Comreg lifts dialler directions

eircomtribunal

"Withdrawal of Directions

Following the publication of Decision Notice D13/04 ComReg has met with Operators and other interested parties / stakeholders to discuss putting in place a long term solution for the protection of consumers against Internet Dialler Scams. Based upon these discussions it has been agreed that operators through clarifications and enhancement of their existing practices and procedures can now provide their customers with the protection they need and expect..."

From the comreg website.

P.

Slutmonkey57b

Oh god.

So the consumer doesn't need protecting from the telco that created a special band for porn diallers then, no?

Sweet jebus help us all.

Chalk

have they still not removed that "secret 13" premium band yet?

spongebob

No.

I hope that Comreg made it opt in only and will simply order the issuing of a pin for all of these destinations to all customers . If you use your pin you have opted in .....just like the credit cards from January .

M

jwt

WTF?????????

Lets make a comparison shall we

We’ll assume that we are talking about a granny being mugged rather than a dialler scam and see how this all works….

Since September, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of consumers
that have suffered from this fraud..

Since September, there has been a substantial reduction in Granny muggings

Whilst there are still instances of such fraud being reported the consumer awareness of the matter has increased and actions taken by operators and Internet Service Providers has resulted in the impact on consumers being reduced significantly.

Grannies are still being mugged, but less often and for not as much money

As a result of increased awareness and enhanced practices relating to the detection of the fraud and the consumer protection measures that are now in place, ComReg now deems it appropriate to withdraw the Direction placing obligations on Internet Access Providers and Providers of Publicly Available Telephone Services in respect of Internet Dialler Scams.

Now that Grannies know they are being mugged and carry mace and attck dogs, have security grills on their house etc it has been decided that a proven method of reducing granny muggings will be removed

While evidence continues to come to hand from other jurisdictions that the issue of Internet Dialler Scams continues internationally, the steps taken by ComReg and the resulting action of the leading telephone service providers and Internet Service Providers has resulted in increased consumer awareness.

Even though granny muggings happen elsewhere the regulator and industry have notified grannies that they may well be mugged. Grannies are now aware that they can be mugged

This increased awareness coupled with the various operator policies and codes of practice leads ComReg to the view that exceptional steps imposed at the time can now be lifted.

Now that industries involved in providing services that allow mugging to take place have agreed a voluntary policies and codes the regulator feels its ok to lift the steps taken that prevented granny mugging!


I am absolutely flabbergasted!

If anyone from ComReg reads this can you please please contact IOFFL and explain what in heavens name you were thinking about.



John

dahamsta

jwt wrote:

If anyone from ComReg reads this can you please please contact IOFFL and explain what in heavens name you were thinking about.

A consultation on whether they should go for Barrys or Lyons Tea. Obviously.

eircomtribunal

Comreg had timed this regulation to be in force for 6 months – so what happened?

Comreg had already given telcos the right not to implement the call barring or opt-in solution, but to do alternative things of their own choosing, as long as they refunded scammed customers. So if telcos have come up with alternative measures to protect the consumer, they could have done so within the rules of the direction.

P.


"Therefore ComReg will allow operators the options of choosing whether to implement the technical option of barring traffic to the destinations contained in Annex B or alternatively choosing not to pass on the charges of rogue Autodiallers to their consumers whichever option the operator considers to be a proportionate and justified response."

"Direction 2:
The Commission for Communications Regulation directs that Providers of Publicly Available Telephone Services shall no later than 04 October 2004 a) Suspend direct dial access to destinations listed in the attached Appendix B. The Appendix will be reviewed on a regular basis by ComReg and the network operators and amended appropriately in response to any significant changes to problem destinations; and
b) permit direct dial access to specific telephone numbers located within the destinations referred to in the attached Appendix B only at the request of a subscriber and following the network operator having verified that the requested telephone number is a legitimate service only or
c) As an alternative to only permitting direct dial access in accordance with paragraph b), above, providers of publicly available telephone services can choose to no longer charge any consumers for unauthorised call charges arising from Autodiallers. Providers of Publicly Available Telephone Services, with effect from 04 October 2004, shall not charge any subscriber account for direct dial calls to destinations listed in the Appendix B unless the call invoiced was to a number unbarred under a subscriber request as detailed above. The requirements under a) and b) or c) shall be operable for a period of six months from the date of this Decision Notice and shall lapse if not renewed or otherwise amended following a further consultation."

