PhonepayPlus refuse to act on unsolicited promotional messages from Antiphony

[mike99]

A new personal encounter with the PRS "industry":

On 12 February 2009 starting around 20:00 I received four messages within the space of about half an hour:

Hi there! You've reached 10p Mobile Dating! To get started, reply with your age in numbers and the letter M or F for your gender e.g. 23F

free msg - Hi there! Sexy singles are wating to meet you. Just reply with your age in numbers and the letter M or F for your gender e.g. 23F to get going!

free msg - Hi! no reply from u? We have awarded u 3 pounds FREE credit - try out Mobile Dating! Nothing 2 lose! Just reply with yr AGE&SEX 2 get going! e.g. 23F

free msg - Hi! no reply from u? We have awarded u 3 pounds FREE credit - try out Mobile Dating! Nothing 2 lose! Just reply with yr AGE&SEX 2 get going! e.g. 23F

all from 861111 = Sally Weatherall's friends Antiphony Ltd

I complained to PhonePayPlus using their website. I explained that I am registered with TPS, that calls to all PRS numbers from my phone are blocked, that reverse charge PRS to my phone is blocked (so at least I was not charged for this excrement), and that I have never ever had any dealings with Antiphony or any of their crooked friends.

I received a reply today! (PP+ normally ignore my complaints about websites offering "free" ringtones which I often report)

Dear Mike99

Reverse-billed SMS service (chargeable text messages) - 86111

Thank you for your complaint received on 13 February 2009.

PhonepayPlus is the organisation that regulates phone-paid services – the goods and services that you can buy by charging the cost to your phone bills and mobile pre-pay accounts. These include services operating on numbers beginning with the digits 09, mobile phone services accessed via a five or six-digit short code, and directory enquiry services. Our aim is to minimise consumer harm by ensuring that the companies responsible for providing these services abide by the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice.

As a result of your complaint, we would suggest contacting the service provider(s) directly and request that the service is cancelled. They will also be able to tell you how your number was obtained and how you came to receive these messages.

If you are receiving regular text messages and wish to stop the service either send a new text with the words STOP ALL to the shortcode (5 digit number, standard text charge will apply), or contact the company responsible for the service who will also be able to give you more information about this service.

You may contact the service provider direct to submit a refund claim at the address provided below; if your request is denied, we would suggest seeking your own independent advice. Unfortunately PhonepayPlus will not be able to assist you on this occasion.

Antiphony Ltd
6 Clifton Court
Hemel Hempstead
Herts
HP3 9XY
Tel: 0871 474 2804

You may be interested to know that PhonepayPlus has recently announced new measures in an attempt to proactively reduce [and to boldly split infinitives ] the level of consumer harm associated with phone-paid mobile services. Companies will now need to apply for prior permission to operate certain mobile services such as subscription services. Consumers will be required to confirm they wish to access these services after receiving clear information on the price and any relevant terms and conditions.

If you have any further queries or information regarding your complaint please contact our helpline on 0800 500 212, between 8am and 6pm weekdays, quoting your case reference number. This can be found at the top of this letter.

Thank you again for referring your complaint to PhonepayPlus.

Yours sincerely

Craven Jobsworth (not his real name)

Customer Service Advisor

I have replied:

Dear Mr Jobsworth

Thank you for your email.

Please note that I did *NOT* receive reverse-billed SMS because (as I explained in my complaint) my phone is protected against this mechanism for stealing money from phone users (I am with Vodafone).

If this *had* been reverse-billed SMS, I trust that you *would* have been able to assist me in obtaining a refund.

I realize that Antiphony would be "able" to tell me how my number was obtained and how I came to receive these messages, but I also realize (because I know rather a lot about the "industry" you "regulate") that Antiphony will do no such thing. In any case I know (and you know) how my number was "obtained", it was either bought as a list from another crooked company or it was generated as part of a block of random numbers.

Anyway, to come to the point. Unsolicited promotional SMS messages (unlike unsolicited reverse-billed SMS "services") are illegal under the 2003 Communications Act - an act which your organization is responsible for enforcing. I should, therefore, ask you once more to take action against this company or to pass my complaint to one of your colleagues who will take action.

