Sri Lanka cuts off Eircom Porn Dialler Band 13 Countries

oscarBravo

BrianD wrote:

No, oscarbravo you have consistently missed the point and again this is high lighted by your posting.

OK, let's accept that we've missed each other's points. That still leaves the questions unanswered: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

As an analogy: someone new in town naively walks down a dark alley, where he promptly gets mugged and has his wallet taken. As he lies on the ground unconscious, someone else comes and steals his shoes and his watch. Does the fact that he shouldn't have walked into the alley, coupled with the fact that it was wrong to mug him in the first place, make it OK for the second thief to opportunistically cash in?

BrianD

eircomtribunal wrote:

Since eircom felt it necessary (guess why!) to publicly tell the Oireachtas Committee that they would refund all (genuine) victims of rogue dialler (modem hijacking) scams (not those who had willingly used genuine diallers) and accepted that the industry would have to deal with the problem, the rogue dialler problem seems to be under control.

The "legitimate" dialler scams via premium call numbers does not seem to be a problem in Ireland, as – contrary to ICSTIS in the UK – REGTEL has a firm grip on the issue. The Premium Service "Industry" in Ireland and their own regulator are too clever to let such things ruin the image of this wholly dubious "industry", which wants to be seen as a clean one. So they rather cut users off after a certain, bearable amount of tariff is racked up, in order not to upset the public.
P.

The scam merchants move on. Band 13 diallers will still be relatively lucrative but prone to temporary bans and action to telcos. Legitimate diallers (and I use the word legitimate in the way that many time share holiday promotions are considered legitimate) are going to be on the rise. I believe that too much time and effort has been spent blaming telcos for their high charges to Band 13 (all telcos are the same) rather than educating consumers. This does not have to be a formal consumer education programme - even a rational discussion on this board would help as an informal education. This has not happened - certainly not on this board.

The legitimate dialler industry will grow at the expense of the consumer who really does not understand what diallers are, how they function and what the implications are. RegTel do a good job but I believe they were very timid when tested recently on what I would have seen as a "ring back" scam and not a data protection issue. A 1-hour "legitimate" internet dial-up session through a premium rate number is still going to an expensive proposition and there will be no come back for the consumer.

The telco can not be held liable for the call charges that a consumer racks up if they deliberately (as an alternative means of payment to a credit card) or unwittingly use a dialer. Bailing them out isn't going to help either (other than relieving finiancial pressure) as it does not modify behaviour - "ah sure, who cares the telco will pay it anyway". In fact, the story of a few victims being forced to pay some out rageous bill would certainly wake up the general web using population to the scam.

What if telcos reduce the call costs to band 13? This again is simply avoiding the real problem - the diallers, lack of consumer education and personal responsibility. I would expect a call to a pacific island to be more expensive than a call to Australia but in the same ball park. However at such call rates, dial-up internet would simply be unfeasable to most people. Therefore, it is not relevant what is charged to band 13 - the scammers will always get a percentage of whatever the rate is.

What moral responsibility do they have? Eircom were correct to create a band 13 group. There is probably little negotiation on call rates to these countries so band them together. It is wrong for a regulator to attempt to ban calls to these countries. Eircom were not proactive in monitoring unusual activity on customers accounts and this is very disappointing and remiss of them. This is something they should have been doing from the start.

One thing that does strike me as ironic as I sip on my latte (apparently fair trade) and type on my laptop (a major brand but with components from all over the world) and admire my new shirt (a high street brand but made in Viet Nam) - most of our products and lifestyle is made by screwing people in the third world. So a few tinpot desert islands in the Pacific flog off their telecoms rights (mainly to first world companies) and now they are screwing us! Cheeky b******ds! Best sort that one out.

BrianD

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, let's accept that we've missed each other's points. That still leaves the questions unanswered: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

As an analogy: someone new in town naively walks down a dark alley, where he promptly gets mugged and has his wallet taken. As he lies on the ground unconscious, someone else comes and steals his shoes and his watch. Does the fact that he shouldn't have walked into the alley, coupled with the fact that it was wrong to mug him in the first place, make it OK for the second thief to opportunistically cash in?