BrianD

The directive was flawed from the start so I am unsurprised it has been withdrawn. The regulation was only a short term measure, was an effectively a trade embargo against foreign nations and failed to encourage personal responsibility amongst telecommunications customers. Directive one made a lot of sense and it's something the telcos should have taken upon themselves along time ago. To me this directive 2 is similar to recent calls for crash barriers along motorways. Sure they'll save a few people but takes away from the real issue - educating people that travelling at 90mph without wearing a seat belt will kill you and others.

There should be no refunds of scammed customers who are victims of their own actions. However, as a gesture of good will, telcos could lay aside these debts as part of an overall industry move to stamp out the scamers and protect consumers from themselves. Consumer education is obviously at the core of this. The ISP's need to try harder at this as the two e-mails that I received didn't really explain the situation. The consumer education programme should consist of mass media advertising and should be funded all telcos/ISPs operating in Ireland.

In tandem with this telcos should be able to set a threshold on the account for each customer. If they go above this limit then the account is flagged for review and a call from customer service. This will also allow the telcos to identify the numbers of scammers and they should withold payments to the foreign telcos if they believe that a rogue dialler is involved. I assume that at the moment a telco can't charge a customer with a porn dialler for the calls generated but is still bound to pay the foreign operator. This is hardly a fair situation and it really is a situation where there is free porn available!!!

The arguement about Band 13 and how Eircom charges for them is a smokescreen for the real issues. All companies charge high rates for these countries. Reducing the rates to these countries doesn't make the scam go away. Even at a few cents a call the margins will still be nice for the scammers once they can drive the volume. Furthermore, the more recent dialler scams have involved premium rate numbers within the EU. More worrying is the fact that the dialler merchants might start to regulate themselves and could start displaying the price per minute on the dialler window. Once this is displayed and you click yes then its tough luck.

jwt

The regulation was only a short term measure, was an effectively a trade embargo against foreign nations and failed to encourage personal responsibility amongst telecommunications customers.

Em a trade embargo? Must tell the Gardai in the phoenix park that their actions are effectively a trade embargo against Columbia. And then tell the people who have their houses robbed by junkies that they should take more personal responsibility.

To me this directive 2 is similar to recent calls for crash barriers along motorways. Sure they'll save a few people but takes away from the real issue - educating people that travelling at 90mph without wearing a seat belt will kill you and others.

Not a lot of consolation to the person driving within the law on the other side of the road. And travelling at any speed does not kill you with or without a seatbelt. Speed does not kill, inappropriate speed kills. Bad driving kills, poor road design kills.

There should be no refunds of scammed customers who are victims of their own actions.

Reminds me of the women in short skirts argument.

This is hardly a fair situation and it really is a situation where there is free porn available!!!

It's not free, thats the point of the high rate tariff. And the user doesn't know their modem has been highjacked. So porn or no porn its a moot point.

The arguement about Band 13 and how Eircom charges for them is a smokescreen for the real issues. All companies charge high rates for these countries. Reducing the rates to these countries doesn't make the scam go away. Even at a few cents a call the margins will still be nice for the scammers once they can drive the volume.

Profiting from an illegal act is in itself illegal. Hence foreign exchange clearing branches in the north getting zapped for handling stolen money from the south etc.

More worrying is the fact that the dialler merchants might start to regulate themselves and could start displaying the price per minute on the dialler window. Once this is displayed and you click yes then its tough luck.

At that point the moddem usage is made obvious and any action made by the user stops it being a dialler scam.

