Re: Porn being sent to childs phone ?

"Resident Drunk" <askmeforit@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4ucsu9F17n3jlU1@mid.individual.net

> I just wanted to add to this that since posting, Ben
> Phillips from Momac has been extremely courteous and
> helpful and that I do not believe his company was in any
> way in the wrong.

Except that his company makes money out of reverse charge text scams. The company may not instigate them directly, but they facilitate them and profit from them.

KF

> Except that his company makes money out of reverse charge text scams. The company may not instigate them directly, but they facilitate them and profit from them.
>
> KF

How is this a scam? It looks like this was something that was either
ordered via the handset or there was a mistake in the billing
procedure.
Either way it seems like the people at MoMac have taken this on board
and are dealing with the issue in the correct manner and if this was
incorrectly charged then they will be forced to give a refund.

Also, what about the consumers who do want these services? Should we
just stop all premium billing services just cause a few people out
there can't control what their kids download on their phones?

No, we should complain to our network operators who do not seem to have
the right information at the start of the query or have the staff that
seem to be able to give the correct advice. At the end of the day the
mobile networks make at least 50% from these premium text services and
they are the ones who charge you through your phone bill, yet they do
not seem to want to help get you the refund.

Funny that huh?

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> "Resident Drunk" <askmeforit@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:4ucsu9F17n3jlU1@mid.individual.net
>
> > I just wanted to add to this that since posting, Ben
> > Phillips from Momac has been extremely courteous and
> > helpful and that I do not believe his company was in any
> > way in the wrong.
>
> Except that his company makes money out of reverse charge text scams. The company may not instigate them directly, but they facilitate them and profit from them.
>
> KF

It seems that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding here. I work in
the industry and can assure you that Momac is a very reputable company
and would never run illegal or immoral services. The comments above
reconfirm my belief that consumers are poorly educated on how this
industry operates. It's long been my belief that the Mobile Network
Operators and regulating bodies need to spend more time and effort on
educating the consumer.

Firstly, this industry is very heavily regulated (much more so than the
internet where children can readily download adult material without any
age verification whatsoever). The content that can be accessed on
mobile phones without being age verified is limit to 'softcore'
content and such content would be likened to the types of pictures you
see in magazines such as Nuts or Page 3 in The Sun. Any pornographic
content will sit behind age verification pages. To access these types
of sites the user is routed back to their MNO to undergo strict age
verification before they are allowed to view such material.

In reference to the comments on premium rate 'scam' billing, I
would suggest that if you believe that you have been at the receiving
end of one of these scams and are finding no recourse through your MNO
that you contact ICSTIS - they are responsible for regulating
Telephone Information Services (on mobile and IVR). They routinely fine
companies that break the rules and regulations as defined in the ICSTIS
Code of Practice. Furthermore the MNO's also have strict regulations
on how services should operate (often more stringent than those of
ICSTIS) and they have the power to shut down services if it deemed that
companies are operating outside these guidelines.

In short, as a consumer you do have power but often are ill educated.
You should (hopefully) see a lot more of ICSTIS next year as they are
undergoing a re-branding exercise. In the meantime you can review the
'Code of Practice' and find contact information at:
http://www.icstis.org.uk/. They have also recently launched service
aimed at children and explaining how premium rate services work:
http://www.phonebrain.org.uk/

As a tip for 'Resident Drunk' I suggest you review your child's
bill again. If she has accesses the services via wap, this should
appear on her bill as a separate entry, detailing the time and date
that any sites were viewed. You can then tally this back with the time
and date of billed message. I'm pretty sure you will find these
correlate.

Miss McGee wrote:
> As a tip for 'Resident Drunk' I suggest you review your child's
> bill again.

A PAYG bill? Not to many of those around. Actually I don't think the OP
said whether is was PAYG or not but chances are it is.

> If she has accesses the services via wap, this should
> appear on her bill as a separate entry, detailing the time and date
> that any sites were viewed. You can then tally this back with the time
> and date of billed message. I'm pretty sure you will find these
> correlate.

I still favour the "reused telephone number" theory given that the sim card
was just three weeks old.

Tim

"Schtop!" <matt.bowden1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166175139.963578.197460@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com
> > Except that his company makes money out of reverse
> > charge text scams. The company may not instigate them
> > directly, but they facilitate them and profit from
> > them.
> >
> > KF
>
> How is this a scam? It looks like this was something that
> was either ordered via the handset or there was a mistake
> in the billing procedure.

It's a scam because it's possible to bill someone without their explicit
permission.