Rest assured that I have no intention of letting this matter rest.

Yours sincerely

Mike99

I await results ................. I really really don't want to go down the Ofcom > Ofcom appeal > MP > Ombudsman > EU route again, but I shall if I don't get any satisfaction from PP+

[El Gringo]

it looks like 86111 is a WIN plc number that is being used by Antiphony Ltd

http://www.grumbletext.co.uk/search.php?mode=results
Subject of the post : www.ur-anus.com 86111 (5328 posts) by Remoh1 at: 12:21 28/01/05

I telephoned them and spoke to Jackie Westwood and asked her to remove my sons number from their system. That night another £1.50 sms arrived so today I have checked the icstis website http://www.icstis.org.uk/icstis2002/...honeNumber.asp and they provide the details as follows
WIN (Wireless Information Network) Ltd
1 Cliveden Office Village
Lancaster Road
High Wycombe
Buckinghamshire
HP12 3TD

and from the Antiphony adjudication

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/busin...p?cmd=3&id=813
The Executive considered the service to be misleading for the following reasons:

Reason 1

The service operated by sending free marketing SMS messages from the short codes 69003, 89727 and 69844, with the purpose of encouraging recipients to enter the Sex Dates service.

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/numbe...NcdResults.asp
PhonepayPlus has the following information about the number 89727.

Antiphony Ltd
6 Clifton Court
Hemel Hempstead
Herts
HP3 9XY
Tel: 0871 474 2804
cservice@antiphony.net

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/07624803028
Laura - 29 Jul 2008

It is linked to a 5 digit 89727 or 89069 text that i have been receiving, or similar 5 digit numbers beginning with 8 or 6. £1.50 every time you receive a text from this. So far have found £94 on my bill in just two months. Currently in the process of making a complaint to get my money refunded. Text STOP ALL. Contact details: Company is called 'WIN' or 'Tiffany' customerservices@winplc.com tel: 0845 130 9911. GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

[mike99]

PhonepayPlus have decided to investigate after all - I was very persistent - but they have, thus far, offered no explanation as to why they initially refused to even consider my complaint:

I am writing to update you on the complaint you made regarding the receipt of promotional messages from Antiphony, shortcode 86111.

We have opened a preliminary investigation into your complaint and have been in contact with both WIN, the service provider for shortcode 86111 and Antiphony the information provider who, as you know, both promotes and runs this service. Antiphony have confirmed they sent 3 promotion messages to your handset, 07### ### ###, on the 12 February 2009. Antiphony claim they sent these messages after your number was entered into the website www.text-date.com however they have advised us they do not store the ‘http’ addresses of any visitors to the site. [I presume this should be "IP" addresses]

It is not acceptable that Antiphony are unable to provide this information and our investigations team are pursuing this matter further. Can I please ask you to confirm at this stage that you have not entered your phone number into this website? We will then be in a better position to progress your compliant with Antiphony.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future – if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. [...]

Regards

Senior PPPPerson

Interesting that, in this case at least, PP+ are taking the view that the PRS people have to establish that I contacted them rather than (as with my previous complaint) my having to establish that I did not contact them - something PP+ (then ICSTIS) freely admitted was impossible.

[mike99]

my reply:

Dear Mr Senior PPPPerson

Thank you for your response.

I can confirm that have never visited the site www.text-date.com and that I have never entered my mobile phone number in this or any other PRS site. (I shall visit this site now to see what I can discover about it but I shall not enter any information).

NB My phone and all the household and family phones are registered with the TPS, barred from making PRS calls and (in the case of my mobile) barred from receiving reverse charge texts (a recent “service” introduced by Vodafone but only otherwise only offered by T-mobile). All family members are under strict instructions never to enter any personal details on a website (and certainly no mobile phone numbers) and never to have anything to do with 0871, 09, 070 and short codes without speaking to me first. I have billing records going back at least 10 years for all our phones and can easily rebut any claims that I have texted or called a PRS number.