Nice troll though


John

cgarvey

BrianD wrote:

To me this directive 2 is similar to recent calls for crash barriers along motorways. Sure they'll save a few people but takes away from the real issue - educating people that travelling at 90mph without wearing a seat belt will kill you and others.

While you're right about it taking away from the real issues (people need to be made aware of the dialers issue), there are lots of things in life that you just have to accept need a helping hand from the authorities. If it was as black and white as you make it out to be, then we'd have no smokers, no speeding fines, HIV infections going down, not up, etc. It's not that black and white, which is why we need those protective measures (to back up the preventative/educational measures). I think, for most, those measures are welcome as long as the don't inconvenience us too much.

Slutmonkey57b

BrianD wrote:

... failed to encourage personal responsibility amongst telecommunications customers ... as a gesture of good will, telcos could lay aside these debts as part of an overall industry move to stamp out the scamers and protect consumers from themselves ... The arguement about Band 13 and how Eircom charges for them is a smokescreen for the real issues. All companies charge high rates for these countries...

Most idiotic response ever.
1) Consumers were ripped off by Eircom. Eircom were not ripped of by consumers.
2) Worms and diallers are installed silently on PC's all the time, even for people who have never visited a porn site. It is unreasonable to expect that Granny Muggins and Playstation Joey will know how to set up an independent hardware firewall, host-based intrusion detection and fiddle with their Windows services and registry in order to maintain proper security. By comparison, it is pi$$ easy for Eircom to block off Band 13 altogether.
3) Eircom is the only company that created a new band specifically for modem-hijacking destinations, and increased the cost of calling those countries. All companies charge high rates for international calls. Not all companies collude with the scammers to make more money.
4) As a gesture of goodwill, we could not take the directors of Comreg and Eircom outside and shoot them.

spongebob

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Most idiotic response ever.
3) Eircom is the only company that created a new band specifically for modem-hijacking destinations, and increased the cost of calling those countries. All companies charge high rates for international calls. Not all companies collude with the scammers to make more money.

That is the real point . Eircom created Band 13 to maximise their profit from the activities of international fraud. Other Telcos did not.

Had BrianD examined the tariffs charged by Telestunt to Band 13 countries on the ONE hand and compared them to what Eircom charge to ring those countries he would see that Eircom charge 10 Times more than Telestunt do to ring these destinations.

M

LFCFan

If everyone just moved their business to another Telco in the first place then even if they did get scammed it would cost a lot less than if they were with €ircon (the thieving swines)

BrianD

I am having a food old chuckle to myself reading the various dissections of my posting. It clearly underlines that many IOFL members, blinded by their contempt of one single phone company, are unable to grasp the real issues at hand - Slutmonkeys response being a prime example of this. The role of this board should be to contemplate the role of business and personal responsibility and the role of a regulator. It's always Eircom and their Band 13, allegedly colluding with the scamers yada yada yada ... We have an important consumer issue here requiring consumer and service provider action and all everybody wants to do is bash Eircom!!

jwt wrote:

Nice troll though

Care to explain your remark John. Oh sorry, I forgot my entire posting was reasonable and makes a hell of a lot sense but falls down due a complete lack of Eircom bashing. Why does it make sense?

- Promotes consumer education and understanding of the porn dialler issue
- Suggests a manner in which the industry can monitor and respond to consumers who have unusual activity on the their account.
- This monitoring can allow individual dialler lines to be identified. The telco may bar them if technically possible or witholds payment to the other party. This is where the squeeze can be put on the scammers.

This approach encourages both responsibility and proactivity by the consumer and the supplier. The creation of Band 13 by Eircom is not nor will it ever be the real issue. The wholesale blocking of calls to Band 13 countries is not the appropriate response from the industry regulator. Reduced Band 13 call rates or the continued implementation of Directive 2 will not eliminate the dialler scammers. They will simply move elsewhere - anywhere that they can get a revenue share with a telco. If the diallers become more transparent in terms of how they present themselves (remember the majority are not surrepticiously installed) then PC users could find themselves in real trouble where the executed, installed and agreed to terms of use of a dialler without fully understanding the implications of doing so.

