Ofcom Consultation on how to Consult with PPP on new Code

[numberspy]

Under the Communications Act 2003 (the ‘Act’), Ofcom has overall responsibility for regulating Premium Rate Services (‘PRS’). In accordance with the Formal Framework Agreement between Ofcom and PhonepayPlus,
Information Note and Invitation to provide Comments Ofcom’s Intended Approach to Consulting on the Approval of PhonepayPlus’ New Code of Practice Ofcom is notifying stakeholders of the approach it intends to take when considering whether to approve PhonepayPlus’ 12th Code of Practice (the ‘New Code’), which is currently being developed. At this stage, Ofcom intends to consult relevant stakeholders at the same time as PhonepayPlus issues a consultation document on proposed changes to the existing Code. It is anticipated that this consultation will be published later this year following the conclusion of relevant sections of Ofcom’s recently published Premium Rate Service Scope Review. The Respective Roles of Ofcom and PhonepayPlus
1
• The Framework Agreement, signed between Ofcom and PhonepayPlus in December 2007, has formalised the working relationship between the two organisations and confirmed that PRS policy will be developed through dialogue between the two organisations; PhonepayPlus carries out the day-to-day regulation of the PRS market, which it does through enforcement of its Code of Practice (the ‘Code’). Under the Act, Ofcom has the power to approve a Code, or modifications to an approved Code, made by PhonepayPlus. How Stakeholders have been consulted in the Past In the past PhonepayPlus has typically consulted stakeholders on proposed modifications to the Code, then submitted the Code to Ofcom for approval. Ofcom has subsequently undertaken its own consultation process on whether it should approve the Code – a process that often does not raise any issues that have not been previously canvassed through the PhonepayPlus consultation. A More Co-ordinated Consultation Process We are of the view that a more co-ordinated consultation process may be more appropriate to reflect the close working relationship between Ofcom and PhonepayPlus. There have been a number of recent developments that support this move:
• Ofcom and PhonepayPlus are now working closely together on matters of PRS policy. Relevant projects include the development of the New Code (Ofcom staff have been sitting on PhonepayPlus’ 12th Code Programme Board), ongoing matters in broadcast PRS, and PhonepayPlus’ recent review of mobile PRS; and
1 See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/cond...lframework.pdf.
• Ofcom published a Scope Review in May 2009, proposing a number of initiatives, which, if pursued, would fall to PhonepayPlus to put into practice through changes to their Code.
It is Ofcom’s intention to engage closely with PhonepayPlus at a pre-consultation stage and consult on whether to approve the proposed New Code at the same time as PhonepayPlus consults on the detail of the New Code. Both organisations will maintain distinctive functions and will be consulting on slightly different issues from different perspectives.
Stakeholders will have the ability to make submissions to both organisations on the proposed New Code. Both Ofcom and PhonepayPlus will consider the responses from stakeholders in light of their respective duties and legislative responsibilities.
Ofcom will take into account the earlier submissions that it has received when PhonepayPlus subsequently submits the New Code to Ofcom for approval. However, Ofcom will also consider whether it is appropriate to conduct further consultation if PhonepayPlus’ final proposal materially departs from the Code on which stakeholders had been invited to comment.
The Relationship between the Scope Review and the New Code
Ofcom is currently consulting on its Scope Review of PRS regulation, with submissions due by 24 July 2009. As signalled in the consultation paper, if many of the initiatives were to go ahead, it would fall to PhonepayPlus to implement them through a revision of its Code. It is therefore logical that a statement from Ofcom on the outcome of its Scope Review will need to precede PhonepayPlus’ formal consultation on its New Code. The sequencing of this process is likely to be:
1. PhonepayPlus publishes a Discussion Paper on the likely direction of the New Code, which while not part of the formal consultation process, will be a useful means for the organisation to stimulate industry feedback on its proposed direction (published 24 June 2009);
2. Ofcom publishes a statement on aspects of its Scope Review, including providing direction to PhonepayPlus on various initiatives that may merit inclusion in its New Code;
3. Ofcom and PhonepayPlus undertake co-ordinated consultation on PhonepayPlus’ proposed New Code;
4. PhonepayPlus submits its proposed New Code to Ofcom for approval; and
5. Ofcom decides whether to approve the New Code, which, if appropriate, may be preceded by further consultation.
Although Ofcom and PhonepayPlus have a common understanding of the key regulatory challenges in the PRS sector, both organisations recognise that this proposed method of consultation may not prove to be practical, particularly if new issues emerge through the Scope Review. Based on the responses to this Information Note and any other relevant
issues which might potentially arise, Ofcom will take an informed view on whether to proceed with this proposed co-ordinated consultation process and will keep stakeholders informed in due course. Ofcom’s Criteria for the Approval of the Code In order to approve the Code, Ofcom must be satisfied that:
• the Code has been made by any person for regulating the provision and contents of PRS, and the facilities made available in the provision of such services (see section 121(1)(a) of the Act);
• the Code contains provisions for regulating, to such extent as Ofcom thinks fit, the arrangements made by the providers of PRS for promoting and marketing those services (see section 121(1)(b) of the Act);
• all of the requirements in section 121(2) of the Act are met;2
• it is appropriate for Ofcom to approve the Code (see section 121(1)(c) of the Act, with Ofcom exercising its discretion in accordance with its duties under sections 3 and 4 of that Act);
• the Code meets the requirements set out in section 121(3) of the Act, concerning obligations imposed on a person who is a provider of the service by virtue only of section 120(12) of the Act; and
• the Code meets the requirements set out in section 121(5) of the Act, concerning the provisions for the enforcement of the Code.
Ofcom will continue to consider whether or not to approve the New Code against these criteria. Stakeholder Engagement Ofcom invites written views and comments on the proposed way to consult stakeholders in relation to PhonepayPlus’ New Code.
To contribute, please email jeff.loan@ofcom.org.uk
2 According to section 121(2) of the Act, Ofcom are not to approve a code for those purposes unless they are satisfied— (a) that there is a person who, under the code, has the function of administering and enforcing it; and (b) that that person is sufficiently independent of the providers of premium rate services; (c) that adequate arrangements are in force for funding the activities of that person in relation to the code; (d) that the provisions of the code are objectively justifiable in relation to the services to which it relates; (e) that those provisions are not such as to discriminate unduly against particular persons or against a particular description of persons; (f) that those provisions are proportionate to what they are intended to achieve; and (g) that, in relation to what those provisions are intended to achieve, they are transparent.
If you wish part or all of your contribution to remain confidential, including your personal details, can you please clearly indicate this and why you consider these details should be kept confidential. Please note, however, that Ofcom may still need to publish these contributions, including those which are marked as confidential, in order to meet legal obligations. Ofcom will seek to protect your personal data if indicated to do so. Also, if your contribution is submitted by e-mail, you agree that Ofcom can disregard any standard e-mail text about not disclosing email contents and attachments.

