mblox not cited in latest PP+ adjudications - no really!

[mike99]

But Zamano are there, as are Red Circle (= Zamano), 2 Ergo Limited, Mobile Interactive Group Limited, Wireless Information Network Limited, and www.motorflirt.com of 18-22 Wigmore Street, London W1U 2RG - an "address" they seem to share with about 1340 other "property" firms, "legal" firms, "charities" and so on.

[El Gringo]

"mblox not cited in latest PP+ adjudications - no really!"

no but they are here. it looks like Phonepayplus have tested their new dentures
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-s...breach-090127/
BitTorrent Scam Shutdown After SMS Regulations Breach

[mike99]

Just noticed this ........

The "service provider" Wireless Information Network Limited (= Sally Weatherall of AIME see here) teamed up with "content provider" Antiphony Ltd to run this latest scam.

So who are Antiphony?

It seems that they are none other than Eckoh (source) - the firm that bought the Richard and Judy "competition mechanism" from PP+ board member Mike Tully.

[mike99]

Phew, it's okay after all. I thought there for a short while that mBlox might have stopped stealing from people but, no, they're still at it:

Information Provider

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Service Provider

mBlox Limited
Service Name

MissManchester.net and Ringtones2go.co.uk
Breaches upheld against

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Procedure Standard

Summary


PhonepayPlus received 65 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages from short codes 87766 & 80808. Complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content, or no messages at all but a charge to their phone bills, or messages stating either "" or "Corrupt Text" or "87766 This message cannot be displayed".

Complainants reported that when they contacted the information provider for the shortcode they were advised that the messages had been sent in error in relation to a ringtone service or a SMS voting service. Complainants also reported that the ‘STOP' command was not working.

The following breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11th Edition (amended April 2008) were raised:

* Paragraph 3.3.3 - Adequate technical quality
* Paragraph 5.4.1a - Fairness (Misleading)
* Paragraph 5.4.1b - Fairness (Unfair Advantage)
* Paragraph 7.12.6a - Subscription (STOP command)

The Tribunal upheld all of the above breaches. The Tribunal considered the case to be significant, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £25,000. The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the information provider for the full amount charged to users who had received the unsolicited chargeable messages, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.
Information Provider

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Service Provider

mBlox Limited
Service Name

wixawin.com (as of June 2008)
Breaches upheld against

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Procedure Standard

Summary


PhonepayPlus received 51 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages from short code 84300. The majority of complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content or receiving no messages at all but a charge of £5 per message to their phone bill. However, some complainants reported the receipt of messages stating "Msg cannot be displayed. Sender 84300. Message centre +447785016005".

Complainants reported that when they contacted the information provider for the short code they were advised that the messages had been sent in error and that they would be refunded.

The following breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11th Edition (amended April 2008) were raised:

* Paragraph 5.2 - Legality
* Paragraph 5.4.1a - Fairness (Misleading)
* Paragraph 5.4.1b - Fairness (Unfair Advantage)
* Paragraph 5.7.1 - Pricing Information (Cost)
* Paragraph 5.7.2 - Pricing Information (Prominence)
* Paragraph 5.8 - Contact Information

The Tribunal upheld all of the above breaches other than a breach of paragraph 5.4.1b of the Code. The Tribunal considered the case to be serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £50,000. The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the information provider for the full amount spent by users, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.