In regard to my comments of Directive 2 being tantamount to 'a trade embargo'. It simply is. It is a highly unusual move that calls to a particular country have been universally blocked. JWt (btw JWT if you are quoting me or others can please do so in context) made reference to Garda anti-narcotic activities being a trade embargo against Colombia. Would it be reasonable to ban all trade with Colombia to prevent the importation of drugs from the same country? Of course not! It is the wrong solution to the problem and serves nobodys interests in the long run. I suspect that ComReg have been reading up on their international law and saw some sense.


Anyway something tells me the mods will be locking this one up soon.

spongebob

BrianD wrote:

In regard to my comments of Directive 2 being tantamount to 'a trade embargo'. It simply is. It is a highly unusual move that calls to a particular country have been universally blocked. JWt (btw JWT if you are quoting me or others can please do so in context) made reference to Garda anti-narcotic activities being a trade embargo against Colombia. Would it be reasonable to ban all trade with Colombia to prevent the importation of drugs from the same country? Of course not! It is the wrong solution to the problem and serves nobodys interests in the long run. I suspect that ComReg have been reading up on their international law and saw some sense.

Yawn !

Banning Cocaine (as someone noted) is a trade embargo on Columbia and Bolivia. I don't see you defending the bolivians in here Briand. The simple solution was to put these countries behind a PIN code until they cleaned their act up. IDD is still permitted but only after the PIN is entered. As the fraudsters do not have your PIN it is your problem if a call is made to a fraud destination with it.

The same PIN control could be applied to Mobile numbers if there is a teenager in the house or whatever you want yourself. In cases such as Diego Garcia where the entire number range has been handed over to international fraud the whole country should be put behind a PIN ....its all very simple and easy to administer and has been implemented with the cheaper 1580 numbers as a consumer protection measure.

M

cgarvey

BrianD wrote:

If the diallers become more transparent in terms of how they present themselves (remember the majority are not surrepticiously installed) then PC users could find themselves in real trouble where the executed, installed and agreed to terms of use of a dialler without fully understanding the implications of doing so.

Do you seriously believe the authors of the dialers care about transparency? You'd like all those porn sites to include a Euro rate per minute in the title bar (just so they can be compliant in Ireland.. where?)? I would have thought the nature of these dialers was to make a quick book, illegally, or just about legally.. disregarding all consumer concerns. However, that's just my experience of /exposure to dialers amongst customers, peers, and relatives. You appear to know real numbers (as you know about install bases and install sizes, etc.), so I'll bow to your knowledge. However I do think asking any dialer author of any dialer app I have ever seen to be transparent show frightful ignorance of the situation.. so hopefully that's not what you meant

.cg

BrianD

Muck would you ever read what I wrote before commenting!!! Cocaine is a narcotic and illegal in almost every country. I don't try and stem the illegal export of these narcotics from say Bolivia by banning all imports from there. However, this is the approach that ComReg have adopted where all calls to Band 13 were block irrespective of legitimacy. It's an unwieldy tool and doesn't address the problem. Fraudsters are ingenious and no doubt some method of circumnavigation will be found.

Prohibition is not the way forward nor should it be encouraged. If the consumer is sufficiently educated, he or she can identify a dialler issue and inform their telco. The telco can identify the number and refuse out payment. If the money is witheld then the scam becomes worthless. Consumer education is essential as legitimate premium rate numbers could be used in future by diallers. There are sufficient complaints about legitimate premium rate operators (e.g ring tone subscription services) that an internet user could be 'persuaded' into accepting an alternative dialler to their own. Instead of shady practices through Band 13 countries the scammers will turn to slick and legal premium numbers with a flashy sales spiel to confuse the PC user. ComReg's Directive 2 will offer no protection and Eircoms Band 13 pricing will be totally irrelevant to the arguement as it always was.

jwt

BrianD wrote:

Care to explain your remark John. Oh sorry, I forgot my entire posting was reasonable and makes a hell of a lot sense but falls down due a complete lack of Eircom bashing. Why does it make sense?