What a ridiculous comparison - there are zero similarities. Of course I could stand at the other end of the alley and hand out a replensished wallet and issue a new pair of shoes and watch. The guy would say great I walk any where without a care in the world knowing that someone will sort me out.

Solair

As I see it, they're band 13 because all of those countries have rather odd telcos with huge termination rates. This is why these scam artists locate there and it's also why the call charges are so high.

eircom's rates differ from BTs, that's just commercial reality. Various pacific islands have a UK-dependency link and would have had close relations with the British GPO and subsequently BT... there are also historically larger populations of people from various former collonies / crown dependencies that fall within eircom's band 13.. therefore, obviously the calls from BT's network might be a bit cheaper.

I don't think it's fair to continiously single out eircom on these issues. ALL of the telephone companies have a responsibility to their cutomers, eircom, BT Ireland, Tele2, Chorus... whoever...

Remember too, that with these high cost international calls the irish telco involved doesn't necessarily have that huge a profit margin. It all depends on how the calls are routed and, before anyone jumps down my throat... The difference in cost of routing calls via normal international telephone links can be very high compared to VoIP... so comparing eircom or BT Ireland to Skype Out or whoever isnt necessarily fair either. There are large costs involved in reaching these far flung island destinations.

These scams would reflect very badly on an Irish telco should it own and operate a 15XX number that was being used as a destination for rogue diallers. However, as pointed out, so far that's not the case and there is a good legal framework in Ireland for dealing with that situation should it ever arrise.

If you get a rogue dialler bill... contact eircom, they're not that unhelpful. Go via the mallicious calls bureau not 1901.

I think a reasonable code of practice for ALL irish telcos would be as follows:

If you make a Band 13 (rogue dialler land) call the telco's billing department / customer service department should recieve an immediate warning.

They should then phone you up to check that you intended to call wherever that was.

If you didn't, they make you aware that your modem's been hijacked and suggest that you unplug it.

From that point on, you've been advised of the problem and it's no longer the telco's responsibility.

As I see it. The major problem here isn't with eircom or any of the telcos it's with Microsoft Windows' ability to be hijacked. There's a serious flaw in Dial Up networking. Hopefully MS will address this soon.

I would suggest that anyone who uses windows installs, at the very least, MS' own Anti-Spywear software and, ideally a good 3rd party anti-virus application.

That or, just don't use windows.

eircom.net actually made a big effort to advise users of dial up hijacking via their homepage. To be fair to them, they're one of the more proactive ISPs on security issues for home users.

damien

How about this analogy then Brian?

Water usage becomes metered. In a few suburbs some scuts start going around to houses and turning on the outside taps when the householders are out at work. All of a sudden the water company decides to increase the cost per litre of water in those areas. While they are not linked to the evil tap terrorists, they are directly profiting from it. Instead of educating the suburbanites about it they just increase prices and make more money.

Solair

Well it is technically profiting from a crime, which is illegal. However, I seriously doubt that it's having that much impact on their bottom line.

They've whacked up most of the rates on their far flung destinations bands in recent years. There's a bit of rebalancing going on as they've also reduced rates to countries in near europe / far europe and to the uk.

The reality of the situation is that YOUR PC is dialling those number because it's faulty / has been taken over by a 3rd party. It's understandable, from a legal/commercial perspective, that the telephone companies will want to avoid assuming any sort of duty of care to protect you from costs incurred by your own malfunctioning equipment.

I'm not saying it's right... just from a commercial perspective you can see what's going on.

BrianD

Damien ... wake up and smell the coffee! I am bored of reading these analogies. This one is particularly ridiculous. Would you like me to dig a hole for you in the sand so you can conveniently bury your head. Why? They have no bearing on reality. You are unable to grasp a simple fact - the phone companies are not responsible for this scam nor are they complicit in this scam. There is only one person who is - the computer user who has either chosen to use a dialler without researching the effects or has been duped into installing it.

