Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010 (Read 19,644 times)
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #15 - Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:26pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:02pm:
Hear, hear, hear idb.  A nice clear cut solution to a clear cut problem

Some agreement - a basis for a sensible discussion perhaps.
All or nothing?
Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NGMsGhost
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #16 - Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:58pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:26pm:
Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?


The premium rate phone system as it currently exists is blatantly inadequately secure since it allows anyone who has access to someone else's phone line to rack up charges of £90 per hour or a staggering £2,160 per day.  Yet despite this there is no PIN protection on the line before such services can be accessed to protect the bill payer from misuse and worse still there is no announcement of the high cost of these premium rate services.  I also most certainly do include voice based directory enquiries as being amongst those numbers requiring PIN number and other premium rate protection given that the scam creation kings at Ofcom have allowed them to be charged at up to the same £1.50 per minute as premium rate numbers with additional connection fees of up to £1.50 before a call is even connected.  To cap it all off BT and the other telcos like TalkTalk do not even offer the obvious low tech protection to all customers of no more than £50 in a quarter being able to be spent on these services in total before the billpayer is proactively contacted by the telecoms company and authorisation sought for any further contunued use above the £50 level.   Preferably there should be further proactive reauthorisation as each further level of spend beyond £50 is reached.  This would be particularly helpful where bill payers themselves become addicted to premium rate quiz competition lines or sex chat lines as they would then realise the alarming total amounts that they are spending on these services.  It would also help protect young children without any concept of the value of money who also receive regular exhortations to ring various 09 lines on stations such as Nick Junior and Tiny Pop (albeit that the insincere caveat that they must obtain their parent or guardian's permission before doing so has normally been given).

It is quite clearly only due to the deliberate complicity of the so called regulator Ofcom (and its devil's spawn known as PhonePayPlus) with the scammers that this abuse of telephone customers occurs because all of the basic checks and balances that would make it very difficult to cause major financial detriment to someone else have been deliberately omitted, even though these things (voice price announcement before being connected to expensive directory enquiries services and a low financial limit for making calls to premium rate numbers and/or PIN number protection automatically enabled by default to any number costing more than say 10p per minute) would surely be utter childs play to set up on the telephone network.

The telecoms industry these days is a home for latterday highway robbers and Ofcom is a body largely manned by well paid ex highway robbers that has a clear cut intention to ensure that this is the way that things remain. Shocked Angry Cry

With regards to SCV's comments about what else would we expect from an industry funded body (i.e. PhonePayPlus and/or Ofcom) I would remind SCV that Ofcom is a body established under the Communications Act 2003 and is supposedly directly accountable to Parliament and that under Section 3(i) of that Act it is Ofcom's principal duty to ensure competitive markets for consumers.  But I fail to see how any market can be properly competitive when high cost services are able to be rapidly consumed without the sanction of the consumer who is actually paying the bill and/or without the consumer being aware they have entered in to an agreed to pay for the service before they do so.

Since PhonePayPlus is establised under powers given to Ofcom it is quite clear that it is also under the same duty to ensure competitive markets that are not distorted and where consumers make proper competitive choices.  With that being so I do not see how SCV defends PhonePayPlus behaving like the worst kind of cartel creating private sector trade association?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 6th, 2010 at 1:53pm by NGMsGhost »  

<div style=
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #17 - Mar 6th, 2010 at 5:46pm
 
NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:58pm:
I do not see how SCV defends PhonePayPlus behaving like the worst kind of cartel creating private sector trade association?

I do not seek to defend PhonePay Plus or Ofcom; You and Yours provides them with sufficient opportunity to do so for themselves. I aim only to understand and comment on the broad reality of the environment in which we are perhaps seeking to instigate change for the better. If there is no hope of improvement, because all those who could create it are corrupt, then we are just shouting in a vacuum.

Whilst I do not seek to promote the arguments that are ranged against us, I believe that they have to be discussed and understood so that they may be either overcome, or acknowledged as being unanswerable so that those of us engaged in campaigning may pursue more achievable goals. I accept that some members may not wish to engage in polite discussion with those who hold different views and that some see such discussion as being totally impossible. I am happy to engage in open public discussion in an open public discussion forum.


ICSTIS was in existence as a trade body before Ofcom was established. The relevant provisions in the Communications Act were drafted specifically for ICSTIS to continue the role of a self-regulator, although bolstered by Ofcom’s powers. PhonePay Plus is exactly the same organisation, using a different name.

Ofcom’s second principal duty is to further the interests of consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition. Ofcom is not able to ensure competition, it can only promote it.

There is a fundamental problem here in that the only general definition of “the interests of consumers” is their individual ability to consume as they choose. This is most clearly seen in the approach of the Communications Consumer Panel, which presses for little other than more consumption of communications services by more people. Some may view limiting the opportunities to consume PRS as being contrary to Ofcom’s second principal duty. Nobody wishes to be scammed, however, unless deliberate deceit can be recognised by all, what to some may be seen as a scam is to others a stupid purchase.


