Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Direct Dial To Porn-Dialler Area Codes To Be Blocked

  • 22-09-2004 08:21AM
    #1
    ChipZilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 954 ✭✭✭


    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18615
    The Republic of Ireland is to block direct dial telephone calls to 13 countries in an effort to crack down on growing internet scams.
    Watchdog, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has instructed internet service providers (ISPs) and telecommunications operators to implement the blocking by October 4.

    The move is an effort to tackle rogue autodialler programs and modem hijacking where consumers are not aware that their internet dial-up settings have been changed to an international number. ComReg said that although the move was drastic they had continually asked the industry to come up with ideas and got no-where.

    Calls are to be blocked to Norfolk Island, Sao Tome and Principe, Cook Islands, Tokelau, Diego Garcia, Wallis and Futuna, Nauru, Tuvalu, Comoros, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Mauritiana and French Polynesia.

    Direct dial access to the countries can only be unbarred at the request of a subscriber and following verification that the requested number is a voice only service.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Well my views on this topic are well known and unpopular on this board. I agree with ComReg that it is a drastic move. No doubt there will be a lobby to get other blocks of numbers blocked. At the end of day most Internet users will be unaffected by the move.
    Direct dial access to the countries can only be unbarred at the request of a subscriber and following verification that the requested number is a voice only service.

    This bit I don't understand. Surely if the subscriber (verified as the bill payer_wants to have access to Band 13 countries it is irrelevant if it is a voice or data service. If he requests the block be removed, he is billable for all calls There are large number of adult entertainment services (casinos, porn etc.) that a consumer may wish to access and at his/her own expense. So why should the "state" interfere?

    If the industry was smart they should have put the responsibility back to the consumer where it belongs. Perhaps a range of smart phones that can be programmed by the consumer to block certain numbers or bands.


  • #3
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BrianD wrote:
    No doubt there will be a lobby to get other blocks of numbers blocked.
    Such as?
    BrianD wrote:
    This bit I don't understand. Surely if the subscriber (verified as the bill payer_wants to have access to Band 13 countries it is irrelevant if it is a voice or data service. If he requests the block be removed, he is billable for all calls There are large number of adult entertainment services (casinos, porn etc.) that a consumer may wish to access and at his/her own expense. So why should the "state" interfere?
    Because once a number is unblocked for a user, it is unblocked for all users. If there is a legitimate use for these numbers, they should be set up as 15xx premium-rate numbers, where they can be properly regulated.
    BrianD wrote:
    If the industry was smart they should have put the responsibility back to the consumer where it belongs. Perhaps a range of smart phones that can be programmed by the consumer to block certain numbers or bands.
    If you read the industry's responses to the consultation, you'll realise they tried to do exactly that. Thankfully the regulator saw fit to intervene. The one question that they have yet to ask, never mind answer, is how Eircom thought they could justify inflating the cost of these scams the way they did.

    I'm curious as to how a "smart" phone is supposed to stop a modem from dialling a number?


  • #4
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Because once a number is unblocked for a user, it is unblocked for all users.
    So what? The bill payer has taken responsibility once the block is removed.
    If there is a legitimate use for these numbers, they should be set up as 15xx premium-rate numbers, where they can be properly regulated.
    There is a legitimate use for these numbers - adult entertainment. A browse through the back pages of Hot Press or some of the red tops will show that there are also quite a number of voice services routed through Band 13 countries. These services operate out side the State so they don't need to be monitored by RegTel or use 15XX numbers. Newspaper articles posted on this board would seem to suggest that there has been abuse of premium numbers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe i.e. where the dialler dials a UK premium number instead of a Band 13. These premium numbers are regulated.

    The regulator could be doing better things with their time then dealing with this issue. I would be interested in seeing some figures on the volume of traffic to Band 13 and the number of complaints received about them each year.

    Finally,
    I'm curious as to how a "smart" phone is supposed to stop a modem from dialling a number?
    Fair cop, something tells me I won't be forgetting about that gaff for a long time. I am sure some sort of box could be developed placed on the line to intercept these calls whether dialled from a handset or a modem. Where there is a will there is a way. If the problem is as big as its made out to be on this board they would be flogging them down the local argos.


