Latest PhonepayPlus "consultation"

[mike99]

2010/11 Annual Plan and Budget
A Statement by PhonepayPlus following its consultation published on 2 December 2009
Issued by PhonepayPlus on 30 March 2010

And my response to the original consultation call

Highlights:

Q1. PhonepayPlus will be developing a new Three-Year Strategic Plan in 2010. Do you think our purpose and role as set out above still describes the principles for regulation in the phone-paid services sector? If not, how do you think this should develop?

I responded to this question thus:

Your purpose and role as set out in section one of the Consultation is nonsensical: "Our vision is that anyone can use phone-paid services with absolute confidence." If you mean something like: "Our vision is that anyone ought to be able to use phone-paid services with absolute confidence", you should say this. If, on the other hand, you really believe that "anyone CAN use phone-paid services with absolute confidence", then how can you have a vision about this?
Perhaps you mean "hallucination" rather than "vision"?

OK, a minor point and I was being somewhat facetious, but PP+'s purpose and role as set out in section one of the Consultation really is nonsensical. The fact that PP+ insist on using this statement - even though it is nonsensical and this fact has been drawn to their attention - tells us a great deal about this organization.

Needless to say, Phonepayplus did not acknowledge or respond to this point.

Q3. What information or evidence do you have about specific segments or content areas and their potential for real growth or decline over 2009/10?

Here I indicated that I expected further decline. There was an extraordinary admission from PP+ here:

It was felt that subscription services have declined considerably, chiefly as a result of non-compliant services being removed from the market due to PhonepayPlus’ mobile review.

Funny that these "99% honest" "services" (rather like the 99% honest dialler "services" and the "99% honest" "free" ringtone "services" and the "99% honest" TV based premium rate "competitions") begin to dry up as soon as PP+ begin to regulate them and insist that they are actually run honestly.

Q4. How do you see the phone-paid services market developing in 2010/11?

my response:

With respect to most of the "services" currently on offer, I sincerely hope that the phone-paid services market continues to decline in 2010/11. With respect to genuinely useful phone-paid services (such as use of the mobile as an electronic wallet) there is great potential for growth in 2010, but I strongly suspect that this area will remain moribund as a direct result of PRS regulatory failures over the last ten years and the consequent dominance of this sector by companies in which PRS literate consumers can have precious little trust.

I did get a kind of response (and further admission?) here:

There was also the sense that past regulatory issues and the failure to tackle them effectively might impinge on legitimate PRS growth.

And then the key question:

Q5. What comments do you have on the priorities for 2010/11? Are there other projects or issues that you think PhonepayPlus should consider for the coming year?

To which I always respond in essentially the same way:

What PhonepayPlus SHOULD consider for the coming year are:

1) Mandating a robust and verifiable opt in system for ALL reverse charge SMS "services" whether one-off or "subscription" and regardless of price.

2) Forcing all networks to allow mobile users (and especially their children) to opt out of ALL PRS "services" before they start.

3) Forcing all networks to identify all PRS items on bills and PAYG records with the relevant short-code or 09 number rather than a network specific code number and to provide online look up facilities for every single PRS number used by the SPs those network providers elect to do business with.

4) Cooperating with the authorities to bring criminal prosecutions where acts to theft and fraud (cf mis-selling) are discovered.

I realize that PhonepayPlus has absolutely no intention of considering any of these essential measures or even discussing why it refuses to consider them, but I shall continue to suggest these measures as long as you continue to hold consultations and fraud and theft continue on a massive scale within this industry.

As I predicted, PhonepayPlus did not consider any of these essential measures and did not indicate why it refuses to consider them.

I'll just have to raise them under the next "consultation" then.

Q9 What areas should PhonepayPlus focus its core research programme in the coming year? Do you have knowledge of any industry research initiatives in these areas?

Was mysteriously changed (in the PP+ response) to:

Q9. What areas should PhonepayPlus focus its core research programme in the coming year? Do you have knowledge of any industry research initiatives in these areas that we could leverage?

This was not an improvement. Clearly anyone who uses "leverage" as a verb (in place of "use" or "exploit") has thereby declared that everthing else he/she says is complete twaddle.



Phonepayplus go on to note that the premium rate industry was worth around £800 million last year. This suggests that the industry has halved in value over the past few years. PP+ note that "The research suggests that at least part of the decline in the premium rate market is due to more stringent regulation and heavier fines driving out some companies who may not have played by the rules." Again, it is odd that an industry that is "99% honest" should contract by 50% as a result of these considerations.



The final question was:

Q11. Do you have any comments on any other risks that PhonepayPlus might face that are not identified above as part of the business plan design?

My response:

The chief risk is that PhonepayPlus will continue to perceive its role as that of striking a "balance" (as Sir Alistair puts it in the introductory section of your Consultation) between consumer protection and industry interests. In reality, adequate consumer protection and the establishment / expansion of an honest PRS industry go hand in hand.

PP+ did acknowledge my contribution here: "It was also raised that, rather than needing to strike a balance between consumer protection and industry interests, PhonepayPlus should realise that these interests go hand-in-hand." and, to be fair to PP+, it is a point they have made themselves in the past. Unfortunately, however, PP+ seem to be quite incapable of grasping the implications of this point.