No Eircom bashing required, this is a ComReg matter.

I was (probably stupidly) hoping that your post was a troll. That someone who thinks installing crash barriers takes away from the real issues.

Sure they'll save a few people but takes away from the real issue - educating people that travelling at 90mph without wearing a seat belt will kill you and others.

Thats one hell of a throwaway "Sure they'll save a few people" slightly different for the few people it saves and vital for the innocent people on the far side of said crash barrier.

BrianD wrote:

There should be no refunds of scammed customers who are victims of their own actions.

jwt wrote:

Reminds me of the women in short skirts argument.

Again a typicall troll like comment.

In essence to me your entire posting was not reasonable, does not make a hell of a lot of sense and eircom bashing or no eircom bashing is not a factor in that view.



Somewhere along the line you missed the point where users do not realise they have had a porn dialler scam program installed onto their pc. A poorly protected pc can have one of these installed from an web site without the user ever knowing. And it doesn't need to be a porn site. Many webmasters deliberately run software to do this to make ends meet. They get a kick back from the dialler owners. Often it is a pop up that says to do x, y or z click here. Unwitting user clicks and voila they are infected.

In regard to my comments of Directive 2 being tantamount to 'a trade embargo'. It simply is. It is a highly unusual move that calls to a particular country have been universally blocked. JWt (btw JWT if you are quoting me or others can please do so in context) made reference to Garda anti-narcotic activities being a trade embargo against Colombia. Would it be reasonable to ban all trade with Colombia to prevent the importation of drugs from the same country? Of course not! It is the wrong solution to the problem and serves nobodys interests in the long run. I suspect that ComReg have been reading up on their international law and saw some sense.

Nobody suggested banning all products from columbia, neither is anyone advocating banning all products from band 13 countries. Not even banning or embargoing phone calls. Just requiring that any calls to said countries are blocked by default unless a user wishes to call in which case they can request the barring to be lifted. That is not an embargo.

As regards quoting, your original post is above mine in full, I picked salient points and quoted them. Taking your quotes out of context would involve ensuring your original post was not viewable and then using your quotes in an entirely different thread (thats the context bit, of "out of context")
And I also ensured that each quote was in sequence with your original post.

Anyway something tells me the mods will be locking this one up soon.

I doubt it, points of view being expressed and debated are not thread locking issues. While I don't agree with your view of the world, I haven't seen anything in this thread posted by you that warrants a lock. (But that doesn't mean the moderators may see things that way :eek: )

Everybody is entitled to the point of view, but equally everyone else is entitled to question and challenge said point of view. And sometimes people here even agree to disagree

John

spongebob

BrianD wrote:

Muck would you ever read what I wrote before commenting!!! Cocaine is a narcotic and illegal in almost every country.
<snip by Muck>
It's an unwieldy tool and doesn't address the problem. Fraudsters are ingenious and no doubt some method of circumnavigation will be found.
<snip by Muck>
Prohibition is not the way forward nor should it be encouraged.

You didn't shoot yourself in the foot there Brian you blew both of them off at the thigh more like

1. FRAUD is banned in every country , same as cocaine.

2. FRAUDsters are ingenious, contermeasures must be equally ingenious. In this respect Comreg were of service in Ireland and elsewhere when they fingered countries that are a haven for such activity.

3. Would you legalise cocaine then ? If not why not Think of the poor Bolivians.

M

bealtine

BrianD wrote:

I left in the sensible bits...