  • #5
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BrianD wrote:
    So what? The bill payer has taken responsibility once the block is removed.
    Responsibility for himself and every other bill payer out there? Once eircom, for example, removes the block on one of these Band 13 numbers, then the block is removed for every customer, meaning that each customer is now wide open to the number.
    There is a legitimate use for these numbers - adult entertainment. A browse through the back pages of Hot Press or some of the red tops will show that there are also quite a number of voice services routed through Band 13 countries. These services operate out side the State so they don't need to be monitored by RegTel or use 15XX numbers. Newspaper articles posted on this board would seem to suggest that there has been abuse of premium numbers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe i.e. where the dialler dials a UK premium number instead of a Band 13. These premium numbers are regulated.
    Yes, but these are premium voice services, and can be unblocked on request, as above. Premium dial-up services, if they legitimately operate out of band 13 countries, can also be unblocked with these requests, but I don't think you'll find too many adult dial-up services left, never mind operating out of Band 13.

    TBH, I see exactly where you're coming from, and I think that it's possibly not the number concern that ComReg should have been working on, but I'm happy to see it, because it shows that in some capacity ComReg are actually listening to the consumer, attempting to protect them, and are imposing regulations on the operators and making them stick. Do this a few more times in a few more key areas, and we might start making progress.


  • #6
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BrianD wrote:
    So what? The bill payer has taken responsibility once the block is removed.
    I suspect you've misinterpreted "user." Once a number is unblocked, any phone in the country can dial it.
    BrianD wrote:
    There is a legitimate use for these numbers - adult entertainment.
    I don't see why a legitimate service would need to exploit Windows vulnerabilities to get people to dial it without their knowledge.
    BrianD wrote:
    A browse through the back pages of Hot Press or some of the red tops will show that there are also quite a number of voice services routed through Band 13 countries. These services operate out side the State so they don't need to be monitored by RegTel or use 15XX numbers.
    Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they operate outside the state in order to avoid the use of regulated number ranges?
    BrianD wrote:
    Newspaper articles posted on this board would seem to suggest that there has been abuse of premium numbers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe i.e. where the dialler dials a UK premium number instead of a Band 13. These premium numbers are regulated.
    Right, and the fact of the regulation means that anyone abusing them is answerable. You seem to have a problem with this.
    BrianD wrote:
    The regulator could be doing better things with their time then dealing with this issue. I would be interested in seeing some figures on the volume of traffic to Band 13 and the number of complaints received about them each year.
    Read the consultation - those questions are answered. This may not be an important issue to you, but it sure as hell is to the customer who got surprised with a €12,000 phone bill.
    BrianD wrote:
    I am sure some sort of box could be developed placed on the line to intercept these calls whether dialled from a handset or a modem. Where there is a will there is a way. If the problem is as big as its made out to be on this board they would be flogging them down the local argos.
    Why would they? This is only a problem in countries where the incumbent makes more money from the scam than the scammers, and where they have vigorously resisted any attempt to make them do something about it. I suspect that's a fairly small target market, somehow.


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


    I haven't misinterpreted the word user if you read my posting. I was simply replying to the previous post where user was used as subscriber.

    When the subscriber requests the block to be removed it is not removed for every single subscriber in the country! At least that's my interpretation of the article. I was referring to individual susbscribers who can request the Band 13 group to be unblocked (or perhaps unbarred is the correct term).

    ANyway, I'm not getting a line-by-line tit-for-tat debate here on this subject. Suppose you'll be asking if I work for Eircom next. It's been done before and the bottom line is that the FAQ stickie on this subject backs my arguement all the way. Overall, the wrong type of move from ComReg but benign as it has little or no relevance to most of us.


  • #8
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    note to self: read whole thread before replying


  • #9
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BrianD wrote:
    I haven't misinterpreted the word user if you read my posting. I was simply replying to the previous post where user was used as subscriber.

    When the subscriber requests the block to be removed it is not removed for every single subscriber in the country! At least that's my interpretation of the article. I was referring to individual susbscribers who can request the Band 13 group to be unblocked (or perhaps unbarred is the correct term).
    I respectfully suggest you read Comreg's directive, instead of interpreting an interpretation of it.


  • #10
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Which bit do you not understand??? Why don't you read the last line yourself, aloud if necessary.