[silentgenius]

..and now it all starts..

http://www.phonepayplus.org.uk/outpu...-PRACTICE.aspx

[numberspy]

One of the problems of course is the Communications Act 2003 which is the foundation for any Code of Practice is no longer fit for purpose and fails to recognise even the Internet let alone PRS technology. The 12th Code is unlikely to be much better for consumers or for industry.

[El Gringo]

One of the problems of course is the Communications Act 2003

Originally Posted by numberspy

the Communications Act 2003 doesn't force people to con scam and commit theft.

this is one of the proplems
http://www.aimelink.org/newsdisplay.aspx?id=2408
REGULATION AIME to co-ordinate industry response to PhonepayPlus 12th Code of Practice
24 June 2009

http://www.aimelink.org/currentMembers.aspx
Sponsor Members

BBC ITACU
Mobile Interactive Group
Enarpee Services Ltd
Netcollex
infomob
Oxygen8
ITV
WIN

Executive Members

3
Opal Telecom
BT Agilemedia
Orange
Cable & Wireless
Plus Telecom
D2see
Sport Media Group
Dialogue Communications
Tanla Mobile
Harvest Media Group
Telecom Express
Million 2-1 Ltd
Thus
Minick (UK) Ltd
Transact Group
Mobile Inspiration
Vodafone
MX Telecom
Voiceplus

Members

2Ergo Ltd
LUUP
4th Screen Advertising
Mobival
4D Interactive
Marketing Craze
Absolute Live
mBlox
Bango
Netsize
Blue Stream Mobile
Phone Group
Buongiorno
Phonovation
C3 Ltd
Primetime TV
Cellcast
Premier Communications
Com & Tel UK
Square1 Communications
Elite Communications
Stratus
Ellison Communications
Switchfire
Ericsson IPX
Telco AG
Evolution Mobile Platforms
Telebilling
Fusion Telecom Telescope
Global Charge
Trodat Telecom
Goodman Associates
UK Directory Assistance LLP
InverOak
Vertigo Agency
Invomo
WAAT Media
Kingston Communications
Welburn & Co
Ledbury Media
Zamano
.........................................
why should a trade body that represents the interests a foreign company like Telco AG influence UK consumer protection issues?

http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Calls.aspx/438

[numberspy]

Does that company actually do anything in the UK?

As far as trade associations go AIME is perfectly entitled to collect any thoughts that its members may have on the future of UK PRS regulation - They are doing their job and it doesnt mean they are condoning any illegal practice. AIME are involved along with other trade associations such as the FCS. Have you got any dirt on the FCS?

Once again, you need to get over yourself - Remember an earlier post I made? Obviously not so I will repeat it for you - Because they have the number, it doesnt mean they are the promoter of the service - It is a fact that you seem to struggle to understand which is very disappointing indeed!

[El Gringo]

when your beloved 'industry' is criticized why do you always resort to making imbecilic personal comments?

[mike99]

@numberspy

Okay let's look at one of the service providers on this list: Tanla

As you say, they don't usually promote "services" themselves, they team up with "content providers".

In the most recent PP+ adjudication against Tanla they were fined £2000 for teaming up with content provider VisionSMS Ltd to scam phone users.

No doubt Tanla would insist that this was a mistake on their part and that they did not realize that VisionSMS Ltd had criminal intentions, but let's look at the facts:

Tanla have been adjudicated against 13 times in the past two years. On three of these occasions, Tanla teamed up with a firm called 2Comm Ltd - who were also on AIME's membership list until very recently but have now gone into liquidation. Now 2Comm Ltd and VisionSMS Ltd are in fact the same people - a Glasgow based outfit who, when not running dodgy phone "services", sell (but don't actually provide) flying lessons. Moreover, the domain names used by these two companies (who are really the same company) were, in each case, registered by an employee of Tanla.