I suspect we agree that self-regulation can never be expected to be effective. Its only purpose is to create an impression, rather than offering genuine protection to consumers. Any open market, however it is regulated, must leave a burden of responsibility on the consumer, which some may find too great to bear. The difficult question is about what level of wisdom one expects a consumer to have. Where there is a freedom to choose, this must include the freedom to make a mistake. Any restriction of the latter risks denying the former.


The point about limiting the value of PRS purchases is well made. The present limits, of which I was not aware, are clearly inadequate. It seems that they are only discretionary credit checks for the sake of the provider, rather than a protection for the consumer. I would be interested to read comments on my suggestion that application of consumer-set limits by month and item could be demanded by regulation.


PIN-protection for high value purchases by telephone is another interesting suggestion. I am however concerned about the over-use of PINs and passwords, to which we are currently subjected. This readily causes us to lose a proper sense of what needs to be protected carefully. Every time a PIN or password is used its safety can be compromised, so there is good reason not to encourage unnecessary use.


Voice price announcements can offer a useful protection against mistaken use of expensive services. They must however never be used to remove attention from the vital need to provide adequate cost information before one decides to call a number. It is the decision to make the call that must be properly informed. The opportunity to back out of a decision that has been taken should only be seen as a useful additional facility.


NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:58pm:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6th, 2010 at 12:26pm:
Any answer to the point about access to Directory Enquiries etc. being used to press everyone to opt-in?

As this question was quoted, I take it that the point was being addressed.

I believe that this issue warrants serious consideration. I do not believe that attacking the integrity of those who would have to introduce the regulations for a PRS opt-in is the most useful argument that may be used to persuade them to do so. The consultation on such a proposal is unlikely to state that it has been proposed because Ofcom personnel wish to repent of their highway robbery and give up their continuing corruption. More powerful arguments are required to counter the potential accusations of nanny-ism, restriction of choice and failure to separate the bad guys from the good that would arise against such a proposal.

I suspect that many will believe and argue strongly that the problem being addressed exists in only part of the PRS market. This could ensure that opt-in is the default condition if a simple “all or nothing” mechanism is introduced at all.

(All of the above is offered for serious discussion. I hope that I make it clear where I am expressing personal opinions rather than making objective points. The difference is however irrelevant, as I am not the topic of this thread.)
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #18 - Mar 7th, 2010 at 11:22am
 
Having withdrawn from this forum for some time for reasons outlined by other about users being driven away, I would now wish to make two points.  Firstly, I support wholeheartedly the comments made by NGM'sGhost and the points he makes and also sherbert's post (No 7).   Secondly, I wish to place here my dictionary's definition of consumerism - 1) the movement for consumer protection in connection with defective & unsafe products, MISLEADING BUSINESS PRACTICES ETC (bold not working so had to use caps); 2) the consumption of goods and services.   My understanding of the use of this word in the sense meant on this forum is the first definition whereas SCV, in every thread where the word or concept occurs, uses only the second definition which I believe leads to total distortion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
dorf
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


I hate Qs on Premium NGNs

Posts: 575
UK
Gender: male
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #19 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 12:29pm
 
NGM'sG, I must add my concurrence with Barbara to all of your posts in this topic, and agree that the reason I have no longer posted on this forum for some while is due to the dilution of the views now expressed, with too many incognito commercial proponents who are really attempting to justify the continuing scams, and muddling the issues with unnecessary verbosity and Peter Prescription speak.

The old vigour in the campaigners against these abuses seems to have been mostly snuffed out, and replaced by half-hearted discussions, almost accepting the status quo, and the conjuring of Ofcom. No battle will ever be won in this way, as you well know. As you have observed a number of times before, you and I mostly see these things in pretty much the same way, which is not true of some newer members.
Back to top
 

Ofcom are completely ineffectual
 
IP Logged
 
Barbara
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 598
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #20 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 5:29pm
 
Thank you dorf!   At least is shows that those of us who have made similar comments are not alone, it just needs someone to listen to us. , take note & act appropriately before this site & campaign dies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sherbert
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2,011
Gender: male
Re: PhonePayPlus Interview  - You&Yours 4/3/2010
Reply #21 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 5:44pm
 
Barbara wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 5:29pm:
Thank you dorf!   At least is shows that those of us who have made similar comments are not alone, it just needs someone to listen to us. , take note & act appropriately before this site & campaign dies.



May I add my endorsemant to Barbara's and Dorf's posts.

Sums up most of what the members of this forum are thinking.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: CJT-80, Dave, Forum Admin, DaveM, bbb_uk)

Website and Content © 1999-2024 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge