Beware if you have ever supplied your phone number to Screwfix for delivery
contact only. They have been sending unsolicited text messages and want
people to text a number to stop them. I joined the TPS years ago and only
ever passed on my details to Screwfix and Westpoint Bathrooms so they could
phone to advise about a delivery date. Screwfix has decided to compile a
list of customer details to pass on to a third party or sell them without
permission or agreement from customers.
Mobile phone companies will NOT allow you to block reverse charged messages
as they make far too much money out of it and a lot are dishonest / only in
in for profit.
I have contacted Screwfix for an explanation and asked for the name of the
person who will be refunding the cost of the initial message and the "stop
message". I will be posting those details once I have them as it seems
unlikely I will need to take legal action in order to recover the costs.
Mobile companies should stop the recipient being charged for messages or
calls. It is not the recipient making those calls or sending messages.
When you get spammers like Screwfix sending thousands of them out it does
become annoying.
I would be very surprised if a company the size of Srewfix would sell
contact details illegally.
There are many spammers out there that just send blocks of SMSs to whole
number ranges... some will hit, some will bounce.
We had a lot of fun in our office when spam phone call started coming in
to our (consecutively numbered) company mobiles, I work at Vodafone and
in close conjunction with network fraud, risk and security. Strangely
they didn't want to talk to us for very long once we recorded the
incoming numbers and gave our job titles!!
All I can say is be very, very careful who you blame for being the
originator of your spam. It's a very litigious world out there and
legitimate companies take a dim view of being blamed for illegal dealings!
Timfy
Rob wrote:
> Beware if you have ever supplied your phone number to Screwfix for delivery
> contact only. They have been sending unsolicited text messages and want
> people to text a number to stop them. I joined the TPS years ago and only
> ever passed on my details to Screwfix and Westpoint Bathrooms so they could
> phone to advise about a delivery date. Screwfix has decided to compile a
> list of customer details to pass on to a third party or sell them without
> permission or agreement from customers.
>
> Mobile phone companies will NOT allow you to block reverse charged messages
> as they make far too much money out of it and a lot are dishonest / only in
> in for profit.
>
> I have contacted Screwfix for an explanation and asked for the name of the
> person who will be refunding the cost of the initial message and the "stop
> message". I will be posting those details once I have them as it seems
> unlikely I will need to take legal action in order to recover the costs.
>
> Mobile companies should stop the recipient being charged for messages or
> calls. It is not the recipient making those calls or sending messages.
> When you get spammers like Screwfix sending thousands of them out it does
> become annoying.
>
>
>
Rob wrote:
> Beware if you have ever supplied your phone number to Screwfix for delivery
> contact only. They have been sending unsolicited text messages and want
> people to text a number to stop them.
So the messages are from Screwfix themselves, advertising Screwfix services?
> I joined the TPS years ago and only
> ever passed on my details to Screwfix and Westpoint Bathrooms so they could
> phone to advise about a delivery date.
Not passing your number on doesn't stop it from being the receipient for
spam texts though. Random/sequential diallers aren't uncommon.
> Screwfix has decided to compile a
> list of customer details to pass on to a third party or sell them without
> permission or agreement from customers.
So which 3rd party have they passed them onto - and how are you certain
of this? Are you now suggesting that it wasn't Screwfix who spammed you
originally, or that they've spammed you AND passed it onto 3rd party.
Additionally, why could it not have been Westpoint Bathrooms who passed
your details on? I still seem a bit confused over your claims of them
passing/selling details on when it only appears you have received 1 text
spam yet you claim with certainty that it was Screwfix who did it (and
not Westpoint) - and presumably the only way you could have been
certain, is that the spam advertised Screwfix.
> Mobile phone companies will NOT allow you to block reverse charged messages
> as they make far too much money out of it and a lot are dishonest / only in
> in for profit.
Erm... I thought all companies were in business for profit. It's
charities which aren't...
And I understand T-Mobile can put a block on reverse billed SMS messages
if you ask.