  • #11
    HelterSkelter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭HelterSkelter


    BrianD wrote:
    When the subscriber requests the block to be removed it is not removed forl every single subscriber in the country! At least that's my interpretation of the article.

    You are wrong. Read the comreg publication, if one user requests it to be unblocked, it IS unblocked for every subscriber to the particular phone company. So if I am with Eircom and I request a specific number to be unblocked, then all Eircom customers will be able to call it.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tell you what: I'll save you the trouble. From page 10 of the Directive:
    ComReg understands that it is not possible to solely provide access to the individual consumer who requests it but indeed any number that is opened will be able to be dialled by any consumer for whom that operator provides service.
    Of course, maybe ComReg got it wrong and The Inquirer are right...


  • #13
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    I never referred directly to the ComReg directive but to the last line of the original posting.
    Direct dial access to the countries can only be unbarred at the request of a subscriber and following verification that the requested number is a voice only service.

    If this statement is incorrect why wasn't it pointed out earlier? It has been alluded to indirectly in later posts. I have to laugh at how fast the thread turns to blaming a particular telco for a lack of personal responsibility by computer users. It only took postings before Eircom was mentioned.

    For the record OscarBravo
    Right, and the fact of the regulation means that anyone abusing them is answerable. You seem to have a problem with this.
    I have no problem with regulation, I'm a member of RegTel myself.

    My final word on this topic. Back to the real issues guys.


  • #14
    HelterSkelter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭HelterSkelter


    BrianD wrote:
    I have to laugh at how fast the thread turns to blaming a particular telco for a lack of personal responsibility by computer users. It only took postings before Eircom was mentioned.

    I reckon OcarBravo made a fair point about Eircom. They have been profiting excessively from this modem hi-jacking scam.


  • #15
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    I picked up the Sun yesterday and there was an article in there about this. It basically said what's been said here, that these rogue diallers change your diallup settings and then they take a slice of the profits. What it didn't mention is that Eircom make a huge profit from these scams, and have increased the cost of dialling this band in order to profiteer from peoples misfortune. I'd like to contact the girl that wrote the article and point this out so maybe they could do a follow up piece and show who the real scam merchants are. It gave her name but not an email address. I'll try to get it anyway.
    Having never fallen victim to one of these, does anyone know what sites they come from. The article stated that they come from porn and music download sites, and kind of hinted that it's your own fault if you get caught because you're a filthy pervert who steals music.


  • #16
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BrianD wrote:
    I never referred directly to the ComReg directive but to the last line of the original posting.
    That's why I said "I respectfully suggest you read Comreg's directive, instead of interpreting an interpretation of it." A suggestion you obviously decided not to follow.
    BrianD wrote:
    If this statement is incorrect why wasn't it pointed out earlier?
    The statement is not incorrect; your interpretation of it was.
    BrianD wrote:
    I have to laugh at how fast the thread turns to blaming a particular telco for a lack of personal responsibility by computer users.
    Read more carefully, Brian. I'm blaming Eircom for profiteering from this type of scam, not for its existence. Even leaving the debate about responsibility entirely to one side, it's clear that Eircom took advantage of it in an extraordinary way.
    BrianD wrote:
    I have no problem with regulation, I'm a member of RegTel myself.
    So what's the problem with moving these services to 1559 numbers, where they can be regulated?


  • #17
    damien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,291 ✭✭✭damien


    jor el

    Ring their office if needs be. If you do send in an email cc a copy to info@irelandOffline.org :)


  • #18
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    BrianD wrote:
    From El Reg:Direct dial access to the countries can only be unbarred at the request of a subscriber and following verification that the requested number is a voice only service.

    If this statement is incorrect why wasn't it pointed out earlier?
    Because it's not incorrect. When Joe Bloggs calls his Telco and has the number unblocked, the number will also be unblocked for Aine Murphy, who is also a customer of that Telco. So if the Telco doesn't verify that it's a voice service, then Joe Bloggs could unblock a rogue dialler service, and we'd be back where we started (except that there'd be a record of whoever requested the unblocking, but what would that prove?)