Solair, your posting is like a breath of fresh air... at last a reasonable posting on this debate.

Solair

I'm not saying what eircom's doing is right.

I do think that it should be investigated by the appropriate authorities as they are in receipt of the proceeds of a crime. Which, I'm quite sure is an offence.

They're also basically laundering the proceeds of a crime through their accounts by making revenues generated by illegal activity turn into perfectly acceptable looking telephone charges that are then paid to a 3rd party by eircom or any other telco who is doing this.

Where someone reports a porn dialler incident, the telco should refund the cost of the calls and freeze payment to the destination telco.

I'm just saying that I don't think they necessarily had a board meeting and decided to do this. It's more of a case of complete inaction and steadly rising prices on far flung destinations.

However, regardless of their motives / decision making processes. This must be illegal.

Who knows what these diallers could be funding.... I mean, for all we know they could be paying for all sorts of dubious organisations.

The scam needs to be hit hard and I don't see why the same rules that apply to a financial institution shouldn't apply to a phone company. These people are using the telephone networks' billing systems to facilitate criminal activity. It really shouldn't matter wheather the telephone companies are aware of this or not, they shouldn't be allowing their systems to be used for such activity and they most certainly shouldn't be making a tidy profit on it !

Perhaps Ireland Off Line should bring the matter to the attention of the Gardai ?

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

As I see it, they're band 13 because all of those countries have rather odd telcos with huge termination rates. This is why these scam artists locate there and it's also why the call charges are so high.

Absolutely NOT Solair.

Eircom Retail are the Extortionists Here . As we all know, Eircom Retail buy their international minutes from Eircom Wholesale and mark them up to the consumer . These prices below are ex vat Eircom Retail charges €2.98 (ex vat) and €3.60 (incl vat) to countries in the Eircom Porn dialler band .

The scammers get their cut of the proceeds of crime from the amount that Eircom Wholesale charge Eircom Retail . The latest Eircom Wholesale pricing is the RIO 1.66 version price list available here . See c. pages 27 onwards where the international rates are tabulated . It changes about twice a month so get the latest version (it will be Version 1.66 or higher)

http://www.eircomwholesale.ie/regulatory/subreg_details.asp?id=80

Country Vanuatu
Eircom Wholesale Charge (Cents ex Vat) 49 c
Eircom Retail Charge (Cents ex Vat) 298c

Markup = 249c

Eircom Retail Markup On Proceeds Of Porn Dialler Fraud = 508%

The original fraudster gets a % of the 49c that is paid out by Eircom Wholesale and so does the country carrier and the international transit operator . The real fraudster there is Eircom Retail that marks the proceeds of the initial fraud up by a whopping 508% .

( I suppose BrianD has backpaid all those royalties from pirate radio days of yore (+ interest) and is feeling real good about things these days. )

damien

BrianD wrote:

Damien ... wake up and smell the coffee! I am bored of reading these analogies.

As ever Brian, you don't have to visit the forum if you don't like reading posts on the matter that disagree with what you say. Try as you might Brian, you have yet to succeed with your argument on this topic which bubbles up to the top every few months. You are outnumbered, you are outgunned. You will never win on this forum, even if we are all wrong, which I don't believe we are.

Solair

I didn't realise that their costs were that easily available on the web.

In that case, I say again... time to lay this out on paper, perhaps get a little legal advice and drop into Garda HQ ?

Also press release all the papers?

Anyway, wheather they're screwing people with huge profit margins on the calls or just taking 2 cent it doesn't matter. It's still laundering the proceeds of a crime. It just means that they also don't seem to give a damn about it.

I honestly think that telcos need to fall under the financial services regulator as they've become payment platforms. I can't see why they shouldn't be regulated in the same way as a bank or a credit card company.