> I have contacted Screwfix for an explanation and asked for the name of the
> person who will be refunding the cost of the initial message and the "stop
> message". I will be posting those details once I have them as it seems
> unlikely I will need to take legal action in order to recover the costs.
When you say "contacted" - does that mean emailed, or actually spoken to
someone? I ask because as yet you haven't stated that Screwfix have
admitted the message came from them, or that it's their responsibility.
So you're saying you don't expect to have to take legal action over a
(max) £1.50 text, + approx 20p stop message.
> Mobile companies should stop the recipient being charged for messages or
> calls. It is not the recipient making those calls or sending messages.
Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
on a mobile phone. Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these
are likely to be the minority rather than the rule. I would suggest
that better regulation and fining of those companies is better than a
flat ban.
> When you get spammers like Screwfix sending thousands of them out it does
> become annoying.
I just checked my Screwfix account. On the "Personal details" page, I
see: "Data Protection Act: From time to time we may make portions of our
mailing list available to carefully selected organisations whose
products may be of interest to you. If you would prefer not to receive
such mailings, please untick this box."
It is possible that everything on that page is covered by that statement
- which includes home and mobile numbers. Are you certain whether that
box is ticked or not for you?
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:10:47 +0100, David Hearn wrote:
> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
> on a mobile phone. Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these
> are likely to be the minority rather than the rule. I would suggest
> that better regulation and fining of those companies is better than a
> flat ban.
Perhaps making it opt-in would be a more sensible suggestion.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
18:30:09 up 49 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.00
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data
alexd wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:10:47 +0100, David Hearn wrote:
>
>> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing
>> services on a mobile phone. Whilst problems do sometimes occur with
>> them, these are likely to be the minority rather than the rule. I
>> would suggest that better regulation and fining of those companies
>> is better than a flat ban.
>
> Perhaps making it opt-in would be a more sensible suggestion.
Don't be silly, that would lose the networks money.
"David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
news:66epk8F2j1k8kU2@mid.individual.net...
> Rob wrote:
<snip>
> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
> on a mobile phone
>
Only a Pimp or reverse SMS seller would claim that,
which are you?
>
> Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these are likely to be the
> minority rather than the rule. I would suggest that better regulation and
> fining of those companies is better than a flat ban.
>
I'd put them against a wall and shoot them.
Letting the customer opt in is the only solution, and one the pimps
and in collusion the networks won't do
£Millions would be lost by both
Steve Terry wrote:
> "David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:66epk8F2j1k8kU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Rob wrote:
> <snip>
>> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
>> on a mobile phone
>>
> Only a Pimp or reverse SMS seller would claim that,
> which are you?
Neither. I just can see that being able to get a customer to pay for
ad-hoc services on your mobile phone is useful. Took me 15 minutes to
get through the "pay by mobile" service at the ICC in Birmingham to work
properly (please press the button which has the 3rd digit in your
registration number on it.. *beep*... please press 1 for 4, 2 for g, 3
for i..." only to find that one of them was wrong and had to re-start!
Following automated voice commands in a noisy car park isn't easy). In
many ways, being able to send a text message to park the car and pay for
the parking would have been much easier and quicker.
It's like saying that Direct Debit should be banned because sometimes
companies mis-bill people.
>> Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these are likely to be the
>> minority rather than the rule. I would suggest that better regulation and
>> fining of those companies is better than a flat ban.
>>
> I'd put them against a wall and shoot them.
>
> Letting the customer opt in is the only solution, and one the pimps
> and in collusion the networks won't do
> £Millions would be lost by both
Again, going back to Direct Debits which are customer opt-ins - I'd
agree that opt-in is best (either a global on/off, or preferably a
per-service on/off). I wasn't advocating that the current system was
perfect, just that the OP's statement of "Mobile companies should stop
the recipient being charged for messages or calls. It is not the
recipient making those calls or sending messages." suggested that
reverse billing should not be possible full stop.
