Premium rate text - 57052

Hopi watcher · 27-03-2012 11:55am

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.

foggy_lad · 27-03-2012 1:00pm

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.

Zab · 27-03-2012 1:12pm

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.

BrianD · 27-03-2012 11:15pm

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.

Sponge Bob · 28-03-2012 12:12am

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.

Zab · 28-03-2012 1:08am

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.

Sponge Bob · 28-03-2012 8:14am

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

BrianD · 28-03-2012 11:53am

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.

BrianD · 28-03-2012 12:05pm

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.

cast_iron · 28-03-2012 6:50pm

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.

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

Premium rate text - 57052

Comments