Their billing systems have become transaction networks.

eircomtribunal

A few important issues about this affair should not get lost or fogged over in the discussion:

• As soon as band 13 was introduced by Eircom, and before users were hit by the scam, Muck pointed out on boards what the kleptomaniac implications and intentions of this were. And he was correct in every aspect.

• Eircom cashed in big time on these weaknesses (security issues in Windows; complicity with scamster of a number of small countries/Islands; helplessness of Internet/Windows users) not by chance, but in a deliberate manner.

• The regulator failed to act when alerted.

• Only when public pressure was mounted (and presumably most of all due to inside action by one decent person inside of gov/administration who understood our argument) the issue was addressed.

• When Redmond promised the Oireachtas Committee that customers would no longer have to pay the game was over. (And it is not a matter of pasting over the issue by paying out to the victim: as Eircom has no appetite for paying the scamster they had to stop the scam at their level).

• The best place to combat such issues is at the top of the pyramid.
IMO the top place is to look at the security issues in Internet Explorer/WindowsOS.
• Next are the countries harbouring the criminals (yes, that is what they are – no difference to a break in job). ComReg's attempt to "impair" calls to those countries is legit in my opinion; it did not succeed. With telco's having the bother with stopping the scam, eventually the pressure will be mounting for the Telecommunications Union to act.
• Next level are the telcos. They are succeeding with stopping the dialler scam so far it appears.
• Next level is the user. All education is welcome, but at the widest level of the pyramid, the results are the most limited.
P.

oscarBravo

BrianD wrote:

What a ridiculous comparison - there are zero similarities. Of course I could stand at the other end of the alley and hand out a replensished wallet and issue a new pair of shoes and watch. The guy would say great I walk any where without a care in the world knowing that someone will sort me out.

OK, I'm in a reasonable mood today. I've said before that an analogy is only a useful means of explaining something to someone who has the faintest interest in understanding you.

So, let's leave the analogies aside for a moment,[1] and come back to a question that I'll charitably assume you haven't noticed in my posts: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

[1] I will, however, leave you with this parting shot: even if I was guaranteed a refund of cash, shoes and watch - I'd like to think I'd make every effort to avoid being mugged in the first place. YMMV.

Solair

These scams could be funding any sort of criminality from organised crime to al queida for all we know.

It's unacceptable that a company operating what is effectively a transaction/payment network should allow fraudsters to operate across it and not only that but profiteer from them.

eircom's not the only company involved in this. in my opinion, ANY telco who allows their network to be used in this way ought to be guilty of money laundering type offences.

damien

IrelandOffline will not be press releasing about this and will not be contacting the Gardai. Lots of people seem to think that IrelandOffline is an infinitely resourced organisation that will fight every fight on their behalf if the issue revolves around any eircom issue. We're not an eircom pressure group and we are not a general telecoms lobby group.

Try the Consumers Assocation, they think they know their stuff.

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

It's unacceptable that a company operating what is effectively a transaction/payment network should allow fraudsters to operate across it and not only that but profiteer from them.

And in Norway they have barred all of those countries by default. If you wish to call them (and you will know why you wish to call them if you wish to call the, ) you can simply opt in .

http://www.telenor.com/reports/2004/csr/web_safety/

Modem kidnapping emerged as a problem in the spring of 2003.

It was noted in Autumn 2002 in Ireland when Eircom created the porn dialler band and upped the charges from about €1.80 a minute to €3 a minute . In Spring 2003 when Norway saw a problem Eircom upped the charge to €3.60 a minute . BrianD has steadfastly defended Eircom since about 2003 .

Telenor has registered more than 50 destinations where modem kidnapping has occurred. Telenor recognised that this was becoming a problem for customers, and has developed and marketed a number of products and services to help customers avoid the problem. These have all been free-of-charge, although customers were previously required to actively take up the solutions themselves.