> Either way it seems like the people at MoMac have taken
> this on board and are dealing with the issue in the
> correct manner and if this was incorrectly charged then
> they will be forced to give a refund.
>
> Also, what about the consumers who do want these
> services? Should we just stop all premium billing
> services just cause a few people out there can't control
> what their kids download on their phones?

Yes. Premium billing is an abomination. It has no useful purpose that
can't be met by other means.

Ivor

"Miss McGee" <jenniewright2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1166180930.817221.245390@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > "Resident Drunk" <askmeforit@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:4ucsu9F17n3jlU1@mid.individual.net
> >
> > > I just wanted to add to this that since posting, Ben
> > > Phillips from Momac has been extremely courteous and
> > > helpful and that I do not believe his company was in
> > > any way in the wrong.
> >
> > Except that his company makes money out of reverse
> > charge text scams. The company may not instigate them
> > directly, but they facilitate them and profit from
> > them.
> >
> > KF
>
> It seems that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding
> here. I work in the industry and can assure you that
> Momac is a very reputable company and would never run
> illegal or immoral services. The comments above reconfirm
> my belief that consumers are poorly educated on how this
> industry operates. It's long been my belief that the
> Mobile Network Operators and regulating bodies need to
> spend more time and effort on educating the consumer.

It is immoral because it allows unsolicited billing. Reverse billing
should only occur when the person being billed specifically asks for the
"service" and confirms by a free message that they wish to receive the
billed message. It is quite possible to enter a random phone number on a
website and that number then gets billed. It is possible to "borrow"
someone's phone, "subscribe" to a "service" and the unsuspecting phone
owner then gets billed.

The whole concept of billing for incoming texts is an abomination and
should be outlawed. It serves no purpose that can't be met by other means.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Miss McGee" <jenniewright2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:1166180930.817221.245390@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com
> > Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >

> It is immoral because it allows unsolicited billing. Reverse billing
> should only occur when the person being billed specifically asks for the
> "service" and confirms by a free message that they wish to receive the
> billed message. It is quite possible to enter a random phone number on a
> website and that number then gets billed. It is possible to "borrow"
> someone's phone, "subscribe" to a "service" and the unsuspecting phone
> owner then gets billed.
>
> The whole concept of billing for incoming texts is an abomination and
> should be outlawed. It serves no purpose that can't be met by other means.
>
> Ivor

It's clear that you have very strong views about premium services but
I'm afraid it's a fact of life that users want to consume services
on their handsets and companies are not willing or in the financial
position to provide their services for free. We live in a commercial
world and until there is another means of generating revenue from
services consumed there will be a charge to the end consumer. You may
find in the future that advertisement sales may finance mobile
consumables but for now this is the way it works.

As I mentioned before we are a very heavily regulated industry and as
such companies are not allowed to send you unsolicited messages. If you
have been a victim then I suggest you do something about it. The web
scam you've mentioned is illegal. To make such a service compliant we
would need a double opt in message where the mobile number is confirmed
from the actual handset and not just on a web page.

We also have to be explicitly clear in the way pricing information is
displayed - before any purchase is made.

I'm not sure your analogy about 'borrowing someone's handset'
is very fair. If someone 'borrowed' my credit card and subscribed
me to a monthly magazine then I would think twice about blaming the
magazine company - surely I should take responsibility of my own
property, especially when there's money involved.

If I was your friend and borrowed your phone to make an overseas call
would you deem it the fault of the telecoms company who made that call
possible?

Ivor Jones wrote:

> It is immoral because it allows unsolicited billing.

How is this billing type unsolicited? 99.9% of the time it is a service
that the end user has requested! The rules as stated in the MNO code of
practice and ICSTIS guidelines say that you cannot send billed message
without the prior consent of the user (That's you Ivor)!

Reverse billing
> should only occur when the person being billed specifically asks for the
> "service" and confirms by a free message that they wish to receive the
> billed message.

I do sometimes request content or services (like a football alerts
service) and because it is the law and it is also stated in both the
MNO's code of practice and also has to follow ICSITS guidelines I am
told that this will cost me £3 and then I receive two billed messages
@ £1.50

It is quite possible to enter a random phone number on a
> website and that number then gets billed.

Where? Give me an example and whilst your doing it send it to ICSTIS
and they will shut them down!

It is possible to "borrow"
> someone's phone, "subscribe" to a "service" and the unsuspecting phone
> owner then gets billed.

Why are you lending your phone to people who would do this? Clearly you
are still being bullied at school - You should tell your parents or a
teacher...

> The whole concept of billing for incoming texts is an abomination and
> should be outlawed. It serves no purpose that can't be met by other means.

Ok, so IF (that's a big if) other means were supported by the MNO's
which ones do you suggest?

