# Jamster/Ringtoneking scam



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2005)

G'day, all,

I'd missed the recent radio discussions about Jamster's great ringtone subscription swindle, and possibly other users of AAM have, too..(?)

My own kid got sucked into this scam somehow, and I've just written to the shysters in the following terms. Sorry for the long post, but I thought some of the references might be helpful to others affected. I've been stung for a relatively small sum, but I shudder to think about the possible 'hit' on users with monthly billing, or who have a large amount of pre-paid credit on their 'phone...

I hope these b*stards are shut down soon, although I suspect the German authorities will find an empty bedroom in a rented flat... 

Dr. M.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Sent:* 26 June 2005 11:58
*To:* 'info@ringtoneking.ie'; 'info@jamster.ie'; 'info@regtel.ie'; 'odca@entemp.ie'; 'info@asai.ie'; 'consumerline@comreg.ie'; 'info@meteor.ie'; 'customer.care@o2.ie'; 'info@vodafone.ie'
*Cc:* 'domain-admin@jamba.net'; 'info@jamba-ag.de'; 'support@ringtoneking.co.uk'; 'info@ringtoneking.co.uk'; 'info@jamster.co.uk'
*Subject:* Fraudulent ringtone subscription
*Importance:* High

Dear Sir/Madam,
Somehow or other, my 9-year-old daughter has fallen prey to Ringtoneking.ie’s – or Jamster, or Jamba, or iLove GmbH, etc… - ringtone subscription scam. On 17 June last I topped up her credit by €20, and within a day it had dropped to €4. When she brought it to my attention I looked up her call records on Meteor’s website and found the following charges:


17 Jun 05 14:26:10 0:0:00 _[edit: number removed] _2.00
17 Jun 05 14:26:11 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00
17 Jun 05 14:26:18 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00
17 Jun 05 14:38:50 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00

18 Jun 05 17:37:00 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:00 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:03 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00
18 Jun 05 17:37:03 0:0:00 _[" "]_ 2.00

Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying ringtones/logos, I contacted Meteor customer care and they explained that these were reverse-charge SMS messages with a short code of 57757, and provided me with Ringtoneking’s premium-rate ‘customer services’ number, 0818-242311. I rang this from my landline and was thence referred to the 1890-943301 number for RoI ‘customers’. I then rang that number and followed the automated instructions for cancelling the ‘subscription’ (my use of quote marks is significant). Her phone then received another SMS, at a further €2 charge, confirming the cancellation: 


25 Jun 05 20:26:05 0:0:00 _[edit: number removed] _2.00 

I then undertook a little further research and discovered the unsavoury truth about this operation, in Ireland and abroad. I refer you to the ODCA’s report at http://www.odca.ie/cfmdocs/news.cfm?article_no=5585 , to this representative UK discussion forum thread: http://www.the-scream.co.uk/forums/t15271.html , and to this report about a pending lawsuit against Jamster in the US : http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/05/HNjamster_1.html. I also ran a quick Whois.com search on the parent company and I will be posting hard copy of this e-mail to Mr (Messrs?) Samwer at Jamba’s registered address :

iLove GmbH
Pfuelstrasse 5
10997 Berlin
Germany

I need hardly express my distaste and anger at this cynical and fraudulent exploitation of – largely, it seems – vulnerable children, and of those who pay for their mobile phone credit. A quick read through the UK thread posted above and some of the links contained therein will give a sufficient sample of public opinion on the matter.

My primary concern now is to obtain an immediate refund from Ringtoneking of the €18 credit removed from my daughter’s Meteor account (and possibly more? She mentioned something similar happening a few weeks ago, but I can no longer access her call details for that period via Meteor’s site).

The ‘membership’/‘contract’ is and always was null and void, even by Ringtoneking’s own garbled terms and conditions – she is a child under 16 years of age and did not have the billpayer’s consent, and she did not receive the goods/services advertised – and I suspect that Ringtoneking’s activities are almost certainly unlawful under Irish and EU legislation. If they are not, they should be.

I further require formal confirmation from Ringtoneking – not just an SMS – that her ‘membership’ has in fact been terminated as advised; I gather that this is one of the major ‘gotchas’ involved, and I will not be able to top up her credit again until I am assured in writing that the charges will not recur. If within one working week I do not obtain full satisfaction, I shall institute legal proceedings against the company. I shall also advertise this matter as widely as possible with a view to coordinating a possible class action on behalf of Irish consumers stung by this scam (for that is assuredly what it is).

A final few comments for Regtel, for the ODCA, for the ASAI and for the management teams of the Irish mobile operators to whom I have copied this message. I find it incredible that (hugely profitable) providers of mobile services can just wring their hands and claim to be able to do nothing about these scams. At the very least, they should immediately provide – free of charge – the facility for parents to block their children’s phones from texting premium lines. I don’t know exactly through which media Jamster/Ringtoneking peddle their wares in this country, but I would urge the ASAI to investigate further. Finally, and with all due respect – the published advice of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to the effect that affected parties ‘should contact Jamster, who could issue a refund’ (my emphasis), appears to me wholly inadequate.

I welcome any comments you may have and I look forward to receiving an appropriate refund from Jamster/Ringtoneking.