In other words education was tried in Norway in 2003/2004 , however porn diallers are a right nuisance even if you are competent in internet security matters so :

Telenor has recognised these initiatives as insufficient, and in 2004 Telenor introduced a surfing filter for all telephony and Internet subscriptions. The filter will ensure that all calls, both via telephone and the Internet, to destinations within the areas defined by Telenor as conspicuous, will be stopped. Telenor's fixed line and dial-up Internet customers must actively choose to bypass the filter if they want to connect to the relevant destinations. This is done by calling 800 33 040 (a free-of-charge number), to request that the filter is turned off or on.

In other words Norway did what some people encouraged here in 2002 and introduced Opt in dialling to certain countries .

Eircom, with the collusion of Comreg and with some rather strange defenders on these Boards, introduced an extortion scheme

eircomtribunal

Solair wrote:

.. telcos need to fall under the financial services regulator as they've become payment platforms. I can't see why they shouldn't be regulated in the same way as a bank or a credit card company.

Their billing systems have become transaction networks.

That is a fair point. In the USO it is stipulated that customers have to be able to be cost secure.
When somebody is signing up for a landline he should either be made aware that he can rack up costs of up to infinity by using the phone, or for example given the option to cap the monthly expense.
And by default it should be capped (or the customer informed when an agreed level is reached) at a reasonable sum, just as a credit card or overdraft facility is.

P.

Solair

The opt-in sollution seems like the most logical.

If you make a call to a particular destination you should simply get an announcement saying "sorry, calls to this number are restricted. Please call eircom on 1901. If you wish to make calls to this destination, please contact our customer service centre on .... "

Meteor do this with 15XX calls on prepay. You have to call customer service to have the default restriction lifted.

The other way I think you could do it is to block direct access to these destinations.

e.g. let's presume country code 998 is one of the destinations involved.

00 998 gives you an announcement "sorry, for security reasons this number has been changed. To reach your destionation please hang up and redail, replacing the digits 00 with 16"

This would remove the autodialling posibilities... yet preserve direct dialling.

I have also just emailed this suggestion to comreg.

Sponge Bob

Solair wrote:

The opt-in sollution seems like the most logical.

If you make a call to a particular destination you should simply get an announcement saying "sorry, calls to this number are restricted. Please call eircom on 1901. If you wish to make calls to this destination, please contact our customer service centre on .... "

This is what I always recommended .

The other way I think you could do it is to block direct access to these destinations.

e.g. let's presume country code 998 is one of the destinations involved.

00 998 gives you an announcement "sorry, for security reasons this number has been changed. To reach your destionation please hang up and redail, replacing the digits 00 with 16"

This would remove the autodialling posibilities... yet preserve direct dialling.

Had not thought of 'verbally shifting' the IDD Access from its default value for these destinations Solair ....( 16 being the 'old' IDD access code IIRC ) .

Ingenious and yes it would work but the 00 code should be changed about 2 times a year to 'another' code , cycle thru 1612 1605 1631 1632 or whatever ........ because the dialler will hardcode the IDD access number sooner or later and must be disrupted .

Solair

I don't even think it would have to change very often / if at all. The diallers rely on standardised international access codes. Ireland's a tiny market and I doubt that the fraudsters would be likely to tweak software specifically for this market.

However, it would be a good idea to shift them to a new code once in a while for absolute certainty.

On the technical side, I really don't think that it'd be very difficult to implement. They're not commonly called countries and it would only take an announcement to be set up in eircom's international gateway exchanges and the other comapanies that provide service by carrier pre-select would obviously have to do likewise. It wouldn't be like changing access codes to the UK or something which would impact on an enormous volume of traffic.

Putting in PIN locks would require a lot of software / hardware and even barring access by default on all lines might be a bit of a logistical nightmare and eircom don't seem to have a very developed set of barring options installed on their exchanges. So, again this might require thousands of exchanges to be tweaked.

The announcement sollution would only need to be implemented at the international gateways.

BrianD

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, I'm in a reasonable mood today. I've said before that an analogy is only a useful means of explaining something to someone who has the faintest interest in understanding you.