Anyway not wishing to turn this into a discussion about
educating crash barries how to behave on the motorways
I thought I'd just point this out:
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/296.htm

and
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/195.htm

Slutmonkey57b

BrianD wrote:

I am having a food old chuckle to myself reading the various dissections of my posting. It clearly underlines that many IOFL members, blinded by their contempt of one single phone company, are unable to grasp the real issues at hand - Slutmonkeys response being a prime example of this. The role of this board should be to contemplate the role of business and personal responsibility and the role of a regulator. It's always Eircom and their Band 13, allegedly colluding with the scamers yada yada yada ... We have an important consumer issue here requiring consumer and service provider action and all everybody wants to do is bash Eircom!!

I assume this comment (not taken out of context you'll note) is a joke.

The role of this board is as a consumer representative body. That means our primary (though not only) purpose is what's good for the consumer, not Tony O'Reilly. In the issue at hand, Eircom and the porn diallers went hand in hand for over a year and a half, scamming consumers who did not know what was going on. Eircom knew full well what was going on - and could have stopped it any time they liked. Instead they grabbed the opportunity to fleece the consumer, and badgered and threatened customers who rang up wondering why their phone bill had suddenly shot up by a couple of thousand quid. Anyone calling up saying "I never called Tuvalu" was told "Oh. You were accessing porn on your computer. Pay up jack." - with no evidence whatsoever other than that eircom knew their computer security had been compromised. Is that the consumer's fault? No. even the hardiest of web servers, and the craftiest, most paranoid of admins can't guarantee that their systems are secure. Ordinary consumers rely on those with technical knowledge to prevent them from being scammed - whether that's Mircosoft making sure their systems are patched, or their telco doing something to prevent, rather than encourage, computer fraud.

Slutmonkey57b

BrianD wrote:

Consumer education is essential as legitimate premium rate numbers could be used in future by diallers. There are sufficient complaints about legitimate premium rate operators (e.g ring tone subscription services) that an internet user could be 'persuaded' into accepting an alternative dialler to their own. Instead of shady practices through Band 13 countries the scammers will turn to slick and legal premium numbers with a flashy sales spiel to confuse the PC user. ComReg's Directive 2 will offer no protection and Eircoms Band 13 pricing will be totally irrelevant to the arguement as it always was.

Again, hands up who's missing the point here. If the scammers had been using premium rate numbers, then a competant regulator (RegTel) would have done something to stop them, and Eircom, perpetrating their scam. Instead, and directly thanks to incompetant and/or lazy regulation, the scam was allowed to continue. This is not the fault of the consumer either. It is the fault of eircom in the first place for assisting it, and the fault of ComReg for not fixing it. But yet people all over the country have been threatened into paying out thousands on their telephone bills to pay for Comreg's mistake and Eircom's fraud. And it is a fraud.

BrianD

Well it is blatently clear that IOFL are going to allow this important consumer slip out of their hands as the members of this board are unable or unprepared to grasp the core issues. Now lets ban Eircom...am I cool now? ANyway the bottom line is directive 2 is gone now and we are all back to square one. Most consumers still haven't got a clue what a dialler is and the scammers still make the money.

It is the fault of eircom in the first place for assisting it, and the fault of ComReg for not fixing it.

Keep saying it and even I might start believing it! WHEN WILL YOU SEE THE WOOD FROM THE TREES???? Where is the responsibility and the onus on the consumer to secure and monitor his own equipment. How are ComReg supposed to fix it? Let's say Eircom reduce their rates to Band 13 to the price of a call to the UK. The consumer is still facing a large Internet bill. The scammers still make money - they can still make money on low cost calls if the volume is there.

Whatever way you look at it you can not continuously push the responsibility from the consumer to the telco. If a consumer has any piece of equipment, person or animal that is under their control but acts in a rogue fashion then the owner is liable. If a consumer attachs a piece of equipment to a telephone then he or she is responsible for it period. By all means, request Eircom and other telcos to moderate their prices to Band 13 but it all it does is alleviate the situation and not remove the cancer of diallers and modem hijacking. Howabout a situation where telcos ban customers who have compained about porn diallers from reattaching their PC to a phone line? Hardly an effective solution either.