But perhaps Tanla are just a fringe company who are in no way representative of the PRS mainstream or most AIME members. Strange then that Tanla and 2Comm were represented at their adjudications by the former chair of AIME.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a few bad apples here, I see an industry (and regulatory system) that is rotten to the core.

[silentgenius]

I think suggesting that all the companies listed by El Gringo are dodgy could land you with a few law suits.

The old NOC used to be a hiding place for the porn/dialler boys - but it seems the re-branded AIME with the likes of BBC, ITV, C&W, Orange etc as members is a slightly different set-up

[El Gringo]

I think suggesting that all the companies listed by El Gringo are dodgy could land you with a few law suits.

Originally Posted by silentgenius

that is why you shouldn't do it

[mike99]

I don't suggest that all the companies listed by El Gringo are dodgy.

I suggest the following (which I put on the other thread but I'll repeat her):

I think part of the problem here is that, given the nature of the value chain, everyone is talking at different times about slightly different things.

My impression (and I admit that I've no hard statistics to back up this impression) is that:

A minority of content providers are out and out crooks.

Most (if not all) service providers are happy (to a greater or lesser extent) to form business partnerships with content providers who would fail any reasonable exercise of due diligence but do most of their business with honest (or honestish) CPs.

A minority of service providers (including some big names) are out and out crooks in their own right.

All network providers are happy (to a greater or lesser extent) to form business partnerships with service providers who have a record of teaming up with crooked content providers.

In other words the statements:

"Most PRS services are honest"
and
"Nearly all PRS providers are dishonest"

(correctly understood) are probably both true.

[silentgenius]

..but precisely what Mike99 has just done - "an industry...rotten to the core"

[Hamlet]

I declare that I don't think that all the companies in the list are dodgy. Anyone here who doesn't share this point of view?


But I also admit that I can't read this list without getting ... kinda sick.

[El Gringo]

“Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, ‘The underneath ones must be good...........

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell

yes and there is something else that does not back up this 'few bad apples' theory.

Why are they (Ofcom) having a consultation about bringing in yet more regulation.

All this as come about because of the year on year rise in complaints. Phonepayplushas admitted the the major cause of complaint was due to content providers using lists of mobile phone numbers obtained from third party marketing companies.

Given the fact that this Government and Industry hate regulation and Ofcom state they will only use it as a last resort:

Why if the problem is down to a few bad apples don't Ofcom let the ICO and police sort it out?

Why are they throwing regulation at the whole industry?

[mike99]

..but precisely what Mike99 has just done - "an industry...rotten to the core"

Originally Posted by silentgenius

Even an apple which is rotten to the core has some good bits in.

I've said exactly what I think the distribution of dishonesty is above - avoiding all metaphor and hyperbole.

If anyone in PRS contests any specific allegations that have been made on this forum I’m sure we’d all be glad to hear from them and I’m sure the moderators would quickly remove anything that was inaccurate, but everything I’ve seen has been well researched and referenced or (in some cases) declared to be mere speculation.

[Hamlet]

I want to be heretical (and you have to take into account that I am German and better used to the German laws and to the German regulation):
The deeper meaning of [self-]regulation is the decriminalization
The risk for the industry to be hit again the way the (US) industry was hit by the FTC in 1997ff was high. The self-regulation model allowed the industry to create a "sandbox" where everything was kept away from the police - at least that is what happened in Germany but I have reason to believe that it was/is even more valid for the UK.
So we don't need OFCOM instead of PPP to regulate PRS, but we need the police, the NHTCU, to investigate fraud and other acts of criminality within premium rate biz - instead of reducing clear fraud to a "breach of a code" with practically NO consequences (and I could easily find a dozen examples within half an hour...)

I don't want to make up a conspiracy theory about "organised criminality" in the Premium Rate Market, for I don't need to. "Organised Criminality" in the Premium Rate Market is a fact, as we know. Remember the Gambino Clan: a 650 million US$ fraud made possible by a certain traffic broker that played an important role within NOC. No, no, no, the premium rate industry IS not the mafia, but the mafia at least did USE the premium rate industry. And does anyone in here really believe organised criminality - be it the Gambino Clan or the russian Coolwebsearch gangs - could resist the possibilities of taken not only a few "good apples" of the Premium rate industry hostage but the wallets of 250 million european consumers?

Compare the complexity of the Gambino Clan Credit Card Fraud scheme to the simple "Premium Rate" scheme: register a company in Farawayland, register a handful of PR numbers, build a few websites, promote them via Google - grab the cash and run... (or fly away smiling...)
That's kindergarten compared to the Gambino plan.

What's so completely upsetting is the fact that this MUST have been known... but what conclusions but conspiracy theories should explain why despite knowing this no one tried to build a wall to protect the people?

[Hamlet]

Another anecdote?
When the Dialler rules have been changed in Germany and regulation was based on laws and controlled by an authority (under the eyes of the German DTI) (this was in 2003) the reaction of the industry was: "Diallers are dead in Germany" (you know the industry and so I don't need to give you links to the discussions in Netpond by Haui, Dave and others or on GFY board - or on the wonderful russian boards like crutop (by the way: was it really closed down by the FTC/FBI?)). Apparently the "gold rush" (as Mr G* put it) was over - at least in Germany...