  • #19
    jor el
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    damien.m wrote:
    jor el

    Ring their office if needs be. If you do send in an email cc a copy to info@irelandOffline.org :)
    I still have the paper at home so I'll check it when I get in. I'll copy you if I can send a mail, probably tomorrow.


  • #20
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    With all due respect OscarBravo, I find your selective quoting of documents and your "trademark" line by line dissection of peoples posting tiresome and unreasonable.

    The article originally posted is correct. I merely questioned why one could only ask for a "voice line" to be unbarred on the basis that once the billpayer has requested it it makes no odds if it is a voice or data call. The unbarring of numbers is covered in Directive 2(b). My read on ComRegs view of this is that they are opinion that unbarring upon request of a subscriber is achievable but the industry has told them otherwise hence the "understanding" (thanks for the selective quoting Oscar)

    I also note that the directives in Direction 2 only have a operational life of 6 months unless amended or renewed. No doubt we will be back to square one on this issue early in 2005. BTW given the interest in this particular topic on this board, I am surprised that there was no official representation from IrelandOffline on this directive (or was it in a private capacity).


  • #21
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    BrianD wrote:
    I am surprised that there was no official representation from IrelandOffline on this directive (or was it in a private capacity).

    The membership individually hounded Comreg on this , hats off to EircomTribunal and to many others . IoffL never had a position on porn diallers and browser hijacking that I know of .

    Did you make any contribution on the issue anywhere along the line BrianD ... or did you appear around here simply to nitpick trés post facto ? By 'along the line' I mean during the past 2 years or so since Band 13 was announced.

    M


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    viking
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭viking


    Slashdot

    Gareth


  • #23
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Muck wrote:
    The membership individually hounded Comreg on this , hats off to EircomTribunal and to many others . IoffL never had a position on porn diallers and browser hijacking that I know of .

    Did you make any contribution on the issue anywhere along the line BrianD ... or did you appear around here simply to nitpick trés post facto ? By 'along the line' I mean during the past 2 years or so since Band 13 was announced.

    M

    I am not a member of IoffL but I broadly support their aims. As this is a public forum I am entitled to post as I like provided I abide by the rules. I gathered that the individual contributions may have been made by members of IoffL. IoffL may never have had a position on this issue but seem to be obsessed by it. My contribution has been that other than the content of Direction 1 (which is of little or no cost to ISP's and would probably have prevented many autodialler cases. Knowledge is power) no intervention is required by the regulator. ISP's should have taken the initiative years ago. I have no problem with the Band 13 charges (ridiculously high as they may be). Take responsibilty for your PC as indicated in the FAQ stickie (and common sense) and Band 13 charges are irrelevant. I do have a problem with the opinion the Eircom are somewhat involved in the scam.

    Directive 2 is a clumsy instrument and ultimately has commercial and free trade ramifications though ComReg are of the opinion that these will not be an issue. The autodialler scam won't last for ever and the scammers will move onto the next fiddle.


  • #24
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    BrianD wrote:
    The article originally posted is correct. I merely questioned why one could only ask for a "voice line" to be unbarred on the basis that once the billpayer has requested it it makes no odds if it is a voice or data call.
    Maybe I'm going blind, but I can't see where you questioned that. *
    BrianD wrote:
    The unbarring of numbers is covered in Directive 2(b). My read on ComRegs view of this is that they are opinion that unbarring upon request of a subscriber is achievable but the industry has told them otherwise hence the "understanding" (thanks for the selective quoting Oscar)
    Selective quoting of what? The directive? I'm not going to quote the whole thing, and it was obvious you hadn't read it. Your posts? I only quote what I'm replying to - old Usenet habit.

    I can accept that you don't like my posting style, but if it seems to me that you have a number of separate factual errors in your posts, I'll tackle them separately.


    [*] Edit: Ok, now I do - but your question is meaningless in the context of the directive, hence my misunderstanding.