When you write: “they do not store the ‘http’ addresses of any visitors to the site”, I presume you mean “IP” addresses?

In the meantime, can you offer any explanation as to why my original complaint was summarily rejected by Craven Jobsworth?

Regards

[mike99]

Pp+:

thanks for your e-mail and the useful information contained within it. Yes, i did mean ip addresses – i was in correctly using the terminology in antiphony’s e-mail.

I do apologise for the error made in craven jobsworth’s assessment of your complaint and the subsequent letter that was sent. Your complaint was obviously not concerning the receipt of reverse billed chargeable text messages – they are clearly promotional messages. Craven jobsworth’s letter does also not make it clear that should we find suitable evidence we would open a preliminary investigation into the service. Unfortunately a standard response to your complaint was generated in error. I have addressed these matters with the staff member in question.

I will be in contact again before the end of the week.

Regards

senior ppperson

[mike99]

Me again:

Thank your for your explanation, but I’m afraid that I’m even more puzzled now.

You have explained that Mr Jobsworth mistook my complaint for one about unsolicited reverse charge SMS and, having made that mistake, sent out a standard letter refusing to consider that complaint in which he said:

“You may contact the service provider direct to submit a refund claim at the address provided below; if your request is denied, we would suggest seeking your own independent advice. Unfortunately PhonepayPlus will not be able to assist you on this occasion.”

So are you suggesting that PhonepayPlus will only deal with complaints about unsolicited promotional SMS (which is, after all, normally free and is an annoyance rather than a serious problem) and that your standard procedure is to reject complaints about unsolicited reverse charge SMS (which is, in essence, theft and, I should argue, a far more serious problem than unsolicited promotional SMS) .......... or have I misunderstood Craven Jobsworth's letter and your subsequent clarification?

Regards

I'm trying to stay restrained and polite

[mike99]

Pp+:

This is the letter we send to complainants when we have insufficient evidence to investigate the complaint - because the complainant has not provided enough evidence and we have no other complaints about the service in question that may offer more information. We certainly do investigate complaints about reverse billed SMS services if they appear to breach our Code of Practice

I will be in contact again early next week with a further update on our preliminary investigation into Antiphony's service.

Regards

senior ppperson

[mike99]

Me:

Dear Mr PPPerson

Thank your for your this, but I'm afraid that I still don't understand.

You seem to be saying that you send out these letters automatically when 1) the complainant has not provided enough evidence and/or 2) you have had no other complaints about the service in question.

On point 1): What evidence can a complainant provide other than his/her number; details of the "service" received; and the claim that he she has not solicited the service? If you expect the complainant to submit copies of bills, you should ask for them upfront or when you decide to investigate. There is nothing else that the *complainant* can provide - other than by asking the SP who will direct the complainant to the CP who will almost certainly lie and who is, in any case, not the sort of firm I should choose to ring on an 0871 number and discuss my personal details with.

On point 2): How do you know that a complaint you reject in this way is not the first of many?

My experience with reporting my complaint on this occasion (and on a previous occasion when I complained to ICSTIS as it was then) would seem to confirm the widely reported perception that PhonepayPlus tries to deflect or fob off most complainants.

Regards

Mike99

[mike99]

Many thanks for your e-mail. Unfortunately there are occasions when complainants cannot explain the details of the service received that results in them being billed. They often have no recollection of requesting any premium rate service and have not kept copies of any text messages they have received as they fear they may continue to be charged for the service if they do this. Similarly they may not recall the actual content of any promotional messages received (that generally will have not resulted in them being charged). On these occasions we would not open a preliminary investigation into the complaint.

We have a suit of reports that are produced daily that detail the volume of complaints we have received against each shortcode and we can therefore easily spot trends in complaints about the same service/shortcode and investigate these further.

In relation to your complaint about the service operated by Antiphony I can confirm we have now opened a formal investigation into this. The Investigations Executive is Craven Jobsworth2 and he will be in contact should he need to discuss the evidence further.

In the meantime if you have any more enquiries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

senior ppperson

This is all, of course, complete nonsense - but nonsense that takes some unpicking ..........