Why? Only rogue diallers have been forbidden and there have been enough loopholes in the regulation. But why did even the mother company of Crosskirk (EBS) tell its stock owners, that the market is dead just because it was made clear that noone had to pay for bills caused by rogue diallers?

And when finally a simple method was found to prevent the companies from tricking with the indication of the prizes for the dialler services (they have been obliged to use a standard info screen telling the user the prize of the dialler service - that's all...) the dialler disappeared in Germany. From one day to the next. Where have all the good apples gone when all the rotten apples have been shut off the market? There were NONE left.

[mike99]

@Hamlet

"So we don't need OFCOM instead of PPP to regulate PRS, but we need the police, the NHTCU, to investigate fraud and other acts of criminality within premium rate biz - instead of reducing clear fraud to a "breach of a code" with practically NO consequences"

Well I think we need both. We need to regulate normal mis-selling (as in all industries) and we need to regulate fraud and theft where the evidence is not good enough to secure a criminal conviction but might be (say) upheld in a civil court. We also need to react more quickly and flexibly than the legal system often can.

So I think we do need Ofcom (though an Ofcom that has decided to take PRS crime seriously); but I agree that a regulatory body should also report companies to the legal authorities where there is good evidence of breaches of criminal law and the legal authorities should accept and pursue such cases.

I am not and never have been a "law and order" type of person but I have often felt that a few prison sentences would concentrate minds in the PRS industry.

I agree fully with your characterization of the status quo as "decriminalization" of PRS fraud and theft, but I really don't believe that there has ever been a top level conspiracy - in the sense that the politicos, the police, the regulators, and the industry all sat down together one day and said "how can we design a system to fleece phone users and protect crooks" - it just looks that way

[El Gringo]

'I agree fully with your characterization of the status quo as "decriminalization" of PRS fraud and theft, but I really don't believe that there has ever been a top level conspiracy - in the sense that the politicos, the police, the regulators, and the industry all sat down together one day and said "how can we design a system to fleece phone users and protect crooks"'

http://newsweaver.co.uk/noc/e_articl....cfm?x=b11,0,w
Parliamentary Dinner – 18 October 2005

A dinner hosted by Alun Michael MP, minister of State for Industry & the Regions, and Sir Peter North of ICSTIS. The invitees were a select band and included NOC, City of London Police, Vodafone, BT and others and was declared to operate under ‘Chatham Rules’ hence nothing said at the meeting could be quoted but an open exchange of views was ensured.

It was an encouraging session with widespread support for a healthy, valuable and responsible PRS Industry but managed in a collaborative fashion with a light regulatory hand.

“From an NOC perspective I was greatly encouraged to see us moving in this direction at long last and I am confident that we will see continuing change in the way PRS is regulated to the benefit of us all and including ICSTIS,” said Roy Ellyatt.

'- it just looks that way'

[PRS1]

"If anyone in PRS contests any specific allegations that have been made on this forum I’m sure we’d all be glad to hear from them and I’m sure the moderators would quickly remove anything that was inaccurate, but everything I’ve seen has been well researched and referenced or (in some cases) declared to be mere speculation"

Hi there,

I would like to put some points straight re 2comm.

It seems that you seem to give 2comm as a regular example of things that are crooked within the industry. At 2comm we are open to criticism which has been frequently given within these boards. There are many routes having read your forums for a good while that we could have down be that legal/posting or simply just ignoring.

It would be good to point out some facts that will help you to decide if this is an example you should be giving as a 'crooked provider'

2Comm and Vision SMS are not the same company, nor have they anything to do with flying lessons. They were both formed in the same way however due to the break up in 2006 of a business which included mobile, retail and indeed flying lessons. The mobile side was of much interest to us and we have taken the shell of that business and moved it forward. Vision SMS are entirely different people and deal within the chat sector. There is a good link between the two as they were both created the same way but have totally different staff, directors and concepts.

We have never tried to deceive anyone with any of our products. One of the reasons we have been involved in more than one breach is because of the use of 3 providers. At one point we were breached three times for the same thing because we had three different billing providers. That means we didnt do something wrong three times though!

We have always stood up for our systems and policies and believe we should not have been fined at ANY point. We captured all the information of every user that has ever used our systems and have never sent out a charge without merit. That is not to say we havent made mistakes, we have but have always rectified. After being breached we decided to work closely with PPP re compliance issues. Firstly to make sure they understood how our systems worked and how it is impossible for us to send out a charge without people using our service. I believe this input helped PPP understand about the industry as well. I believe that their understanding has helped improve the code in ways you did not realize. Perhaps if this was done first we wouldnt be sitting with any breaches. We are very keen to avoid any further breaches or bad publicity and would welcome any feedback that you guys have. As i said in my first line, we could easily have taken a different approach re your posts but we hope by dealing with you directly might help you understand more about 2comm and indeed be helpful in questions you may have regarding the industry. 2Comm is also not in Liquidation!