So, let's leave the analogies aside for a moment,[1] and come back to a question that I'll charitably assume you haven't noticed in my posts: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

[1] I will, however, leave you with this parting shot: even if I was guaranteed a refund of cash, shoes and watch - I'd like to think I'd make every effort to avoid being mugged in the first place. YMMV.

Yes, leave the analogies aside because each one is getting more and more ridiculous. You seem to think that I don't understand the situation and I need to be persuaded. Please be advised that I certainly understand the situation and it is clear that you have a minimum understanding and no grip on the reality of the situation.

Eircomtribunal - I'm gobsmacked. You really do believe it! The conspiracy theory has taken over.

There are plenty of ways that this issue can be addressed and the risks of a customer falling victim reduced. The most important is instilling personal responsibility into consumers. Carping on about some imaginary conspiracy by Eircom to make money out of consumers is not one of them. Odd that nobody is outraged that 'modem hijacking' barely makes the makeitsecure.ie campaign?

Yes, I have been out numbered but certainly not outgunned (perhaps those imaginary suburban water terrorists have water pistols?) as it is a position that is ultimately correct and sound. I thought that Ireland Offline was more than a self appreciation and Eircom bashing society. Are you suggesting that I should go along with the misinformed consensus of this board? Are other points of view not welcome?

Solair

BrianD,

This is a major consumer issue and it's something that, if left unresolved, becomes yet another reason for Irish consumers to decide not to go online.

While it's important to keep a sense of perspective here, it's also important to point out something that's blatently wrong and clearly not quite legal.

No telephone company should be making massive profits out of this situation, nor should they be passing the money they collect on to fraudsters. This would simply make them guilty of facilitating illegal activity, profiting from and laundering its proceeds.

I really think we should stick to the issues, be objective and stay away from slagging eachother off on the boards. It's totally non-productive and it just brings down the tone of Ireland Off Line to anyone who stumbles across the boards and notices in-fighting.

oscarBravo

BrianD wrote:

Yes, leave the analogies aside because each one is getting more and more ridiculous. You seem to think that I don't understand the situation and I need to be persuaded. Please be advised that I certainly understand the situation and it is clear that you have a minimum understanding and no grip on the reality of the situation.

Evidently. Please enlighten me. You could start by answering a question that I could have sworn I asked already in this thread: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

Maybe you have a particularly good reason for avoiding answering this question. If so, I'd like to hear it.

HelterSkelter

oscarBravo wrote:

Evidently. Please enlighten me. You could start by answering a question that I could have sworn I asked already in this thread: is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them? Is it OK that they should shamelessly profiteer from them?

Maybe you have a particularly good reason for avoiding answering this question. If so, I'd like to hear it.

Yeah BrianD, why do you keep ignoring the question? Answer it, we're all interested in wher you stand on this.

BrianD

I would be delighted to answer the question but I am not in a position to do so. I am not an employee of any telco so I can't speak on their behalf. Furthermore, I have not ignored this issue as I have stated on many occasions that the pricing to Band 13 is irrelevant and there is no evidence to suggest or support that telcos have deliberately set out to cash in on the dialler scam at the expense of their customers.

As stated, I have consistently argued that the price of calls is irrelevant to the dialler scam and not the core of the issue. The customer has connected a modem to a telco line and it is his equipment that is causing the problem by dialling a number that the telco is contractually obliged to carry. Disconnect his modem and the problem stops immediately. Pretty straightforward who needs to sort their kit out and where the problem lies.

Since 1998 when tuvalu first flogged off it's country code for commercial use many voice and and data services have been located in these band countries - mainly adult entertainment, gambling and the like. All used a premium rate/revenue share model as a method of payment (i.e an alternative to a credit card). I certainly recall seeing adult entertainment lines i.e. sex lines/chat lines with 00 prefixes in the pages of a well known Irish music mag many years ago. Obviously these merchants then went from voice to data services. Given that nearly all calls to Band 13 are of an entertainment nature I see no reason why a telco can't add on a bit (if they do) for these leisure calls. You say that Eircom started created band 13 to cash in on the diallers where in fact there is more than enough evidence to say that it was an unfortunate coincidence. Therefore the "cashing in on the scam" is an unsupported claim.