1) Credit card? Cause that can't be abused!
2) Debit Card? Surely the bullies would steal and abuse this too?
3) PayPal - But this costs money and you'll need either of the above

Sod it. Let's all pay by cheque cause that's fast and easy.

Wake up and smell the Java application Ivor! Some people like paying by
their phone bill as they won't get questioned by their missus if they
use their phone to download some porn! Others like myself find it a
quick and easy way of paying.

It serves a purpose and the quicker that people take responsibility for
themselves, the less that people will complaining that they have been
"Scammed".

Now - Can people please STOP just coming out with old wives tales about
mobile phone billing scams. You shouldn't have downloaded that Crazy
Frogs ringtone! <Bing bing>

Miss McGee wrote:
>
> As I mentioned before we are a very heavily regulated industry and as
> such companies are not allowed to send you unsolicited messages.

But they do?

I've been the victim on several occasions (on different accounts with
different numbers...........the only commonality was that they all
occurred on Orange.

So to claim that "companies are not allowed to send unsolicited
messages" is akin to saying citizens aren't allowed to commit burglary.

It still happens.

For what it's worth, and I have no problem with naming and shaming, on
more than one of my scams, the perpetrators were the Stream group, 130
Wigmore Street, London, W1U 3SB.

Orange conceded (on every occasion) that I hadn't requested the
services, the billing was erroneous and that it was caused by my number
being recycled; the previous owner "must have" requested such services.

The whole industry is a joke and should be shut down immediately.

"Miss McGee" <jenniewright2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1166205886.888729.165510@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com

[snip]

> It's clear that you have very strong views about premium
> services but I'm afraid it's a fact of life that users
> want to consume services
> on their handsets and companies are not willing or in the
> financial position to provide their services for free.

Then ensure that the phone owner accepts the charge by sending a *free*
message beforehand, to which they must reply in the affirmative before
they receive the billed message. It's called double opt-in.

Or would that affect revenue, perhaps..?

>We live in a commercial world and until there is another
> means of generating revenue from services consumed there
> will be a charge to the end consumer. You may find in the
> future that advertisement sales may finance mobile
> consumables but for now this is the way it works.

Charging the end consumer for goods/services they have asked for is one
thing. Charging them for things they have not is another matter.

> As I mentioned before we are a very heavily regulated
> industry and as such companies are not allowed to send
> you unsolicited messages. If you have been a victim then
> I suggest you do something about it.

I am doing something about it, I am trying very hard to get this sort of
transaction outlawed. I may be wasting my time, but that's not going to
stop me trying.

> The web scam you've mentioned is illegal.

Since when have criminals worried about a crime being illegal..?

> To make such a service compliant we
> would need a double opt in message where the mobile
> number is confirmed from the actual handset and not just
> on a web page.

Exactly what I suggested above. Why do you not implement it..?

> We also have to be explicitly clear in the way pricing
> information is displayed - before any purchase is made.

That doesn't affect someone whose phone is used without their knowledge.

> I'm not sure your analogy about 'borrowing someone's
> handset' is very fair. If someone 'borrowed' my credit card and
> subscribed me to a monthly magazine then I would think twice about
> blaming the magazine company - surely I should take
> responsibility of my own property, especially when
> there's money involved.

The analogy does not apply. A credit card charge can be queried far more
easily. Plus the magazine company should accept some measure of
responsibility for not ensuring the person using the card was the genuine
card holder. "Cardholder not present" fraud far outweighs any other kind
of card fraud; there should be some sort of security involved in this sort
of transaction, maybe a password along the lines of "Mother's maiden
name"..? I don't see why it could not be done.

> If I was your friend and borrowed your phone to make an
> overseas call would you deem it the fault of the telecoms
> company who made that call possible?

If you were my friend you would not borrow my phone. Not more than once,
anyway. Nor would you remain my friend afterwards.

Ivor

"Schtop!" <matt.bowden1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166206916.278581.63790@t46g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > It is immoral because it allows unsolicited billing.
>
> How is this billing type unsolicited? 99.9% of the time
> it is a service that the end user has requested! The
> rules as stated in the MNO code of practice and ICSTIS
> guidelines say that you cannot send billed message
> without the prior consent of the user (That's you Ivor)!

Source of provable information for the figure of 99.9% please.

I didn't say *all* reverse charge messages were unsolicited, but I'll bet
money it's a lot more than 0.1% of them.

> Reverse billing
> > should only occur when the person being billed
> > specifically asks for the "service" and confirms by a
> > free message that they wish to receive the billed
> > message.
>
> I do sometimes request content or services (like a
> football alerts service) and because it is the law and it
> is also stated in both the MNO's code of practice and
> also has to follow ICSITS guidelines I am told that this
> will cost me £3 and then I receive two billed messages @
> £1.50

If you want to waste your money then go right ahead. But do it in a way
that doesn't affect me..!