Thanks

[Hamlet]

The fact that 2comm is in the process of being striked off was posted here
http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t28646.html
on February, 11th, 2009

on 22/01/2009 there was the "First notification of strike-off action" published in London Gazette (note: I do remember this but... I've not archived it)

on 13/02/2009 there was a "Notice of striking-off action discontinued".
so El Gringo's information that was replicated here was correct at the time it was given. The fact that the dissolution of a company does not mean its dissolution is a fact that may not be commonly known among the public


I have to admit that I didn't notice this and I guess El Gringo didn't notice this either.

El Gringo did ask in his posting "will we miss them?" - so one could ask now "are we glad that they're still alive & kicking"?

we'll see.

contributions from the biz side are always welcome, and communication is always a better way of dealing with critic than lawyers.
so: welcome!

[Hamlet]

I've found a lot of links in my mailbox in a mail from PPP. Will have a lot to read tonight. I hope to find more interesting statements like this:

1.14 With an understanding of developing market structure and regulatory enforcement taken into account, consumer protection and confidence remains paramount. Whilst only 48% of adults had used a phone-paid service in 2008, research we have previously conducted indicates that the highest regular usage occurs among consumers from the lowest socio-economic groups. And across all socio-economic groups the highest regular usage occurs among children. Not only will these groups be most affected financially by consumer harm, but also our previous research has identified that these same consumers are the least likely to be aware of their rights, the rules that govern phone-paid services, and of how to make a complaint.

Didn't know that this "feeled truth" is already confirmed.

[El Gringo]

Company Name:
2COMM LIMITED

Company No:05992801
Registered Office:
Incorporated:08/11/2006

788-790 FINCHLEY ROAD
LONDON
NW11 7TJ
NW11 7TJ

Company Type: Private Limited
Legal Status: Striking off Notice
Report Status:Full Data
Accounts Type:Unknown
Latest Accounts to:30/11/2007
Latest Return to:08/11/2008
.................................................. .
24/05/2007

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 24/05/07 FROM:4 CLAIR COURTLIME STREETBEDFORDMK40 1NH

Company Name:
VISIONSMS LTD.

Company No:SC292013
Registered Office:
Incorporated:20/10/2005 59 DURHAM STREET
GLASGOW
G41 1BS
G41 1BS

Company Type: Private Limited
Report Status:Full Data
Accounts Type:Unknown
Latest Accounts to:31/10/2007
Latest Return to:20/10/2008

25 September 2008
Information provider VisionSMS
Service provider Tanla Mobile

BACKGROUND
The PhonepayPlus Executive (“the Executive”) received 45 consumer complaints in respect of the receipt of unsolicited chargeable text messages, which cost £1.50 each and were received in batches of six.

The Executive’s understanding of how the service should have operated

The information provider stated that the service was called ‘Vis-Videos’ and offered users the opportunity to download as many videos of ‘glamour-type’ content as were available for £9 per week. It explained that the service was promoted using WAP push messages, which were sent to people whose details had been purchased from a 3rd party data supplier. The WAP push messages contained WAP links, which directed the consumer to download content, an example of which is as follows:

vis-videos.com/wap?c=B8B9A9.

Taking into account the aggravating and lack of mitigating factors, the Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the case should be regarded overall as serious.



The Tribunal therefore decided to impose the following sanctions against the information provider:
· A formal reprimand;
· A fine of £2,000;

http://whois.domaintools.com/vis-videos.com

88.208.230.106

Registrant:
William McCafferty
788-790 Finchley Road
London, London NW11 7TJ
GB

Domain name: VIS-VIDEOS.COM

Created: 2007-11-11
Expires: 2009-11-11
Updated: 2008-11-10

http://www.robtex.com/ip/88.208.230.106.html

?

[PRS1]

Thanks Hamlet we agree it is better to face up to critics. It may be a step that others who read this follow, might have opened up a can of worms here!

Going over some of the points you have raised;

Is it a good thing that 2comm are still about after 3 years? Absolutely, from everyones perspective. The industry when we first entered it was a buoyant one, full of content providers, aggregators and promoters like ourselves. That has changed vastly over time. There are plenty of aggregators still but promoters are rapidly decreasing. When reading the 'adjudications' it is amazing how few we know. Probably because they are shut down the day after and deliberately hidden. 2Comm isn't here to hide and as such probably makes us quite easy to dig about us! One of the differences is we perform an IP undertaking.Meaning we are held liable for any fines before the aggregator. Which we duly pay. The problem aggregators face is the type and style of company who doesnt pay fines and leaves the aggregators footing the bill. Also our feedback which we have just started here and to PPP is helpful for all to understand the enviroment in which we are just now.

Why was vis-videos bought by the same person? At the time Vision SMS only had the capacity to do chat messages and as such couldn't do the same style of wap promotion as we were doing. So this domain was bought by us but used by Vision on our platform. Quite often we will do joint ventures with Vision SMS, as they have chat licences and we dont etc, etc.

There are probably a couple of other things that you have touched on that are very apt to where we are just now. There has been breaches on 5.2 Legality - but probably not in the way that you think. The issue in all of our cases was the point not whether the consumer had actually used the service and it has been undoubtedly shown to PPP that our systems captured the information on all consumers with 100% accuracy but the problem was the initial marketing in the first place. The main issue in 2007 and 2008 was probably ours and Visions biggest mistake. There is a 3rd link which seems to be touched upon on these forums but is a real negative point in the industry. Third party data. Rogue companies duped us by doing the following. They would offer 3rd party data which we would get a sample of. We would then contact the consumers and all was good. We would then buy more data of the supplier, most of which was a load of nonsense that generated mass volume of complaints. To be honest I suppose we were naive enough considering the industry we were involved in and should have performed more due dilligence but sometimes trust is given out to easily. However lets just say we have made very big progress in routing out this type of company who effectively led us to so many breaches. We havent touched this type of data since and to be honest this type of company the industry/ppp seems to have got wise to which I think has been with our help also.