Not all diallers are scams - some are willfully installed by PC users in order to access these services. Telco has no way of knowing what was deliberately installed or what was installed by stealth. While I have no problem (and would support) with a telco intervening and flagging up unusual account activity, one has to ask is it really the place of a telco to ring up and ask "we were just wondering sir - did you really mean to spend that long on the porn or the cards this month?"

Guys, reality and personal responsibility beckons ...

HelterSkelter

HelterSkelter wrote:

Yeah BrianD, why do you keep ignoring the question? Answer it, we're all interested in wher you stand on this.

Ok, lets try again, Brian

Is it acceptable that a telco should respond to these scams by cashing in on them?

Maybe put it another way: A hypothetical situation - Imagine there is a teleco somewhere in the world that made a conscious decision to raise the cost of calls to these rogue countries so they could increase their profits on the back of this scam. Would you agree with their actions?

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

one has to ask is it really the place of a telco to ring up and ask "we were just wondering sir - did you really mean to spend that long on the porn or the cards this month?"

Of course it is, VISA do it all the time. Only last month VISA phoned me up, there was a number of transactions in the same day for large amounts of € which was not in line with my normal spending trend. They phoned me within five minutes of making the purchases to confirm it was me and not somebody else commiting fraud.

It is not a big deal for Eircom to call up and say "Excuse me sir, we just noticed you have made a large number of calls amounting to €xxx which is not in line with your usual pattern of calls. We just want to confirm that you are aware of these calls being made".

Sponge Bob

A stuck record would be more entertaining than you Brian !

BrianD wrote:

I would be delighted to answer the question but I am not in a position to do so. I am not an employee of any telco so I can't speak on their behalf. Furthermore, I have not ignored this issue as I have stated on many occasions that the pricing to Band 13 is irrelevant and there is no evidence to suggest or support that telcos have deliberately set out to cash in on the dialler scam at the expense of their customers.

Certainly no more evidence than there is for pirate FM stations defraud rights holders to music for years anyway .

As stated, I have consistently argued that the price of calls is irrelevant to the dialler scam and not the core of the issue.

€3.60 a minute, over €5k a DAY is irrelevant , do go on Brian .

The customer has connected a modem to a telco line and it is his equipment that is causing the problem by dialling a number that the telco is contractually obliged to carry.

Not contractually no . Nor is there an issue with carrying per se The problem is the price, €3.60 a minute, far more than premium numbers which max out around €2 a minute. Eircom are welcome to carry these at Telestunt prices, 33c a minute to these countries not €3.60

Disconnect his modem and the problem stops immediately. Pretty straightforward who needs to sort their kit out and where the problem lies.

How does he patch his pc then O wise one ??

Since 1998 when tuvalu first flogged off it's country code for commercial use many voice and and data services have been located in these band countries - mainly adult entertainment, gambling and the like. All used a premium rate/revenue share model as a method of payment (i.e an alternative to a credit card). I certainly recall seeing adult entertainment lines i.e. sex lines/chat lines with 00 prefixes in the pages of a well known Irish music mag many years ago. Obviously these merchants then went from voice to data services.

We all know that last bit

Given that nearly all calls to Band 13 are of an entertainment nature I see no reason why a telco can't add on a bit (if they do) for these leisure calls.

they are normally installed by fraudulent means onto insecure systems brian, there is no knowing consent . They are porn, not entertainment.

You say that Eircom started created band 13 to cash in on the diallers where in fact there is more than enough evidence to say that it was an unfortunate coincidence.

You are off with the ****ing fairies on that last bit Brian .

Therefore the "cashing in on the scam" is an unsupported claim.

It has been well supported and proven long ago which is why Comreg sort of kinda felt they had to emm act eemm ummm yes .

