Seems the margins for the middle men are very high.
eg a text charged to the recipient at 25p potentially nets me from 9.4p
to 13p and a text costing the recipient £1.50 only brings me in 95p to
£1.05. So 50-70%.
I want to use it for a service charging the costomer around £10-£20
(multiple texts if necessary, but one would be fine) but I need to see
at least 80% of that. I mean, seriously, the cost of them reverse
charging a single text is a few pence if that, so why can't I do a £15
text and see £14? Is there any way to cut out the middle man and go
direct to the netwks?
Ade wrote:
> Seems the margins for the middle men are very high.
> eg a text charged to the recipient at 25p potentially nets me from 9.4p
> to 13p and a text costing the recipient £1.50 only brings me in 95p to
> £1.05. So 50-70%.
> I want to use it for a service charging the costomer around £10-£20
> (multiple texts if necessary, but one would be fine) but I need to see
> at least 80% of that. I mean, seriously, the cost of them reverse
> charging a single text is a few pence if that, so why can't I do a £15
> text and see £14? Is there any way to cut out the middle man and go
> direct to the netwks?
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159954098.450044.171990@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
Seems the margins for the middle men are very high.
eg a text charged to the recipient at 25p potentially nets me from 9.4p
to 13p and a text costing the recipient £1.50 only brings me in 95p to
£1.05. So 50-70%.
I want to use it for a service charging the costomer around £10-£20
(multiple texts if necessary, but one would be fine) but I need to see
at least 80% of that. I mean, seriously, the cost of them reverse
charging a single text is a few pence if that, so why can't I do a £15
text and see £14? Is there any way to cut out the middle man and go
direct to the netwks?
Why not £150, just a few scammed rip offs and you can retire...
> Why not £150, just a few scammed rip offs and you can retire...
What an ignorant post. FWIW, not every service offered over the medium
is a scam so it's ill-informed to tarnish them all as such. Same goes
for any payment method: some people scam using cash, therefore all cash
users are scammers; some people scam using credit cards, therefore all
merchants accepting credit cards are scammers.
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159961626.566654.263830@c28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> Why not £150, just a few scammed rip offs and you can retire...
>
>What an ignorant post. FWIW, not every service offered over the medium
>is a scam so it's ill-informed to tarnish them all as such. Same goes
>for any payment method: some people scam using cash, therefore all cash
>users are scammers; some people scam using credit cards, therefore all
>merchants accepting credit cards are scammers.
>
>Kindly grow up or simply don't post.
>
Let me guess, you are a reverse SMS service provider
OK not all reverse SMS are a scam, just most of them,
and what's more it's a conspiracy between the networks,
and the reverse SMS suppliers, with perhaps the exception of
T Mobile, who are the only one who offers an "opt out" service.
Of course all the networks should be providing an "opt in" service.
But if they did that it would kill the scam over night,
and loose the networks loads of skim off dosh.
Only a networks "opt in" to reverse SMS option
would prove any real desire for it at all
So come on networks lets have it
and perhaps the banks would do away with chargeable ATMs,
some hope, welcome to noo Labours scamers Britain
> Let me guess, you are a reverse SMS service provider
>
Guess again. I currently don't offer any such service, although
customers have suggested that it would be convenient for them to choose
to have a particular serviced delivered and paid for in this way.
> OK not all reverse SMS are a scam, just most of them,
> and what's more it's a conspiracy between the networks,
> and the reverse SMS suppliers, with perhaps the exception of
> T Mobile, who are the only one who offers an "opt out" service.
>
> Of course all the networks should be providing an "opt in" service.
> But if they did that it would kill the scam over night,
> and loose the networks loads of skim off dosh.
>
I agree. Network opt in would be a much better idea. If this isn't the
case for customers under 18, it certainly should be.
> Only a networks "opt in" to reverse SMS option
> would prove any real desire for it at all
>
> So come on networks lets have it
>
> and perhaps the banks would do away with chargeable ATMs,
> some hope, welcome to noo Labours scamers Britain
>
Well, every time I've used one, it's been very clear before charging
(and offered the ability the cancel without charge) so I don't have a
problem with them. Services *do* cost money to provide, you know.
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159961626.566654.263830@c28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Why not £150, just a few scammed rip offs and you can retire...
What an ignorant post. FWIW, not every service offered over the medium
is a scam so it's ill-informed to tarnish them all as such. Same goes
for any payment method: some people scam using cash, therefore all cash
users are scammers; some people scam using credit cards, therefore all
merchants accepting credit cards are scammers.
Kindly grow up or simply don't post.
This group has been full of cases where mobile phone users have been sent
reverse charge SMS(s) that they have never requested and did not want.
Often they have considerable difficulty in stopping the charges and / or
getting their money back. There have also been reports in the media of
people getting bills for ~£1k when reverse charge SMS has been abused.
Yes it is possible for a armed mugger to get cash out of my wallet, but they
get 5 years if caught. Reverse SMS lets scamsters take money out of my
phone, but how many reverse SMS scammers have been sent to prison?
Probably a better analogy is direct debit, but there the bank account holder
has a guarantee that s/he can get their money back.
> This group has been full of cases where mobile phone users have been sent
> reverse charge SMS(s) that they have never requested and did not want.