The problem is that the system is already meant to be opt-in for each
service. Unfortunately, there's no current check to enforce this. The
simplest would be that the networks (not the SMS provider) check that
you have sent a message to that number, with a START message first -
however that requires the operators to intercept all text messages -
something which I understand they're not allowed to do (they then become
more liable for the messages travelling through their networks, rather
than just acting as conduits - certainly that's what ISP claim to
protect them against users doing illegal activities).
David Hearn <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote:
> Steve Terry wrote:
> > "David Hearn" <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:66epk8F2j1k8kU2@mid.individual.net...
> >> Rob wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
> >> on a mobile phone
> >>
> > Only a Pimp or reverse SMS seller would claim that,
> > which are you?
>
> Neither. I just can see that being able to get a customer to pay for
> ad-hoc services on your mobile phone is useful. Took me 15 minutes to
> get through the "pay by mobile" service at the ICC in Birmingham to work
> properly (please press the button which has the 3rd digit in your
> registration number on it.. *beep*... please press 1 for 4, 2 for g, 3
> for i..." only to find that one of them was wrong and had to re-start!
> Following automated voice commands in a noisy car park isn't easy). In
> many ways, being able to send a text message to park the car and pay for
> the parking would have been much easier and quicker.
>
> It's like saying that Direct Debit should be banned because sometimes
> companies mis-bill people.
>
> >> Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these are likely to be the
> >> minority rather than the rule. I would suggest that better regulation and
> >> fining of those companies is better than a flat ban.
> >>
> > I'd put them against a wall and shoot them.
> >
> > Letting the customer opt in is the only solution, and one the pimps
> > and in collusion the networks won't do
> > £Millions would be lost by both
>
> Again, going back to Direct Debits which are customer opt-ins - I'd
> agree that opt-in is best (either a global on/off, or preferably a
> per-service on/off). I wasn't advocating that the current system was
> perfect, just that the OP's statement of "Mobile companies should stop
> the recipient being charged for messages or calls. It is not the
> recipient making those calls or sending messages." suggested that
> reverse billing should not be possible full stop.
>
> The problem is that the system is already meant to be opt-in for each
> service. Unfortunately, there's no current check to enforce this. The
> simplest would be that the networks (not the SMS provider) check that
> you have sent a message to that number, with a START message first -
> however that requires the operators to intercept all text messages -
> something which I understand they're not allowed to do (they then become
> more liable for the messages travelling through their networks, rather
> than just acting as conduits - certainly that's what ISP claim to
> protect them against users doing illegal activities).
It's the CHARGING for unsolicited text messages that is the main complaint, not
the messages themselves. When the customer sends a text to opt-in to such a
service, a copy should go to your telco's billing system to update your account
records that you have agreed to accept charges from the information provider.
Then the telco should simply reject any charges from the information provider
unless authorised by the customer. Simple.
> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services
> on a mobile phone. Whilst problems do sometimes occur with them, these
> are likely to be the minority rather than the rule. I would suggest
> that better regulation and fining of those companies is better than a
> flat ban.
Pimping is a large, legitimate market for subsidising the cost of
kidnapping foreign women and providing services to mobile customers.
Whilst problems do sometimes occur with pimps, these are likely to be
the minority rather than the rule. I would suggest that better
regulation and fining of those businessmen is better than a flat ban.
On Apr 14, 11:05*am, David Hearn <d...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote:
> It's like saying that Direct Debit should be banned because sometimes
> companies mis-bill people.
>
A pisspoor analogy.
I've been on the receiving end of more than one of these cowboy
artists' scams (all on Orange coincidentally)..........as Steve says,
line 'em up against a wall and shoot them. And then bill the
companies for clearing up the blood.
> On Apr 14, 11:05Â*am, David Hearn <d...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> It's like saying that Direct Debit should be banned because sometimes
>> companies mis-bill people.
>>
>
> A pisspoor analogy.
You're right. With Direct Debit, you can instruct your bank to refund
your money right away.
Providers and intermediaries for reverse-billed SMS and PRNs should be
required to provide the same level of consumer protection.
SCREWFIX - unsolicited TEXT messages 
Linear Mode