  • #25
    eircomtribunal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,144 ✭✭✭eircomtribunal


    Influential German weekly magazine DER SPIEGEL runs an article about "our" new porn dialler regulations.
    I am not going to translate it for you.
    P.
    0,1020,192383,00.jpg
    DIALER-BETRUG
    Irland blockiert 13 Ländervorwahlen

    Auch in Irland gibt es zunehmende Probleme mit Dialern und anderen Methoden, Internet-Nutzer auf überteuerte Web-Reisen zu schicken. Die irische Regierung macht da wenig Federlesen - und unterbrach kurz entschlossen die direkte Anwahl von 13 Ländervorwahlen.
    Deutsche Surfer sind in dieser Hinsicht bekanntlich leidgeprüft, in Irland sind die Umtriebe der Dialermafia hingegen noch ein Novum. In den letzten Monaten wurde Irlands Telekommunikations-Behörde ComReg mit Beschwerden überschwemmt, die alle eines gemeinsam hatten: Da wurden die Internet-Verbindungen zahlreicher Web-Nutzer gekapert und entführt, um über überteuerte Einwahlgebühren mächtig Kasse zu machen. In einzelnen Fällen, sagt die ComReg, fanden sich Internet-Nutzer mit Rechnungen in Höhe von 2000 Euro konfrontiert, wo eigentlich "nur wenige Cent" hätten abgerechnet werden dürfen.

    Der Trick basiert auf einer Umstellung des Einwahlprotokolls bei Modem- und ISDN-Einwahlen: Per Schadprogramm wird die Einwahlnummer auf einen so genannten "Mehrwertdienst" umgestellt, für den in der Folge astronomische Summen abgerechnet werden. Anders als hier zu Lande werden die Schadprogramme vornehmlich per Trojaner verbreitet - was doppelt tückisch ist: das kann wirklich jeden erwischen.

    In Deutschland beendete der Gesetzgeber das ganz große Abfischen per Gesetz, begrenzte Zahlungen für Mehrwertdienste auf zwei Euro pro Minute und nicht mehr als 20 Euro pro Einwahl. Selbst so, das können die Verbraucherzentralen bestätigen, kommen noch viel zu hohe Summen zustande.

    Die ComReg in Irland wählte einen anderen Weg, der nun mächtig Staub aufwirbelt: Bis zum 4. Oktober, berichtete die "Irish Times", wird die direkte Verbindung zu 13 Ländern, die vornehmlich im Südpazifik liegen, schlicht und einfach abgeschaltet. Wer dann wirklich jemanden auf Nauru, den Norfolk Inseln, Sao Tome oder Principe, den Cook Islands, Tokelau, Diego Garcia, Wallis oder Fortuna, Tuvalu, Comoros, Kiribati, den Solomon Inseln, in Mauritania oder Französisch Polynesien erreichen will, wird auf den "Operator" zurück greifen müssen. Den gibt es, anders als hier, immerhin noch in Irland.


  • #26
    Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    Translated with google
    Ireland blocks 13 land preselections

    Also in Ireland there are increasing problems with dia.-learns and other methods to send InterNet users on made too expensive Web journeys. The Irish government makes there few feather/spring vintages - and interrupted briefly decided the direct selection of 13 land preselections.

    German surfer are as well known wrong-examined in this regard, in Ireland are activities of the Dialermafia however still another new fact. In the last months of Ireland was inundated telecommunications authority ComReg with complaints, which had all one together: There the InterNet connections of numerous Web users were gekapert and kidnapped, in order to make over made too expensive a choice fees powerfully cash. In individual cases, the ComReg says, was confronted to InterNet user with calculations at a value of 2000 euro, where "only few cent" have actually might be accounted for.

    The trick is based on a conversion of a choice minutes with modem and ISDN Einwahlen: By harming program the a choice number is changed over to a "increase in value service in such a way specified", for which in the consequence astronomical sums are accounted for. Differently than here to country the harming programs are spread primarily by Trojaner - which is doubly malicious: that can really get everyone.

    In Germany the legislator terminated completely large Abfi by law, limited payments for increase in value services on two euro per minute and no more than 20 euro per a choice. Even so, which the consumer centers can confirm, come off to still much to high sums.

    The ComReg in Ireland selected another way, which whirls up now powerfully dust: By 4 October, the "Irish Times" reported, the direct connection to 13 countries, which lay primarily in the south Pacific, simply and simply is switched off. Who then really someone on Nauru, which Norfolk islands, Sao Tome or Principe, which Cook Iceland, Tokelau, Diego Garcia, Wallis or Fortuna, Tuvalu, Comoros, Kiribati, which Solomon islands wants to reach, in Mauritania or French Polynesien, will have to seize on the "operator" back. There, differently than, is that nevertheless here still in Ireland.