> Often they have considerable difficulty in stopping the charges and / or
> getting their money back. There have also been reports in the media of
> people getting bills for ~£1k when reverse charge SMS has been abused.
>
> Yes it is possible for a armed mugger to get cash out of my wallet, but they
> get 5 years if caught. Reverse SMS lets scamsters take money out of my
> phone, but how many reverse SMS scammers have been sent to prison?
>
Indeed, that's just plain wrong and the people responsible should
indeed be treated as criminals, just like any other fraudsters.
However, just because a medium is open to fraudsters, that should not
stand in the way of legitimate activity. Afterall, people can steal
from your credit card or your wallet.
> Probably a better analogy is direct debit, but there the bank account holder
> has a guarantee that s/he can get their money back.
However, surely there's nothing wrong with responsible adults
*choosing* to purchase a service in this method as the convience suits
them? The service I wish to deliver costs around £10-£20 retail and I
would like charge much the same price, but the low return (50%-70%)
means that it would be unfeasible. Customers would willingly pay 10%
premium for the delivery, but not 30%+
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:LYCdnZ1xjZndJr7YnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Yes it is possible for a armed mugger to get cash out of my wallet, but
> they get 5 years if caught. Reverse SMS lets scamsters take money out of
> my phone, but how many reverse SMS scammers have been sent to prison?
>
> Probably a better analogy is direct debit, but there the bank account
> holder has a guarantee that s/he can get their money back.
I'm sure all Ade wants to know is where he can get a better deal, fair
enough too - unless your the middle man is sounds like a rip off for your
business.
It would be interesting to find out how to become the middle-man atleast.
Maybe it will take several "good" middle men to improve reverse sms
reputability.
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159954098.450044.171990@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com
> Seems the margins for the middle men are very high.
> eg a text charged to the recipient at 25p potentially
> nets me from 9.4p to 13p and a text costing the recipient
> £1.50 only brings me in 95p to £1.05. So 50-70%.
> I want to use it for a service charging the costomer
> around £10-£20 (multiple texts if necessary, but one
> would be fine) but I need to see at least 80% of that. I
> mean, seriously, the cost of them reverse charging a
> single text is a few pence if that, so why can't I do a
> £15 text and see £14? Is there any way to cut out the
> middle man and go direct to the netwks?
Hang on a minute, you want us to tell you how to rip people off..?
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159961626.566654.263830@c28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> > Why not £150, just a few scammed rip offs and you can
> > retire...
>
> What an ignorant post. FWIW, not every service offered
> over the medium is a scam so it's ill-informed to tarnish
> them all as such.
So give the details of what "services" will be offered and why they cannot
be charged for by a more conventional and far less flawed system.
If it is possible to charge the recipient without said recipient
specifically requesting it, then it is exactly that. What would you say to
a "customer" who got charged in error..?
Same goes for any payment method: some
> people scam using cash, therefore all cash users are
> scammers; some people scam using credit cards, therefore
> all merchants accepting credit cards are scammers.
Don't dodge the issue. Of course not all credit card merchants are
scammers, but all reverse-charging SMS users are.
"Ade" <madge@poohfan.com> wrote in message
news:1159971489.517396.41800@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com
[snip]
> However, surely there's nothing wrong with responsible
> adults *choosing* to purchase a service in this method as
> the convience suits them? The service I wish to deliver
> costs around £10-£20 retail and I would like charge much
> the same price, but the low return (50%-70%) means that
> it would be unfeasible. Customers would willingly pay 10%
> premium for the delivery, but not 30%+
But how can you guard against the user claiming they did *not* request the
service..? How can you guard against the system sending out messages in
error and charging people when they shouldn't..?
What IS this service anyway..? I can't think of a single thing that I
would find convenient to pay for by this very flawed means. If I can't pay
by (a) cash or (b) debit card then they don't get my money.
In article <1159954098.450044.171990@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>, Ade
<madge@poohfan.com> writes
snip
>Is there any way to cut out the middle man and go
>direct to the netwks?
Is there not a way these days to /pay/ money with your mobile? I'm sure
I saw something somewhere but thought "Bad idea" and forgot all about
it. I suppose it works by debiting your PAYG balance or adding it to
your bill. No idea how it works or what the network skims off the top.
--
Peter
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> This group has been full of cases where mobile phone users have been sent
> reverse charge SMS(s) that they have never requested and did not want.
> Often they have considerable difficulty in stopping the charges and / or
> getting their money back. There have also been reports in the media of
> people getting bills for ~£1k when reverse charge SMS has been abused.
>
Yes, I can vouch for that, as someone who has been on the receiving end
of dozens of them (on several different mobile numbers).
The only common thread was that the different contracts were all with
Orange.
Make of that what you will; suffice it to say, I won't touch Orange
again after their written advice to me that they had "no control" over
3rd party operators.
<noel.wester@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:1160023112.057317.153420@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
<snip>
>
>Make of that what you will; suffice it to say, I won't touch Orange
>again after their written advice to me that they had "no control" over
>3rd party operators.
>Way to surrender control of your network guys!
>
What they mean is they a happy to share in the ill gotten gains of thieves
Of course if Orange wanted to they could at least offer
reverse SMS opt out like T Mobile
I they cared a jot they could offer a lot more than that
SMS reverse charging 
Linear Mode
