated that o2 are linked with modeva which is linked to inkrefd wheich is linked to prizeclub. Basicall email written in not a happy camper mode.

BrianD · 03-04-2012 10:52pm

I think Conor Pope is very interested in this arrangement between the operators and these premium rate suppliers. I think everybody has a right to know if there is an downright underhand arrangement between the two parties that involves your number (personal data) being transferred without your knowledge so you can be billed for something you are not knowingly buying. They simply can not point to some term in the small print.

It is simply unacceptable for these operators to do something like this. It is not the expected behaviour that you should automatically buy something when you click on an advertisement.

Name and shame time time. This is the only way it will change. And this stage the onus is on the operators to say that they are NOT facilitating this underhand and sneaky practice. There is now a lack of trust between customers and the operators we pay to provide a mobile phone service.

So far there have been very similar complaints on these boards about Vodafone (who acknowledged it), a similar story involving Three (over on the legal forum) and one about O2 (in the paper). What are our operators up to?

The response by O2 detailed in the Irish Times stinks to high heavens and O2 should be ashamed of this.

Sponge Bob · 06-04-2012 12:51am

Comreg spat out around 3 documents earlier on the premium rate bizniss.

Some good stuff, lots of missing links in their system and 2 months grace for the knackers in the industry to continue rob people under the old rules....same as they always did

If they used to send you 2 texts a week, think 10 for the next while.

spookwoman · 06-04-2012 1:11pm

Got reply and they are going to review. I also said I could knock up one of those xlt reports in a few mins and with screen shots, modifications leave artifacts. Also that no report was sent from o2 except the once I sent them.
Do Comreg go to the sites of these companies? They should go there unannounced and check these records instead of relying on god will. Seems this company has a lot of complaints against it.

BurnsCarpenter · 03-06-2012 9:57am

Comreg's new rules were due to come into effect next week but the high court has granted a stay after an appeal by the industry.

So, more delays.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/premium-rate-service-providers-win-order-to-stay-sections-of-new-code-553961.html

Solair · 03-06-2012 12:56pm

and this is why Ireland's a disaster when it comes to regulation.

Regulators basically seem to have absolutely no power whatsoever!

Boomer08 · 28-06-2012 3:10pm

Does anyone know what the content of the texts where.
Is it football, mones etc.

I dont remember signing up but I must have at some stage

Hopi watcher · 27-07-2012 10:03am

Warning to all; Zamano are running a <SNIP> survey on the net. You are asked 3 questions and asked to send you mobile number to be included in a draw to win an iPhione. If you send your number you become entrapped in a "subscription service" and they will take €12 a week from your call credit.

Boomer08 · 27-07-2012 1:43pm

I rang Vodafone who gave me the name of the company, rang them and then sent me a refund cheque.

Sponge Bob · 30-07-2012 10:33am

New Comreg rules came in friday last.

RossD12 · 17-03-2015 1:21am

This is why you enter competitions from RTÃ႒Â‰ haha..

slimjimmc · 17-03-2015 1:59am

Mod note:Thread is almost 3 years deceased, no need to resurrect it.

Premium rate text - 57052

Comments