If I had deleted all texts received and I could not recall the details of these texts or who these texts were from, PP+'s standard advice (in such cases) to "contact the service provider direct" would not be much use. The appropriate advice in such circumstances would be to contact the network to find out who had been sending you their reverse charge spam.

Of course none of this applied in my case, I knew and provided all the details so the above response still provides no kind of explanation as to why my complaints was originally rejected and no explanation of why I was told to "submit a refund claim at the address provided below" and that, "if your request is denied, we would suggest seeking your own independent advice. Unfortunately PhonepayPlus will not be able to assist you on this occasion."

If PP+ thought it might be appropriate for me to seek a refund, why do they consider it inappropriate for them to investigate whether I ought to be entitled to a refund. If PP+'s grounds for refusing to investigate were that they thought (mistakenly) that I had not provided details of the service, how were they able to use these details to advise me who to contact about the service?

In short, it is manifestly clear that PP+ summarily rejects many complaints without even considering an investigation. This was my experience last time I complained to ICSTIS about a personal encounter with PRS crooks and has been my experience this time. In attempting to explain this away, Senior Ppperson is (just like last time) digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself and the organization he works for. Like most people who work for the executive, he'll probably be gone in a few months' time anyway, so why should he care too much.

[mike99]

I think I've reeled him in for long enough. Time to club him over the head I think - metaphorically speaking of course!

Dear Senior PPPerson

So if a complainant cannot provide the details of the service received, you can't open an investigation. Instead you send the complainant a standard letter directing the complainant to get in touch with the service provider.

Don't you see a slight flaw in this "explanation"?

Apparently not, so I'll spell it out:

If the complainant can provide enough details to identify the service and the provider, then you could open an investigation using those details.

If the complainant can't provide enough details to identify the service and the provider, then you can't open an investigation using those details, but then you can't direct the complainant to the service provider either because you don't know who this is.

I realize that the person who sent me the original letter may have made an honest mistake, but you have explained that the letter he sent me was a "standard" letter. The problem is, there is no conceivable situation in which the sending of the standard letter like the one I received might be appropriate - which I suppose explains your inability to provide a plausible explanation.

As I wrote in my previous mail, there is a pattern here. When I wrote to ICTSIS three years ago I initially received a rejection letter: "the text you received would not have been unsolicited" (how did you know?, you had not investigated and were refusing to do so) and "ICSTIS does not have to power to force a service provider to refund customers" (completely untrue - you often did and still do force service providers to refund their victims). When I kicked up a stink, you relented and investigated my complaint. When I asked about the letter you had originally sent you supplied a series of increasingly preposterous and tortuous explanations - just as you are doing now.

The only possible interpretation is you send out these letters in an attempt to mislead complainants and dissuade them from pursuing their complaints. I wonder why this is.

I look forward to hearing from your colleague regarding my complaint against Antiphony, but perhaps it would be best if you refrained from insulting my intelligence any further with respect to the standard complaint rejection letters you send out.

[AnthonyC]

Mike, I'm gobsmacked! You of course know I've had dealings with PhonepayPlus and know what they're like but this totally takes the biscuit. They've really out done themselves this time.

I say forget the emails, record the phone calls and put 'em on YouTube. Do some SEO and make sure neither PPP, the SP, the IP and any of their victims can miss them. That kinda thing seems to be the best way of grabbing their attention.

[El Gringo]

reading what you have just wrote reminded me of what i read concerning how they measure 'customer satisfaction'.

talk about selective data. they only apparently survey 'customers' whose complaint lead to an adjudication (and 'refund' (virtual) ).