> It is quite possible to enter a random phone number on a
> > website and that number then gets billed.
>
> Where? Give me an example and whilst your doing it send
> it to ICSTIS and they will shut them down!

It can be done at the offices of unscrupulous companies that run these
scams. Those I know about have indeed been forwarded to the relevant
places.

> It is possible to "borrow"
> > someone's phone, "subscribe" to a "service" and the
> > unsuspecting phone owner then gets billed.
>
> Why are you lending your phone to people who would do
> this? Clearly you are still being bullied at school - You
> should tell your parents or a teacher...

I'm not lending *my* phone to anyone. But the fact remains that some
people do leave their phones lying around. That is not an excuse for
others to misuse them, but they do.

> > The whole concept of billing for incoming texts is an
> > abomination and should be outlawed. It serves no
> > purpose that can't be met by other means.
>
> Ok, so IF (that's a big if) other means were supported by
> the MNO's which ones do you suggest?

If you want to sell me something, send me an invoice or a bill. If I
accept the charge, I will pay you by whatever means we both find
convenient. Except by text message, that is..!

> 1) Credit card? Cause that can't be abused!
> 2) Debit Card? Surely the bullies would steal and abuse
> this too? 3) PayPal - But this costs money and you'll
> need either of the above
>
> Sod it. Let's all pay by cheque cause that's fast and
> easy.

> Wake up and smell the Java application Ivor! Some people
> like paying by their phone bill as they won't get
> questioned by their missus if they use their phone to
> download some porn!

Oh, that's ok then.

> Others like myself find it a quick and easy way of paying.

So use a double opt-in. That way you have to confirm the transaction.

> It serves a purpose and the quicker that people take
> responsibility for themselves, the less that people will
> complaining that they have been "Scammed".

I have received reverse charge SMS messages while my phone was very
securely in my inside jacket pocket. No-one "borrowed" it, in fact it is a
standby phone that spends most of its time switched off. Tell me how I got
these messages. I *know* I didn't "subscribe" to anything and the network
confirmed it.

> Now - Can people please STOP just coming out with old
> wives tales about mobile phone billing scams. You
> shouldn't have downloaded that Crazy Frogs ringtone!

I have most certainly been scammed. Several times. And for the record, my
6310i goes "ring ring", ok..?

Ivor

Schtop! wrote:
>
> How is this billing type unsolicited? 99.9% of the time it is a service
> that the end user has requested! The rules as stated in the MNO code of
> practice and ICSTIS guidelines say that you cannot send billed message
> without the prior consent of the user (That's you Ivor)!

Make your mind up? If you're going to defend the indefensible, at
least try and be consistent. If "ICSTIS guidelines say that you cannot
send billed message without the prior consent of the user", why isn't
your "99.9% of the time" 100%?

Oh, and a source for your 99.9% claim would lend credibility to your
views.

The industry is littered with cowboys and crooks - not all of the
players are bent, of course, but it's an industry that either needs
closing down or cleaning up.

I favour closing them all down. Reverse charging someone is a very
dodgy way of doing business.

> The industry is littered with cowboys and crooks - not all of the
> players are bent, of course, but it's an industry that either needs
> closing down or cleaning up.

The best, and easiest way I can see of doing this is to make the network
operator responsible for the refund of any "scammed" messages if they
have no originating request linked to that handset, completely removing
the "signed up by website" bullshit.

You can bet your arse rogue premium rate companies would be shut down or
blocked pronto.

Miss McGee wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> "Resident Drunk" <askmeforit@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ucsu9F17n3jlU1@mid.individual.net
>>
>>> I just wanted to add to this that since posting, Ben
>>> Phillips from Momac has been extremely courteous and
>>> helpful and that I do not believe his company was in any
>>> way in the wrong.
>> Except that his company makes money out of reverse charge text scams. The company may not instigate them directly, but they facilitate them and profit from them.
>>
>> KF
>
>
> As a tip for 'Resident Drunk' I suggest you review your child's
> bill again. If she has accesses the services via wap, this should
> appear on her bill as a separate entry, detailing the time and date
> that any sites were viewed. You can then tally this back with the time
> and date of billed message. I'm pretty sure you will find these
> correlate.
>

I have been sent full details by Momac of the times & charges which were
incurred whilst my daughter was asleep. The trace shows that many pages
were visited so it could not have been a mistake (even if my daughter
wasn't asleep I really don't think she would have spent 10 minutes
rating the boobs of various women).

All the details have been sent to O2 & I am awaiting a response.