    Pretty brutal translation, but it helps (marginally) :)


  • #27
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Edit: Ok, now I do - but your question is meaningless in the context of the directive, hence my misunderstanding.

    No it wasn't as I was referring to the posted article and not the actual directive that you later quoted. I have made no factual errors - you have.

    Anyway, Oscar you may have the last word if you wish.


  • #28
    Ripwave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,188 ✭✭✭Ripwave


    BrianD wrote:
    No it wasn't as I was referring to the posted article and not the actual directive that you later quoted. I have made no factual errors - you have.
    This post by you contains the factually incorrect statement
    When the subscriber requests the block to be removed it is not removed for every single subscriber in the country!

    Note that this statement was not based on an error of fact in the original article on the Register, but on your misinterpretation of that article.
    Anyway, Oscar you may have the last word if you wish.
    That's the second time you've promised not to continue displaying your ignorance in this thread. Any chance you'd stick to your promise this time?


  • #29
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    From todays Irish Times
    South Pacific islands urge State to reverse phone call ban


    Political representatives of the Solomon Islands and the Cook Islands plan to travel to Dublin next week to urge the Government not to impose a ban on all phone calls made to the islands, writes Jamie Smyth, Technology Reporter.

    The European Union ambassadors of the two small South Pacific states are seeking meetings with the Government and the telecoms regulator, which this week decided to block calls to the islands and 11 other States.

    In interviews yesterday with The Irish Times, their ambassadors to the EU said the ban would have a negative impact on the island economies. They also warned that they had not ruled out taking legal action against Ireland to challenge the ban on telephone traffic, which has been proposed to prevent internet frauds.

    From October 4th telecoms firms have been directed by the Commission for Communication Regulation (ComReg) to block direct-dial calls to 13 states - most of which are based in the South Pacific - to prevent "modem hijacking", whereby hackers based offshore re-route a computer user's link to the internet.

    ComReg said it was taking the "exceptional" action in the interest of protecting consumers from an upsurge in these frauds.

    But the proposed ban has caused consternation among the 13 States named in the decision.

    Mr Todd McClay, ambassador of the Cook Islands to the EU, said the decision was "excessive".

    "I don't know if the action taken by ComReg is contrary to World Trade Organisation rules but I am looking at it... We have also been offered legal advice stating that it (ComReg) may not have the authority to do this."

    He said a ban could hurt the islands tourism and fisheries industries, and he urged the Irish Government to take alternative measures to protect consumers.

    He said he was planning to come to Dublin next Thursday to meet Government officials as part of a delegation representing the countries affected.

    Mr Robert Sisilo, the Solomon Islands ambassador to the EU, said he did not think it was legally acceptable for Ireland to block calls to the island. He said he would make representations to the Government next week.

    Auto-dialling fraud, or modem hijacking, enables a fraudster to install software on a consumer's machine without their knowledge and change their internet dial-up settings. Consumers can unwittingly fall victim to the scam when they visit unsafe websites which install the software. This software then redirects the phone link to the internet to far-flung locations, forcing users to incur charges of up to €5 per minute instead of the typical 1 to 5 cents.


  • #30
    spongebob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭spongebob


    Lets be a bit clearer on what Comreg have done.

    Comreg have removed these countries from the normal international outdial set because of persistent fraudulent activity centred on their number ranges.

    The Ambassadors have.

    1. Not admitted any problems with their number ranges
    2. Not proposed any solutions to these , or compensation for the victims
    3. Hidden behind some WTO / GATT free trade access guff instead .

    Were any of these countries to clean up their act I am sure that they would be added to the default outdial set immediately

    Nor have the ambassadors condemned those carriers who were making an excess profit on the activities of fraudsters ......far more than they themselves made in fact. They should all write to David Mc Redmond in Eircom and ask for some of the ill gotten gains to be forwarded to them to help implement technical solutions to prevent fraud .

    M


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    I don't understand how it could possible affect the Island's tourism or fisheries industries...

    If you have a legit reason for calling you can opt in to the country.

    What they are concerned with is the damage to the country's lucrative phone porn industry!!!


Advertisement
Advertisement