Why do you persist in trying to justify fraud and those who set out to profit from fraud Brian?????

oscarBravo

BrianD wrote:

I would be delighted to answer the question but I am not in a position to do so. I am not an employee of any telco so I can't speak on their behalf.

With all due respect: bollox. I'm a part owner of an ISP (not exactly a telco), and I think Eircom's actions in this case have been nothing short of reprehensible.

BrianD wrote:

Furthermore, I have not ignored this issue as I have stated on many occasions that the pricing to Band 13 is irrelevant...

With all due respect: bollox. We're not talking about ignoring the issue; we're talking about ignoring the simple and direct question I asked.

BrianD wrote:

...and there is no evidence to suggest or support that telcos have deliberately set out to cash in on the dialler scam at the expense of their customers.

With all due respect: bollox.

Sponge Bob wrote:

Country Vanuatu
Eircom Wholesale Charge (Cents ex Vat) 49 c
Eircom Retail Charge (Cents ex Vat) 298c

If that's not evidence of cashing in, what is?

BrianD wrote:

As stated, I have consistently argued that the price of calls is irrelevant to the dialler scam and not the core of the issue. The customer has connected a modem to a telco line and it is his equipment that is causing the problem by dialling a number that the telco is contractually obliged to carry. Disconnect his modem and the problem stops immediately. Pretty straightforward who needs to sort their kit out and where the problem lies.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It may be irrelevant to whatever hidden agenda you're refusing to reveal, but it's directly relevant to the simple and direct question you've refused several times to answer.

BrianD wrote:

Given that nearly all calls to Band 13 are of an entertainment nature I see no reason why a telco can't add on a bit (if they do) for these leisure calls.

Oh look: he answered the question at last. It is OK for a telco to profiteer shamelessly from illegal scams. Thanks for clearing that up.

Or maybe not:

BrianD wrote:

You say that Eircom started created band 13 to cash in on the diallers where in fact there is more than enough evidence to say that it was an unfortunate coincidence. Therefore the "cashing in on the scam" is an unsupported claim.

Wait! I just had a craaazy idea!! How about sharing some of this evidence?

BrianD wrote:

Not all diallers are scams - some are willfully installed by PC users in order to access these services. Telco has no way of knowing what was deliberately installed or what was installed by stealth.

"Telco" has an easy way to know that: make these bands opt-in.

BrianD wrote:

While I have no problem (and would support) with a telco intervening and flagging up unusual account activity, one has to ask is it really the place of a telco to ring up and ask "we were just wondering sir - did you really mean to spend that long on the porn or the cards this month?"

Let me guess: when your credit card company contacts you to check up on suspicious activity, you tell them to f*ck off and mind their own business, right?

eircomtribunal

Sponge Bob wrote:

Why do you persist in trying to justify fraud and those who set out to profit from fraud Brian?????

Honest McRedmond would never try to profit from fraud – and he managed to say it with a straight face to the Oireachtas Committee (after Eircom was found out and exposed):

Mr. McRedmond: "It is not Eircom which has perpetrated the fraud and Eircom played no part in perpetrating a fraud. Eircom is simply a telecoms company through which traffic is routed."

Chairman: "Does Eircom benefit from it?"

Mr. McRedmond: "Eircom could benefit from it but Eircom will not benefit from fraudulent activity, therefore, that is why we refund customers and refund the money. This fraud was not a fraud which Eircom perpetrated and that is the same for every telecoms company everywhere. That is an extremely important distinction. However, we bear responsibility for customers."
P.

P.S.:
I think that chapter is more or less done with. We need not circularly argue with Brian – whose belligerence might well have served some "frodo-ic" motivational purpose – any more.
We should rather congratulate ourselves for having fought and won that battle.
It is neither that important (albeit the negative fall-out for Internet take up should not be underestimated) nor at the centre of the real Internet/broadband woes, which arise from the combination of an impotent regulator, a struggling DCMNR and an incumbent in turbo-capitalistic short term profit mode.