[Cormoran]

MBlox are still up to their old tricks, see the link below, £5 per sms and 2 x £80 bills for sms from 84300.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...html?t=1513705

[El Gringo]

http://www.metro.se/se/article/2009/...4-45/index.xml
Sweden
2009-02-02

http://www.ot.fi/story.aspx?storyID=35900
Finland
8.2.2009

http://svenska.yle.fi/nyheter/artikel.php?id=151950
Finland
24.02.2009

http://www.iarn.org/

[El Gringo]

http://www.creditgate.com/search/sea...BT=Full%20Data
Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
= WAPFLY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

http://www.wapfly.com/about-us/people.php
The People

Adam Ward - Managing Director
While studying Law at university Adam set up one of the first mobile content download services. This was in 1999 at the start of the mobile content / interactive market we see today. There wasn’t any SMS shortcodes or automated IVR services like there are today. Within 6 months Adam was ready to take the service to market en masse with best in class aggregators as partners. His first client was EMAP and Wapfly serviced their magazine titles / TV stations as well as their websites with mobile content. Having initially been responsible for the technical aspects of the business, over time Adam needed to formally structure the company and moved through the role of Commercial Director into his current position, overseeing the whole operation with a team of experienced colleagues.

David Hague - Technical Director
David started his career in the mobile services industry while still studying for his degree in Information Systems Engineering BSc. at (UMIST) University of Manchester Science and Industry. David quickly utilised the knowledge he had acquired while at University to plan and manage the development of the Wapfly Worldwide Mobile Content Affiliate Platform called Mobilize.
David is very hands on with his work and over the 4 years with Wapfly has developed an extensive knowledge of the Mobile industry and its workings. He holds a lot of close relationships with key industry partners which have been developed through the many conference and networking events Wapfly attends. David manages the technical division of the company which includes planning and overseeing any product development. His key role is to make sure Wapfly remains innovative, so enabling it to stay at the forefront of any new mobile technologies.

Adam Patton - Product Director
Adam started his career working as an IT Consultant for the NHS in 1999. Working in this environment led Adam to further his career in this area by studying for a BSC Hons Degree in Leisure Computing Technology while holding down his position at the National Health Service. After graduating with First Class Honours Adam took up a full time position as Interactive Designer with a creative design & marketing agency based in Bolton, whose clients included brands such as Timberland & Dabs.com. While at the agency Adam developed his skills in the areas of 3D animation, motion graphics and video editing but also developed a keen interest in the mobile space. From here Adam was offered the role to head up the development of a mobile TV channel for Monstermob the global mobile content company. Adam joined Wapfly in 2006 and has been handed the task of looking after the development of new products.
....................................

wixawin is an 'affiliate' program. who owns wixawin?

[mike99]

Actually, I've just noticed something very odd about these two adjudications:

Information Provider

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Service Provider

mBlox Limited
Service Name

MissManchester.net and Ringtones2go.co.uk
Breaches upheld against

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Procedure Standard

Summary


PhonepayPlus received 65 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages from short codes 87766 & 80808. Complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content, or no messages at all but a charge to their phone bills, or messages stating either "" or "Corrupt Text" or "87766 This message cannot be displayed".

Complainants reported that when they contacted the information provider for the shortcode they were advised that the messages had been sent in error in relation to a ringtone service or a SMS voting service. Complainants also reported that the ‘STOP' command was not working.

The following breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11th Edition (amended April 2008) were raised:

* Paragraph 3.3.3 - Adequate technical quality
* Paragraph 5.4.1a - Fairness (Misleading)
* Paragraph 5.4.1b - Fairness (Unfair Advantage)
* Paragraph 7.12.6a - Subscription (STOP command)

The Tribunal upheld all of the above breaches. The Tribunal considered the case to be significant, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £25,000. The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the information provider for the full amount charged to users who had received the unsolicited chargeable messages, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.
Information Provider

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Service Provider

mBlox Limited
Service Name

wixawin.com (as of June 2008)
Breaches upheld against

Text Media Limited (now known as Mexel Limited)
Procedure Standard

Summary


PhonepayPlus received 51 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages from short code 84300. The majority of complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content or receiving no messages at all but a charge of £5 per message to their phone bill. However, some complainants reported the receipt of messages stating "Msg cannot be displayed. Sender 84300. Message centre +447785016005".

Complainants reported that when they contacted the information provider for the short code they were advised that the messages had been sent in error and that they would be refunded.