Also 45 complaints....I think thats a quite large number, however what time period is that over 1 month, 1 year? It would be good to see PPP analysing the revenue trends and complaint levels as a % and over a time frame. We offer 24 hour support (no voicemail machines :-() yet people go to PPP first before us. We only want satisfied customers, so if anyone wants to leave our service, or questions any charges we try to help to resolve the matter. Also relating back to the first paragraph, the longer we trade, the more subscribers we have, so someone could complain re a service two years ago today. Sometimes it would be easier to rebrand but I think going back to it all its good for us to have some longevity in the business and interact with all.

Have a good weekend.

[Hamlet]

might have opened up a can of worms here!

Originally Posted by PRS1

That would be very interesting. But the "Premium Rates Old Boys Group", consisting of the biggest and oldest worms in the can, was much too yellow to start a conversation after we started the "Premium Rates Old Boys Thread"... Let's wait & see.

When reading the 'adjudications' it is amazing how few we know. Probably because they are shut down the day after and deliberately hidden.

We would love to offer courses in "who is (really) who" from time to time...

2Comm isn't here to hide and as such probably makes us quite easy to dig about us!

Correct.

Also our feedback which we have just started here and to PPP is helpful for all to understand the enviroment in which we are just now.

I agree.

Why was vis-videos bought by the same person? At the time Vision SMS only had the capacity to do chat messages and as such couldn't do the same style of wap promotion as we were doing. So this domain was bought by us but used by Vision on our platform. Quite often we will do joint ventures with Vision SMS, as they have chat licences and we dont etc, etc.

This is always a bit hard to understand and such things make it hard to "investigate" correctly. But that's why communication could help so much...

There has been breaches on 5.2 Legality - but probably not in the way that you think. The issue in all of our cases was the point not whether the consumer had actually used the service and it has been undoubtedly shown to PPP that our systems captured the information on all consumers with 100% accuracy but the problem was the initial marketing in the first place.

That's a bit tricky... What does "using the service" mean? Downloading a ringtone that is promoted as "free" = "using your service", but then "using your service" is part of the (evil) game. So you don't shoot the gun, but it's your gun that's in the hand of the dodgy companies with there illegal advertisements.
If I read this (Inquirer) I can't see which excuse it should be that your system captured the scam correctly
(By the way: There is in fact NO system save enough when you have criminals as partners... Ask Dave Kelly about "trojan diallers" or ask German consumers about German diallers where you had to type "OK" three times before the dialler did work - but the "OK" was in fact not typed but "pasted" via a script file that was downloaded secretly from a malicious website that was invisibly visited)

Third party data. Rogue companies duped us by doing the following. They would offer 3rd party data which we would get a sample of. We would then contact the consumers and all was good. We would then buy more data of the supplier, most of which was a load of nonsense that generated mass volume of complaints. To be honest I suppose we were naive enough considering the industry we were involved in and should have performed more due dilligence but sometimes trust is given out to easily. However lets just say we have made very big progress in routing out this type of company who effectively led us to so many breaches.

Those companies should be made publicly known including the people running those companies. Otherwise you are telling us "oh, we would never be so naive again" - but the next company does exactly the same.
That's something the industry would have to sort out. "Blacklisting" and so on. Because companies that are "naive" enough and get away with it make money with their naivety. So it's a bit of an excuse, but not an excuse (ok, you didn't say it's an excuse anyway)

It would be good to see PPP analysing the revenue trends and complaint levels as a % and over a time frame.

Good idea. And also should they publish the ratio between fines and revenues. fine: 10,000 pounds, revenue 1,000,000 pounds, ratio 1%.
By the way: don't forget the ratio between people hit by a certain scam and the number of complaints. In Germany we had a case I was dealing with:
We had ~300 complaints online, only <20 complaints with the regulator - but ~150,000 affected (and it was a ping scam, so "affected" does mean "they did call back". So you can imagine that more than a million calls have been made in total. So < 0,002% of the people called filed a complaint.

[El Gringo]

There has been breaches on 5.2 Legality - but probably not in the way that you think. The issue in all of our cases was the point not whether the consumer had actually used the service and it has been undoubtedly shown to PPP that our systems captured the information on all consumers with 100% accuracy but the problem was the initial marketing in the first place.

Originally Posted by PRS1

That's a bit tricky... What does "using the service" mean?

Originally Posted by Hamlet

good question

[PRS1]

Morning,

In reply to a few of the things that you brought up.

1. Free Ringtones - This was a good market for us at the time. By giving away one free tone people would also sign up to some of the paid content. First of all our systems would capture information re the individual phone to insure it was the user who was requesting this. You will find that thousands downloaded the product with no costs attached to them. Those who went into the paid section were offered a free 48 hour trial to the system. In that time they could download what they wanted and again were reminded with the associated Free time frame and costs. Users who remained active after this time frame were charged.