This is an issue of growing sophistication that consumers need to be educated on and Many service providers such as banks and telcos are now no longer tolerant of consumer ignorance. Banks who previously refunded phishing victims in the UK are now saying tough luck and you should have known better. Similarily, UK telcos are only refunding dialler victims if there is a big song and dance made about it.

The solution is greater consumer education involving consumer lobby groups, the telcos and the regualtor. Telcos should be made aware that their high Band 13 costs are not helping the situation and that they should be reduced - but this is not the core of the problem and never will be. What's good for the consumer is ultimately good for business. I'm surprised this thread is still open.

spongebob

BrianD wrote:

The solution is greater consumer education involving consumer lobby groups, the telcos and the regualtor. Telcos should be made aware that their high Band 13 costs are not helping the situation and that they should be reduced - but this is not the core of the problem and never will be. What's good for the consumer is ultimately good for business. I'm surprised this thread is still open.

<much much Mucky snipping>

1. Yes to education. Yes to education. Yes to education.
2. ONLY EIRCOM has Band 13 where calls to the Fraud Country Codes costs €3.60 a minute. Telestunt , for example charges €0.33 a minute to the same countries. Whether 33c or €3.60 it is STILL FRAUD.
3. Stick the IDD codes for the Fraud Countries behind a pin, if the customer enters their pin they accept the liability ........ same as chip n pin CCards . It is called an OPT IN mechanism . At present it is wide open to abuse .
4. You are right to be surprised at your still being allowed to post in this forum BrianD , your arguments are coherent in the sense that the Liffey is fragrant .
5. Lets get some proper regulating done by telling Comreg where them thar pesky pirate music stations are based and git some raiding parties into the varmints and git enforcing the law.....yeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaawwww!

M

BrianD

My arguement is as sound as a bell and in perfect harmony with the FAQ sticky posted on this very subject. Where is the incoherancy? Because I am calling for consumer responsibility as well? Because at the end of the day Eircom may benefit more from the scam than their competitors but a tarrif change will not eliminate the scammers? Only those who blinded with a hatred of Eircom don't seem to be able to see the real issues at stake here.

As for those pesky pirate stations ...

jwt

Only those who blinded with a hatred of Eircom don't seem to be able to see the real issues at stake here.

I find that comment personally insulting! :mad:

Back it up with facts!

John

shoegirl

BrianD wrote:

In tandem with this telcos should be able to set a threshold on the account for each customer. If they go above this limit then the account is flagged for review and a call from customer service.

BT are able to do this.
Most of the UK mobile companies also can do this.
Even Irish credit card companies have similar, sophisicated ways of spotting dramatic changes in usage and will immediately act if they suspect fraud is happening.

So why cannot eircom?

Because it has chosen not to in order to maximise profits.

Actually if I am not incorrect the spending limit was introduced by BT as a replacement for expensive desposits for new users or those on very low incomes (British social welfare rates are about 50% of the Irish rate). From people I know using it, its an extremely effective way of controlling bills.

Slutmonkey57b

BrianD wrote:

Well it is blatently clear that IOFL are going to allow this important consumer slip out of their hands as the members of this board are unable or unprepared to grasp the core issues. Now lets ban Eircom...am I cool now? ANyway the bottom line is directive 2 is gone now and we are all back to square one. Most consumers still haven't got a clue what a dialler is and the scammers still make the money.

Nobody's suggesting "ban eircom". What we are suggesting is that eircom should not be allowed to get away with participating in a fraud against its own customers - which is exactly what it did when it created Band13. They didn't attempt to educate, or protect their customers. They attempted to rob them instead. That is a core fact of the problem.

Keep saying it and even I might start believing it! WHEN WILL YOU SEE THE WOOD FROM THE TREES???? Where is the responsibility and the onus on the consumer to secure and monitor his own equipment. How are ComReg supposed to fix it? Let's say Eircom reduce their rates to Band 13 to the price of a call to the UK. The consumer is still facing a large Internet bill. The scammers still make money - they can still make money on low cost calls if the volume is there.