The following breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11th Edition (amended April 2008) were raised:

* Paragraph 5.2 - Legality
* Paragraph 5.4.1a - Fairness (Misleading)
* Paragraph 5.4.1b - Fairness (Unfair Advantage)
* Paragraph 5.7.1 - Pricing Information (Cost)
* Paragraph 5.7.2 - Pricing Information (Prominence)
* Paragraph 5.8 - Contact Information

The Tribunal upheld all of the above breaches other than a breach of paragraph 5.4.1b of the Code. The Tribunal considered the case to be serious, issued a formal reprimand and imposed a fine of £50,000. The Tribunal also ordered that claims for refunds are to be paid by the information provider for the full amount spent by users, except where there is good cause to believe that such claims are not valid.

Originally Posted by mike99

Same service provider, same information provider, virtually identical scam:

PhonepayPlus received 65 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages [....] Complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content, or no messages at all but a charge to their phone bills, or messages stating either "" or "Corrupt Text" or "87766 This message cannot be displayed".

PhonepayPlus received 51 complaints regarding unsolicited reverse billed SMS messages [....] complainants reported receiving blank messages with no content or receiving no messages at all but a charge [...] their phone bill. However, some complainants reported the receipt of messages stating "Msg cannot be displayed.

So why is the first one legal and the second one not?

Why is the second one fair and the first one not??

And why does the first merit a fine of £25K and the second a fine of £50K???

Also, I note that all mention of "repeat offences" seems to have been dropped in the more recent adjudications.

[AnthonyC]

How long are their adjudications meant to take? My last run-in with mBlox/Spread Media (aka Spread Mobile) was back in September, it's now March and there's still no mention on the PP+ site yet.

Maybe it's time for me to shout my "taunts from the safety of being just outside the schoolyard fence" again?

[El Gringo]

@AnthonyC
may be they misunderstood

05-09-2008 'Order to wind up'


are they doing a runner without paying mr 'ten percent' ?

https://www.ukdata.com/creditreports...5799475&full=1
Address: WINTERHILL HOUSE MARLOW REACH, STATION APPROACH, MARLOW, BUCKS SL7 1NT, SL7 1NT
Tel: We do not list telephone numbers. Click here to search for a telephone number at 192.com
Type: Incorporated
Incorporation Date: 2006-04-28
Status: In Liquidation
Last Accounts Filed up to: 2007-03-31
Last Accounts Analysed: 2007-03-31
Nature of business SIC: 64200 - Telecommunications

EDIT

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issu...otices/604458/
Notice: 604458 (Issue: 58813)

Date:
3 September 2008
Issue Number:
58813
Page number:
13438

Publication Date: Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Notice Code: 2452

Winding-Up Orders

Name of Company—SPREAD MEDIA LIMITED. Company Number—05799475. Address of Registered Office—Winterhill House, Marlow Reach, Station Approach, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 1NT. Court—Bristol District Registry. Date of Filing Petition—7 July 2008. No. of Matter—82 of 2008. Date of Winding-up Order—21 August 2008. Official Receiver—1st Floor, Trident House, 42-48 Victoria Street, St Albans, AL1 3HR.

(604458)
....................................
Ant what date did you get your unsolicited sms?

[mike99]

@Ant


......and while you're answering El Gringo's question ........... did you ever get a response from the people at PPP? .............. and to answer your question: Twelve weeks - although they can also take longer if they feel like it.

[AnthonyC]

....................................
Ant what date did you get your unsolicited sms?

Originally Posted by El Gringo

August 30th 2008 seems to be the first day I blogged about it (so it was either then or a day or two before).

After August 21st anyway!

[AnthonyC]

@mike99 I never got a response from them. There's no mention about mBlox/Spread Media's last collaboration on PP+'s site either. I think they might need reminding!

I'd love to find out what the guy behind Spread Media (a David G Shepard) is up to now. Wouldn't mind having a chat about his former business (and business practices!)

[El Gringo]

@mblox
isn't there some law concerning 'trading' with a 'company' that's in liquidation?

[mike99]

@mike99 I never got a response from them. There's no mention about mBlox/Spread Media's last collaboration on PP+'s site either. I think they might need reminding!

I'd love to find out what the guy behind Spread Media (a David G Shepard) is up to now. Wouldn't mind having a chat about his former business (and business practices!)

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Well I think polite inquiries with PP+ are in order - to ask them how they are getting on with your complaint. I will be interesting to see if they do the same with you as they did with me: string you along for a while (pretending that they are investigating) in the hope you'll lose interest and then announce that, in reality, they had decided - from the outset - not to investigate your complaint.

[mike99]

@mblox
isn't there some law concerning 'trading' with a 'company' that's in liquidation?

Originally Posted by El Gringo

I think you can continue trading, but only if the liquidator sanctions it. Even then, you are not allowed to use your continued trading as a means to deprive you creditors of what you owe them or to run up more debts that you know you will not be able to pay.

[AnthonyC]

Well I think polite inquiries with PP+ are in order - to ask them how they are getting on with your complaint.

Originally Posted by mike99

Will do, a little later this afternoon.

In the meantime I'm watching an interview friends of mine did with Andrew Bud at the recent Mobile World Congress.

Here's the link: Andrew Bud gives mBlox overview

[mike99]

I think I should have asked him one or two different questions. If he makes $500M, you can see why he can pay his PP+ fines out of petty cash.


(off topic - that hand held projector looks cool)

[AnthonyC]

I probably would've asked him a couple of different questions too. But 1) he wouldn't dream of talking to me, and 2) I'm doubtful he'd answer the questions I'd throw at him!

Was it just me, or at times did it seem like he was an overexcited toddler (possibly in need of the toilet)?

(OT reply, yep that hand held projector looks very cool indeed)

[mike99]

I probably would've asked him a couple of different questions too. But 1) he wouldn't dream of talking to me, and 2) I'm doubtful he'd answer the questions I'd throw at him!

Was it just me, or at times did it seem like he was an overexcited toddler (possibly in need of the toilet)?

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Just like that. And have you also noticed that he can't open his gob without mentioning somewhere that mBlox don't provide "content" - his oblique way of saying: "you can't blame me for all the robberies, I just drive the transit and keep the engine running outside the bank"

[AnthonyC]

I like the transit/bank analogy! They are always quick to say that they don't provide content, just the payment infrastructure. Their ties seem closer to mobile entertainment industry than banking and finance...

Ah, forgot to call PP+ (better leave that til tomorrow!)

[El Gringo]

(off topic - that hand held projector looks cool)

Originally Posted by mike99

did you see the shot when the camera panned down?

[mike99]

In the meantime I'm watching an interview friends of mine did with Andrew Bud at the recent Mobile World Congress.

Here's the link: Andrew Bud gives mBlox overview

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

He says:

The United States has been tremendous motor for growth; but rapid changes in operator regulations and illegal [sic] issues in the US have, shall we say, created enough risk that this industry has become cautious. So growth in the US has paused; it certainty hasn't finished. It's paused until a little bit more certainly comes in and we're very optimistic.

Translation:

We were able to rip lots of people off in the US before anyone really noticed, but now they have begun to notice (see here) and are trying to stop us ripping people off. We are, however confident, that we shall be able to continue ripping people off in the US again soon.

[AnthonyC]

I too noticed the Freudian-slip-like 'illegal' issues!

[AnthonyC]

Got a reply from Paul Whiteing regarding mBlox and Spread Media. It's rather interesting, don't you think..?

Thank you for your e-mail. I can update you as follows:

This investigation has been ongoing since September 2008, and whilst this has been delayed for various reasons, the consumer harm was minimized by the suspension of the service by mBlox Limited prior to 9th September 2008.