There was no scam intention here, we were essentially giving away a free product to encourage use of our paid products. The problem with these types of services is that the user has been encouraged by a free product, and therefore assumes all else is free, they do not read the t's and c's and therefore complaints come in. Since this time PPP have really outlawed these types of services. We are not utterly convinced though that these are bad services. Its like Experian offering a months of credit reports free furthermore in other scetors this is 100% acceptable. I think in hindsight lower charges and a longer free trial period would have been more consumer friendly. We totally refuse thought to accept we tried to scam anyone into the products, as always terms and conditions clearly showed what the terms were. However we do acknowledge how the problems came to be as I have said above.

2. Third party data providers - As I sort of hinted we have taken measures against these providers. Informing the relevant people at all levels as of who they are. That is more than others would do trust me. However it is now down to these organisations to chase and punish the individuals involved. Vision SMS have really helped re this. Your forum really looks in depth at this, but for us thats where the matter ends. For example if my friend Bob steals my wallet, and I tell the authorities and all my friends to sort Bob out and nothing is done, what do you want us to do? At some point we just need to call it a day and move on, we have commercial pressures to and the day to day running of our business comes first. We also have to think on a legal and industry perspective by naming and shaming and to be honest this would cause our company to much grief.

3. Revenue and Authorities - I think your right, I just wonder re complaints re say from a dialler or that post office parcel campaign. The point is I can argue point no1, you might not agree, but certainly there is a grey area in the matter. The post office parcel campaign was certainly done in order to trick people. What did they customer get?Nothing. In this instance everything should be refunded and much tougher legislation and fines should come into play. From an industry perspective there should be a very distinguishable difference in fines between these cases.

Anyway hope some of this feedback is useful to you.

Have a good day.

[Hamlet]

AIME to co-ordinate industry response to PhonepayPlus 12th Code of Practice

fullquote

24/06/2009 20:20:58
AIME, the industry association for interactive media and entertainment, welcomes today’s announcement by PhonepayPlus that it intends to undertake a significant review of its Code of Practice.

Today’s announcement launched a wide-ranging discussion paper on the development of the 12th Code and takes into account Ofcom’s current Scope Review Consultation as a foundation for four main changes to the current regulatory regime.

AIME has represented member views (which includes all areas of the value chain) to both Ofcom and PhonepayPlus over the past twelve months on key areas where industry and regulators can work more effectively and ultimately create a regulatory environment that strikes a balance where regulation protects consumers but remains business enabling.

A significant part of creating a good business environment is the industry working together to build trust in the market and raise standards, whereby the regulator becomes a last resort backstop for Code enforcement. This will enable PhonepayPlus to take a fresh approach with its 12th Code of Practice which is more principles based than prescriptive.

In 2007, on the back of TV voting headlines and issues with subscription services AIME set out its key criteria for a better regulatory environment. It is pleased to note that many parts have been included in the PhonepayPlus discussion document and also the Ofcom Scope Review.
These include:
• Proportional regulatory responsibility though the value chain
• Centralised database of all companies that wish to promote premium rate services
• Improvement of end to end Customer Care processes.

To this end AIME has succeeded in working with members to develop and co-ordinate industry best practice in the following areas:
• Guide for PTV using Mobile SMS & VSC
• Customer Care Guide
• Mobile Terminating Provider Best Practice
• Merchant Promoter Registration Scheme
• Call Cost Transparency, callcosts.co.uk.

Commenting, Edward Boddington, AIME Chairman said: "It is of critical importance that industry works with the regulator to ensure a co-ordinated approach to building a trusted interactive entertainment industry. This will enable new services to be developed and generate greater mainstream applications. Already this year we have seen the benefits of 2 years of AIME activity building this trusted business environment, with Comic Relief launching a £5 tariff (generating substantial amounts for charity), and Jury Team using PRS as a voting platform for the European Elections. AIME, as part of our response to the Scope and this 12th Code consultation, have set out to the regulators our measurement criteria of what we determine to be a successful regulatory environment. We look forward to working closely with them to achieve our goals."

You should try to write to PPP as well

The Scream co-ordinate consumer response to PhonepayPlus 12th Code of Practice

[Hamlet]

they do not read the t's and c's and therefore complaints come in.

Originally Posted by PRS1

No! It was not made clear enough that the free ringtone does start a subscription and therefore complaints come in.

Services and promotional material must not mislead, or be likely to mislead in any way

Originally Posted by PPP CoP

The Florida General Attorney had the right words for those companies:

“For too long, not enough attention has been paid to the manner in which unscrupulous companies were conducting business in a proverbial Wild West of rogue internet marketing. We are going to clean up this industry,”

http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.ns...257394004E9DEC
That's the language I'd love to hear from PPP as well

As I sort of hinted we have taken measures against these providers. Informing the relevant people at all levels as of who they are. That is more than others would do trust me.

Yes. And it's appreciated here.

Your forum really looks in depth at this, but for us thats where the matter ends. (...) At some point we just need to call it a day and move on

That has to be respected and it is respected.

We also have to think on a legal and industry perspective by naming and shaming and to be honest this would cause our company to much grief.