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/publi...08-2009-Q3.pdf
Quarterly Report
2008/2009 - Quarter 3

Introduction
 A total of 14,629 contacts were made by consumers in Q3 2008/09 via the phone, web, e-mail and written correspondence. This is a decrease of 7.5% from Q2 when 15,732 contacts were made. Overall call volume was down 4.7% (13,950 calls in Q2 compared to 13,282 in Q3).
 Of the 14,629 contacts, 5,407 (37%) resulted in actual complaints being logged in Q3. Complaints about mobile services accounted for 92% of all complaints logged in Q3 – a slight increase from 91% in Q2.
 The volume of numbers checked on the PhonepayPlus website has decreased slightly from 216,508 checks in Q2 to 213,587 checks in Q3 – 1.3%. The number of 09 number checks increased 6.7% from Q2 to Q3 – mainly attributable to a postal delivery scam e-mail causing concern amongst consumers. Shortcode checks continued to decline – 65,513 in Q3 in comparison to 68,805 in Q2 (a 4.8% drop).
 Total fines invoiced in Q3 amounted to £657,000.
 Out-payments have fallen in Q3 2008/2009 in comparison to Q3 of 2007/2008: Mobile is down 3.1%, Landline is down 4.3%, and Directory Enquiry is down 13.9%. Total out-payments dropped 5.7% (£152M in Q3 08/09 from £161M in Q3 07/08).
 91% of complainants surveyed, after receiving adjudication letters from PhonepayPlus, were satisfied or above with the service they experienced. 28% of consumers surveyed (372 out of 1,310) responded. New customer satisfaction data will be available in next quarter’s report.

Comments:
 91% of people surveyed were satisfied or above ( Jan – Jun 08)
 28% of complainants responded to our survey (372 out of 1310)
 82% felt we met our target timeframe for the investigations
 86% felt we explained the outcome sufficiently
 79% of the 372 respondents due a refund, felt we clearly explained how to obtain it
 59% of the 372 respondents due a refund stated they have not yet received it. They stated that:
o They would not be chasing a refund due to the small amount concerned
o They believed it to be PhonepayPlus’ responsibility to obtain the refund
o They were concerned about the cost and the time involved in getting the
refund

Note: Data from July through December 2008’s survey is slated for availability in the next upcoming quarterly report.

"A total of 14,629 contacts were made by consumers in Q3 2008/09"
ok well how many in Q1 and Q2 ?

91% of people surveyed were satisfied or above ( Jan – Jun 08)
 28% of complainants responded to our survey (372 out of 1310)

it looks like they have took data using different sampling periods and mixed them up

[mike99]

Mike, I'm gobsmacked! You of course know I've had dealings with PhonepayPlus and know what they're like but this totally takes the biscuit. They've really out done themselves this time.

I say forget the emails, record the phone calls and put 'em on YouTube. Do some SEO and make sure neither PPP, the SP, the IP and any of their victims can miss them. That kinda thing seems to be the best way of grabbing their attention.

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Thanks for the endorsement, but I don't think anyone would really care very much even if you did grab their attention.

After all, the present Government (by no means one of the worst we have ever had IMHO) has been involved in torture and kidnap, using white phosphorus against civilians, and starting an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives; and has lied at various times about each of these things. This is common knowledge, but I don't see anyone jumping up and down screaming about it.

More prosaically, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has blamed the Equitable Life debacle on regulatory (i.e Government) failure and ordered compensation, and the Government have responded with "Am I bovered?! - even though there are a few people jumping up and down screaming about this (it is about money - some of it mine - after all )

PhonepayPlus is clearly unfit for purpose on ever so many counts, but it doesn't matter enough to enough people for anyone to do anything about it.

Also, the story documented in this thread is just too complicated for the average journalist (who, it seems to me, has the attention span of a gnat these days) to get their head round.

I'm going to keep trying in my own small way, but I am not optimistic.

[mike99]

@ El gringo

Interesting analysis of the statistics. I've always suspected they were bogus - in a number of ways.

For instance, on "target timeframes" (as they put it) the question they ask is:

How did you find the way we set your expectations about likely timescales for investigation?

I have no idea what this question means and I don't suppose they have either, but it obviously is meant to have something to do with how long they take and how long they say they are going to take. I should want to say something like:

Well you told me you were going to take 12 weeks and I thought this was too long but you actually took 6 months and I really think that was far too long and that you misled me when you said 12 weeks; but the person who gave me this misinformation was very polite and friendly

but the only options are:

good
satisfatory
unsatisfactory

Since the question is nonsense, any statistics based on the answers to this question are also nonsense.