The investigation identified a number of potential breaches of the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice 11th Edition (amended April 2008), and these were raised as against the service provider within a formal breach letter on 27th January 2009. One aspect of the investigation leading to the delay was the need to appreciate precisely which company operated the service at the time of issuance of MT messages in August 2008. In light of your entry for “Subject” of this email, it is worth noting that PhonepayPlus has never at any stage dealt with Spread Media Limited in relation to this investigation. The Tribunal will consider which companies form the value chain as part of its decision.

mBlox have co-operated fully with this investigation. This case will be presented at the next available hearing, which is 2nd April 2009. This is due to other cases being heard at the next Tribunal, which is sitting on 19th March 2009.

I've mBoldened parts of the email, the bits that I find the most interesting. So, what do you guys make of it?

[mike99]

Got a reply from Paul Whiteing regarding mBlox and Spread Media. It's rather interesting, don't you think..?

I've mBoldened parts of the email, the bits that I find the most interesting. So, what do you guys make of it?

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Dunno what to make of it. It would seem as though your mate Andrew has fingered a different content provider in his communications with PP+ from the one he fingered when you got in touch with him. Of course the whole notion of a “content provider” is somewhat fluid - they tend to change names and owners and identities more often than PP+ tells us it's going to boost our confidence in PRS.

I suppose we'll just have to wait until the day after April Fools' Day and see what emerges then ..... and then try and do a bit of cyber-sleuthing to try and tie the information together.

[mike99]

Number checker at mBlox still says it's Spread Media!

I should forward the URL to your new mate Paul W!

You have entered the short code 84566. Spread Media is the merchant responsible for this service and will respond speedily to any queries you may have.

For Spread Media customer care, please contact via phone +44 (0)871 244 4434 or email at customerservices@globaltones.co.uk.

mBlox specializes in delivering messages for our clients. We do not create, promote or sell content, we operate the network that carries these services. The service delivered to your phone has actually been transacted with mBlox's client Spread Media.

mBlox takes customer care very seriously and we want to ensure your concern is addressed. If you have a concern or complaint about the above service, we recommend contacting the content provider named above for fastest service.

If your concerns are not addressed, or if you prefer assistance from mBlox simply fill out this customer care form so that we may have the correct information to investigate your query.

It is, of coure, entirely possilbe that PP+ have mixed up your case with a different one - they often do that

[AnthonyC]

Also begs the question why have they never bothered to speak to Spread Media? mBlox kept claiming my beef was with Spread, not with them. From Paul Whiteing's reply, it would appear otherwise. Yet despite this, Spread (and other 'Information Providers') are listed in the adjudications.

Then there's the problem that Spread Media was in liquidation at the time I got these particular spam messages from them. I think this is what PP+ are alluding to (but who knows?!!?)

[mike99]

Also begs the question why have they never bothered to speak to Spread Media? mBlox kept claiming my beef was with Spread, not with them. From Paul Whiteing's reply, it would appear otherwise. Yet despite this, Spread (and other 'Information Providers') are listed in the adjudications.

Then there's the problem that Spread Media was in liquidation at the time I got these particular spam messages from them. I think this is what PP+ are alluding to (but who knows?!!?)

Originally Posted by AnthonyC

Well PP+ only speaks to the content provider if 1) the service provider asks them to; 2) the content provider exists; 3) the content provider agrees; 4) the content provider has things like a name, address, and phone number on the planet earth .........

see: Help Note on how and when PhonepayPlus will deal directly with an information provider

PP+ is essentially an SP regulator. If SPs choose to do business with crooks then the SPs get into trouble - at least that's the idea. Andrew's protestations of innocence are starting to wear just a little bit thin.

[AnthonyC]

It's a complete and utter joke, isn't it!

So, it looks like we could set up a PRS with the sole intention of scamming thousands of people (who never signed up) and neither the regulator nor the police would be in the slightest bit interested in us? Even the likes of mBlox (who we'd have to team up with) wouldn't care as long as they were getting their share.

Shame we've got morals as we could do quite well out of this and they'd be nothing to lose!