 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / May 2008SCREWFIX - unsolicited TEXT messages
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. Hi, 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 > Beware if you have ever supplied your phone number to Screwfix for delivery > contact only. They have been sending unsolicited text messages and want [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > When you get spammers like Screwfix sending thousands of them out it does > become annoying. > 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? D > 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.  Signature<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 >> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing >> services on a mobile phone. Whilst problems do sometimes occur with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Perhaps making it opt-in would be a more sensible suggestion. Don't be silly, that would lose the networks money. Ivor <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 > <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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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). D > > <snip> > >> Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing services [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 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. > 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. >> 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. In news:66epk8F2j1k8kU2@mid.individual.net, David Hearn <dave@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk> typed, for some strange, unexplained reason: [snip] : Reverse SMS billing is a large, legitimate market for providing : services on a mobile phone. Large, yes. Legitimate, no. Not unless the recipient opts *in*, rather than opts out. Ivor > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.