[AnthonyC]

It's true, this subject is very confusing (I'm often struggling to get my head 'round what you guys have found out and the implications). It's also true that the government, the regulator and the industry aren't all that concerned. But one thing they don't like (and my site logs prove it) is to have annoying little bloggers (moi!) writing all about them and having negative (yet truthful) stuff about them appearing at the top of Google's results when you search for them their organisation/company.

I was thinking of asking each of the mobile companies what they're thoughts on PRS fraud are, what they offer in the way of protecting their customers and then doing a comparison table with my findings.

[mike99]

It's true, this subject is very confusing (I'm often struggling to get my head 'round what you guys have found out and the implications). It's also true that the government, the regulator and the industry aren't all that concerned. But one thing they don't like (and my site logs prove it) is to have annoying little bloggers (moi!) writing all about them and having negative (yet truthful) stuff about them appearing at the top of Google's results when you search for them their organisation/company.

I was thinking of asking each of the mobile companies what they're thoughts on PRS fraud are, what they offer in the way of protecting their customers and then doing a comparison table with my findings.

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

I did this some time ago:

http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t26967.html?

Although you should note that Three were lying - they don't allow you to block incoming reverse charge SMS and, since I did this, Vodafone have caved and now do allow you to block incoming reverse charge SMS.

I think you are right and that shaming the networks is the most promising avenue open to us - it's a waste of time shaming the likes of mBlox and their friends at PP+. But I'm not sure how, having collected the information you want to collect, you would publicize it; or whether people considering a new contract would take any notice even if they were aware of that information .......... but if this did start to work, PRS crime would stop within days.

[AnthonyC]

Thanks for the link to that post of yours Mike. Could I use that in a blog post of mine? I could then do a follow up on what their positions are now (seeing as even PP+ are saying there's been a marked increase in complaints).

Publicizing it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I could post relevant messages to a whole host of forums, including ones where people are considering getting a new contract/switching to a new provider.

It's not a complete and utter waste of time shaming the likes of mBlox and PP+, I believe (hope?) that we brought on the resignation of Mr Bud sooner than they would otherwise have planned.

[mike99]

Thanks for the link to that post of yours Mike. Could I use that in a blog post of mine? I could then do a follow up on what their positions are now (seeing as even PP+ are saying there's been a marked increase in complaints).

Publicizing it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I could post relevant messages to a whole host of forums, including ones where people are considering getting a new contract/switching to a new provider.

It's not a complete and utter waste of time shaming the likes of mBlox and PP+, I believe (hope?) that we brought on the resignation of Mr Bud sooner than they would otherwise have planned.

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

You may use whatever you wish.

You are of course right. What we do here is not an utter waste of time, at least I hope it isn't. Apart from anything else, I quite enjoy exposing lies, dishonesty, and hypocrisy ........ and I enjoy it even more when I switch my attention to the crooks rather than the regulator.

As for Mr Bud. I'd love to think we played a small role. Perhaps one day we shall find out.

[Cormoran]

Publicizing it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I could post relevant messages to a whole host of forums.......

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

@AnthonyC,

I'd give Consumer Action Group (CAG) a wide birth, they tend to be a little touchy if you say anything controversial against the PRS bandits. They come across as a little too protective of companies that scam

If the CAG lawyers are viewing, this is my opinion (Cormoran) and not the opinion of The Scream Forum........

Everone seems so careful lately so I thought I'd add this disclaimer.....

[AnthonyC]

I'm thinking more along the lines of MSE forums and HotUKDeals. Those are forums where people are looking into getting new contracts, PAYG handsets and renewing. Just like myself, people on those can easily be swayed if they hear how bad this, that or the other company has behaved and choose to take their business elsewhere.

[El Gringo]

Just something that has been said a 'thousand' times by everybody on this forum.

A debit facility on any monetary account should only be set up at the explicit request of the account holder.
the account holder should have total control of whether that debit facility is accessed.

As it stands this is the complete opposite regarding mobile phone accounts.