[I'm not sure if I got that right]
This is a problem in many areas of the biz.(I'm not talking about you here!)
There are a lot of examples for companies/individuals scamming companies/individuals/webmasters - but in some cases the scammed ones where scamming as well. So nobody could throw a stone... The result: Wonderful "drama threads" on GFY, Netpond or on other boards. I love to read them

...but certainly there is a grey area in the matter. The post office parcel campaign was certainly done in order to trick people. What did they customer get?Nothing. In this instance everything should be refunded and much tougher legislation and fines should come into play.

"Grey areas" are defined by the laws and also by moral standards. Sometimes the laws define things to be within the legal framework - but from a moral point of view it's a scam. Most of the "grey areas" are scams in my eyes (Like "dial 0906xxx to get your password" - and then you have to hold the line for 10 minutes - this is "grey area scam")

From an industry perspective there should be a very distinguishable difference in fines between these cases.

From a consumer perspective there should be fines at all
Fine = punitive fine. That means: No 250,000 pound limit for fines. From my point of view it's one of the most miserable aspects of regulation that clear fraud is decriminalized and the "fines" are not punitive. So if you are caught red handed you don't have to fear more than a "diminishing of the swag". That's not regulation but money laundering...
But back to your point: Yes. There should be a distinguishable difference: Fines for breaking the code, punitive fines and police investigations for fraudsters. Then I do agree.

Anyway hope some of this feedback is useful to you.

it is. Thank you.

[mike99]

"If anyone in PRS contests any specific allegations that have been made on this forum I’m sure we’d all be glad to hear from them and I’m sure the moderators would quickly remove anything that was inaccurate, but everything I’ve seen has been well researched and referenced or (in some cases) declared to be mere speculation"

Hi there,

I would like to put some points straight re 2comm.

It seems that you seem to give 2comm as a regular example of things that are crooked within the industry. At 2comm we are open to criticism which has been frequently given within these boards. There are many routes having read your forums for a good while that we could have down be that legal/posting or simply just ignoring.

It would be good to point out some facts that will help you to decide if this is an example you should be giving as a 'crooked provider'

2Comm and Vision SMS are not the same company, nor have they anything to do with flying lessons. They were both formed in the same way however due to the break up in 2006 of a business which included mobile, retail and indeed flying lessons. The mobile side was of much interest to us and we have taken the shell of that business and moved it forward. Vision SMS are entirely different people and deal within the chat sector. There is a good link between the two as they were both created the same way but have totally different staff, directors and concepts.

We have never tried to deceive anyone with any of our products. One of the reasons we have been involved in more than one breach is because of the use of 3 providers. At one point we were breached three times for the same thing because we had three different billing providers. That means we didnt do something wrong three times though!

We have always stood up for our systems and policies and believe we should not have been fined at ANY point. We captured all the information of every user that has ever used our systems and have never sent out a charge without merit. That is not to say we havent made mistakes, we have but have always rectified. After being breached we decided to work closely with PPP re compliance issues. Firstly to make sure they understood how our systems worked and how it is impossible for us to send out a charge without people using our service. I believe this input helped PPP understand about the industry as well. I believe that their understanding has helped improve the code in ways you did not realize. Perhaps if this was done first we wouldnt be sitting with any breaches. We are very keen to avoid any further breaches or bad publicity and would welcome any feedback that you guys have. As i said in my first line, we could easily have taken a different approach re your posts but we hope by dealing with you directly might help you understand more about 2comm and indeed be helpful in questions you may have regarding the industry. 2Comm is also not in Liquidation!

Thanks

Originally Posted by PRS1

Been meaning to respond to this for some time, but been too busy.

Several interesting threads here.....

"2Comm and Vision SMS are not the same company"

This, I suppose, is, in the end, a question of semantics. After all, a company can change its owners, its name, its staff, its address, and/or its core business and still be (in some sense) the "same" company. Equally two companies may share the same owners, the same names (for some purposes), the same staff, the same address, and the same core businesses and still be (in some sense) "different" companies.

Also, the legal definition of the "same company" may not coincide with what the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus would accept.

The significant thing here is that @PRS1 confirms that these two companies share a common ancestry and that at least some of the "ancestors" were involved in the marketing of flying lessons.

Perhaps PRS1 would care to comment on these stories too:

Flying club boss has more business problems

Grounded Dreams

Flying club to shut over soaring rent and fuel bills

and on the item Watchdog did on these flying lessons.

"We have never tried to deceive anyone with any of our products. One of the reasons we have been involved in more than one breach is because of the use of 3 providers. At one point we were breached three times for the same thing because we had three different billing providers."

So O2 (and other network providers) blame Tanla (the "service provider" or "aggregator"); Tanla blame 2Comm (the "content provider"):

"On the morning the adjudication was to take place, an email was received from the service provider requesting that the case should proceed directly against the information provider pursuant to paragraph 8.5 of the Code, and not against the service provider." (ref)

2Comm, it now seems, are blaming the "billing provider" - whatever and whoever that might be.

The only real "billing provider" in the value chain is the network provider who bills the customer. The network provider should (IMHO) be made entirely responsible for all "services" for which it bills - just as happens in the "real" (i.e. non-PRS world) - and entirely responsible for sorting out all complaints about such "services".

If this happened, the likes of O2 (rather than PP+ or Ofcom or the public or the press or The Scream) would be forced to decide what it really thought of the likes of Tanla and 2Comm and whether (all things considered) it really wished to accept business from these companies.