Who's saying comreg should fix anyone's computer? Nobody. We're saying Comreg should never have allowed the creation of Band13. Comreg should have reacted to warnings about what was going on. Comreg should have reacted to customer complaints. RegTel would have acted on all these things.
The scammers will still scam. Nothing new there. But there's no reason why eircom should be allowed to participate in the scam, is there? No.

Whatever way you look at it you can not continuously push the responsibility from the consumer to the telco. If a consumer has any piece of equipment, person or animal that is under their control but acts in a rogue fashion then the owner is liable. If a consumer attachs a piece of equipment to a telephone then he or she is responsible for it period. By all means, request Eircom and other telcos to moderate their prices to Band 13 but it all it does is alleviate the situation and not remove the cancer of diallers and modem hijacking. Howabout a situation where telcos ban customers who have compained about porn diallers from reattaching their PC to a phone line? Hardly an effective solution either.

This is an issue of growing sophistication that consumers need to be educated on and Many service providers such as banks and telcos are now no longer tolerant of consumer ignorance. Banks who previously refunded phishing victims in the UK are now saying tough luck and you should have known better. Similarily, UK telcos are only refunding dialler victims if there is a big song and dance made about it.

Precicely - but the point is that the banks and telcos in england did educate their customers first. Then they said - "Look, we told you about this already, you need to do x y and z". Eircom did none of that. Did Eircom send out a leaflet in your bill saying "beware - check your phone bill for the following" or "beware - is your computer doing x y and z without you telling it to?" No. Did they send out a notice saying "Hi. we've noticed a lot of bills jumping by thousands of quid due to modem hijacking. In response, we've created a new band of charges specifically for these calls so that your phone bill will jump even higher." No. Eircom made sure of the opposite - that the consumer was not educated as to what went wrong with their phone bill. Anyone complaining about their newly - inflated phone charges was simply told "it's all your fault for accessing porn. Pay up." The other important point to note here is that Eircom has no actual proof that the consumer was accessing porn when it made these claims. Diallers can be installed by a number of methods - you don't have to go anywhere near a porn site. So why did Eircom make the presumption? Because
a) It already knew what the scam was
b) It was part of the scam and was doing nothing to prevent it
c) The "you're a porn freak" line is likely to embarrass consumers into paying up without a fuss.

The solution is greater consumer education involving consumer lobby groups, the telcos and the regualtor. Telcos should be made aware that their high Band 13 costs are not helping the situation and that they should be reduced - but this is not the core of the problem and never will be. What's good for the consumer is ultimately good for business. I'm surprised this thread is still open.

"Not helping."
Really.
Not helping....

Nobody's suggesting don't educate the consumer. I'm suggesting educate the consumer:
1) to be careful what they click on
2) to be careful what they install
3) to be careful to visit windowsupdate and install a virus checker.

Equally important is to educate the consumer and the media that
1) Eircom knew about this scam and deliberatly profited from it.
2) Eircom tried to shove the blame solely on the consumer and refused to accept its own culpability.
3) Eircom could have prevented the whole thing very easily and with no major technological investment but didn't
4) Comreg ignored the problem and did nothing to prevent the consumer being ripped off - by the diallers OR eircom.

The whole reason to have a regulator is to prevent this sort of scenario in the first place. Comreg failed miserably - twice. Its current action does nothing to solve the problem and absolves eircom of responsibility for its failings. Why? Because to get eircom to admit its own failing Comreg would have to admit theirs.




Much easier to say it's all the users fault. After all, they never argue back.

Slutmonkey57b

shoegirl is quite right.

If my bank notices I suddenly start spending a lot of money on the other side of the globe, they get suspicious and ring me. If they don't like the answer they cancel the card, or better yet trace the card and attempt to catch the thief. If eircom were running the bank they'd have called the thief and said "hey, spend another couple of grand, I'll split it with you when I get the money off this chump here."