Last year ppp stated the major cause behind the year on year rise in complaints concerning unsolicited sms was the abuse of third party data lists.
The misuse of these lists can only result in spam (unsolicited advertising/promotion).

Were people really complaining to them about spam or were they complaining about scam (unauthorized debiting of mobile accounts)?

Was the ppp press releases in fact a pr stunt designed to deflect and mislead the public as to the real reason behind the complaints.

What is the 'real major' cause behind complaints to ppp?
The abuse of third party data lists (spam) or the abuse of the Network Operator controlled debit facility on the mobile phone accounts (scam)?

Why doesn't the 'industry' want the consumer to have choice in a self regulating market place? This is the part I find particularly concerning.
For a self regulating market place to function consumer choice must be allowed for it to be able to drive the market place to regulate itself.

Do the Regulators and industry understand this? Well for several years a scertain Mr George Kidd was a top person on the Government Better Regulation Unit.

[AnthonyC]

All of this begs the question, how best to proceed?

I'm thinking there have to be some perfectly honest premium rate service providers. Well, maybe not regular for-profit ones, but there are companies doing this on behalf of charities and I know at least one that is genuine.

How do these guys like the scammers and the indifferent SPs and PP+? Maybe we can get some of these onboard?

[mike99]

All of this begs the question, how best to proceed?

I'm thinking there have to be some perfectly honest premium rate service providers. Well, maybe not regular for-profit ones, but there are companies doing this on behalf of charities and I know at least one that is genuine.

How do these guys like the scammers and the indifferent SPs and PP+? Maybe we can get some of these onboard?

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Complex question ..... like all questions really.

It depends, to some extent, what you mean by "honest"...........

I don't know of any hard statistics - I doubt that there are any apart form the sort of made-up-on-the-spot statistics that people like Paul Whiteing come out with: "99% of PRS is perfectly honest" type stuff.

Clearly SPs like Zamano and Tanla as a bent as a £6 note, but with firms like WIN and mBlox, things are a bit different.

MBlox is fined about once each month and - as George Kidd, no less, has opined - this is probably the tip of an iceberg. Most scams never reach a PP+ adjudication hearing. Nevertheless, mBlox is a huge firm with a huge turnover. I think we have to conclude that most of the content providers it deals with or, at least, most of the "services" it runs (not necessarily the same thing) are not crooked - although nearly all PRS - certainly "competitions", horoscopes, tarot card readings and the like - are (it could be argued) intrinsically misleading, even if they obey the letter of the law.

So I think a reasonable summary would be (though this is based on certain assumptions): Nearly all SPs are crooked or happy to do business with crooked content providers. Most services and (possibly) most content providers are honest.

But honest *content* providers do not suffer (directly) from the activities of the crooks (cf SPs who both benefit from and suffer from crookery). Of course honest *content* providers (charities perhaps) do suffer indirectly from the activities of the crooks because the whole industry is brought into disrepute - I made my kids donate to comic relief using paypal rather than a shortcode. How many people just see a shortcode and refuse point blank to donate?

If you look at the list of "accredited" payforit SPs, there are only two with no PP+ adjudications against them. Again, I have no figures, but I don't have the impression that these two honest SPs have much of a market share.

So what to do?????????????????

[AnthonyC]

It's certainly complicated. Doesn't help when the likes of PP+ try to (whether knowingly or unwittingly) make it more complex!

I was just thinking how much fun it would be if a senior police officer, a journalist or perhaps an MP were to get an unsolicited premium rate text or two. Perhaps then they'd be something being done. Better still, would be those that work at a mobile operator, PP+ or an SP (but then they'd know not to kick up a fuss, wouldn't they? Deal with it internally)

Out of interest Mike, who are those two companies that have no adjudications against them? Would be interesting to get in touch with them and see if they'd wish to comment on the industry (although I'd imagine they'd not want to rock the boat either, it's a very small, very interlinked world)

[Cormoran]

Honest PRS companies? Who can we trust?

As I have been layed up over the past few days it gave me a chance to watch afternoon TV. You will watch anything when you're feeling poorly. One of the progs had the usual quiz that only a Martian would get wrong, but then again...

It gave the short code info on the screen with all the T&C in very small print and the last line said that if you did not want to receive promotional info in the future to add 'NO INFO' with your reply.

It was on screen for a matter of seconds, I was looking for this info but 'Mr or Mrs Quiz addict' or 'little Johnny' would not see it. To the the letter of the law? Yes. Honest? Well we all know that answer.

[mike99]

It's certainly complicated. Doesn't help when the likes of PP+ try to (whether knowingly or unwittingly) make it more complex!

I was just thinking how much fun it would be if a senior police officer, a journalist or perhaps an MP were to get an unsolicited premium rate text or two. Perhaps then they'd be something being done. Better still, would be those that work at a mobile operator, PP+ or an SP (but then they'd know not to kick up a fuss, wouldn't they? Deal with it internally)

Out of interest Mike, who are those two companies that have no adjudications against them? Would be interesting to get in touch with them and see if they'd wish to comment on the industry (although I'd imagine they'd not want to rock the boat either, it's a very small, very interlinked world)

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Found it (finally): http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/s...0&postcount=17

MPs have been stung a few times. I always write to them when I hear of such cases, but I never get a response and the story always goes cold very quickly. No suggestion of conspiracy here BTW. It's just that the amounts of money are small, the subject is very complicated, the MPs are very busy and they have bigger fish to fry. The PRS industry has learned from its mistake with rogue diallers (not that anything happened to anyone who stole in that way either). If is steals small amounts form lots of people rather than larger amounts from fewer people it can make just as much money and stay below the radar.

[mike99]

Found it (finally): http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/s...0&postcount=17

MPs have been stung a few times. I always write to them when I hear of such cases, but I never get a response and the story always goes cold very quickly. No suggestion of conspiracy here BTW. It's just that the amounts of money are small, the subject is very complicated, the MPs are very busy and they have bigger fish to fry. The PRS industry has learned from its mistake with rogue diallers (not that anything happened to anyone who stole in that way either). If is steals small amounts form lots of people rather than larger amounts from fewer people it can make just as much money and stay below the radar.

Originally Posted by mike99

Actually, since I wrote this I see that Sybase have been done a couple of times too. "Bango.net" still have a clean record it seems, but their name does not inspire confidence somehow.

[AnthonyC]

Mike, I'd never heard of Bango.net before the last (or so). They've recently visited my blog. Looks like I'll be getting in touch with them. Shame Sybase weren't as good as originally thought. Tut tut Sybase!

Have you got a list of the MPs that got fleeced? Would be nice to see how many, who they are and who they got scammed by. I might also get in contact with them.

I think you're spot on about the small amounts thing. Most people would write it off, that's what the likes of PP+ and mBlox want. They don't know what to do with folk like us! :o)

[tommy t]

one solution would be that all sim cards would automatically have these services barred upon activation,so only customers who rang their service provider to have this Barr lifted would be able to use such pay thru phone services,i know that 02 sell your info to other parties, they will say not,but how does another company who is trying to get you to take another contract ring you pretending to be from my ex phone provider (02) they also had my details as well as my mobile number ?? that should not ever happen,but when it does no one wants to help you,it's like if you get calls from a company that withhold or block their number the mobile operator say they can't find this out? i bet that is a lie too further to that point as a pay monthly customer i used to get a itemised bill each month,nearly each month there was calls to numbers that i did not recognize or ring the costs where mostly small but would add up,also they seemed to repeat numbers i did dial at times/dates i was sure i hadn't called them but proving this would of been difficult they probably got away with it for years

[AnthonyC]

The reason other companies know you're on O2 is that mobile phone numbers are allocated in blocks. Those dodgy companies pretending to be O2 (or any of the other networks) just use a bit of guess work from - all they need to know is a few numbers in the range and what net they're on.

Your plan is a good one, can't seen the phone nets, PP+ or any of the companies involved seeing it that way though. Funny thing is that some (all?) the nets block roaming on their contract handsets until you request otherwise. They don't want you racking up a enormous bill they don't think you can pay for!