Yours sincerely,
_[etc.]_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


End of rant... I'll post back with any developments...


----------



## SineWave (26 Jun 2005)

This crowd, www.veronica.ie, are also at it. Friend of mine never subscribed but noticed they stole €6 from him. 

He's planning on going to the police on Monday, to report a theft of €6 from him.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2005)

Do parents generally allow their 9 years olds to have mobile phones these days? I'm not clear on if/how the child in this case initiated contact with the ringtone/logo vendor. Are you saying that she never did this and that the vendor unilaterally initiated contact? Or did she actually buy one or more ringtones/logos but then subsequently got charged for more?


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2005)

Hi Clubman,

I personally disapproved, but her mother yielded to the pestering and let her 'inherit' an older sibling's old 3310 at her last birthday...
But I think we will be revisiting the policy in the light of recent events.

Generally, I would guess that the level of mobile phone ownership among Irish kids <16 is staggeringly high. I've seen 6- and 7-year-olds with the bloody things...

In fairness, until now, she (the 9-year-old) had been remarkably responsible about allowed usage/credit limits, etc.. It's largely a device - according to my wife - to enable us to call her home for dinner if she's out playing around the estate, etc. Go figure...

As to how she ended up subscribed to this scam — I believe these guys advertise on daytime TV (Nickleodeon, etc.) and on the back of magazines. The kid thinks they're buying a single ringtone and, well, you can follow the other links to see how the sting works...
Nasty, nasty mobile phone 'culture'. But of course I'm a just a grumpy old Luddite...


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2005)

So are you saying that the following is not, in fact, true?



> Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying ringtones/logos ...


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2005)

In the plural, yes, it is. Look at the interval between the times these charges were applied - 0 seconds, in some instances? And anyway, she didn't even _get_ the ringtones or logos 'contracted' for, just a poxy promotional SMS message.

Look, here's their [broken link removed], which I presume is pretty similar to the printed advertisements they run on the back pages of the Beano/Dandy/any number of those trashy pre-teen girls' magazines.

Are you telling me
(a) that these services, as they claim, 'do their utmost to avoid targeting children', or that a young kid would realise what they were getting into?
(b) that the multiple accounts of 'stop' messages being ignored (they also cost €2, btw) suggest an honest and above-board business?
(c) Ditto for any of the other comments linked to, including the ODCA's experiment?

Come on, Clubman, it might be the kid's own fault that she got duped initially - and she's being 'punished' for it, in that I will not buy her any more credit until this matter is resolved, and all of the kids have been told that they'll lose their 'phones if I ever again see ringtone purchases on their call records (which I can track online).
On balance, how does the honesty/truthfulness/responsibility equation look to you?


----------



## Markjbloggs (26 Jun 2005)

Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1?  If so how much was fraud?


M


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> In the plural, yes, it is. Look at the interval between the times these charges were applied - 0 seconds, in some instances? And anyway, she didn't even _get_ the ringtones or logos 'contracted' for, just a poxy promotional SMS message.
> 
> Look, here's their [broken link removed], which I presume is pretty similar to the printed advertisements they run on the back pages of the Beano/Dandy/any number of those trashy pre-teen girls' magazines.
> 
> ...



Er, I was not making any judgement about this situation at all. I was merely asking if, contrary to what you said above, the child actually *had* initiated contact with the company in question and had purchased a ringtone/logo in the first place. From what you say this is the case. Your original post seemed to me to suggest that the company may have unilaterally initiated contact and started charging for services and I was just clarifying if this was or was not the case. It seems that it was not. Correct?



> On balance, how does the honesty/truthfulness/responsibility equation look to you?



As it happens, based on this and other anecdotal reports that I've heard, not too good.


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Jun 2005)

Fair enough, Clubman.

By rights I should have written "Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying [these] ringtones/logos ..."

The speed with which their system swooped in and levied these charges - once there was sufficient credit on the account - suggests to me that it must have been at some earlier point that she first sent that 57113 text that initiated the whole process.

Anyway, I hope the post has been of some help to others who might find themselves in a similar situation - and I do intend to pursue these guys. Not for the sake of the €18, obviously, but as a matter of principle. And, with permission, I'll post back to let people know how it turns out.

Jamster, scamsters... yeesh! 'There were none of that, in my day...'


----------



## RainyDay (26 Jun 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1?  If so how much was fraud?
> 
> 
> M


I don't think the chart position has anything to do with the ringtone sales - it only applies to those strange people who actually purchased a CD-single of this tune in a shop.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> By rights I should have written "Having first established that she had not voluntarily spent her credit buying [these] ringtones/logos ..."


Fair enough - I understand you now.


----------



## Humpback (27 Jun 2005)

Markjbloggs said:
			
		

> Forgive my total ignorance on this, but did this ringtone thingy get to No.1? If so how much was fraud? M


 
What got to No. 1 was a single based on the ringtone. So, based on fact that singles are sold on cd and via internet download, I'm thinking that the "alleged" fraud is based only on the ringtones.

"Alleged" fraud, because I'm sure that all aspects of charges etc are detailed on both the tv screen with the number to call, and in the text messages received with the download. Therefore, not really fraud, but merely a case of buyer beware.

Now, I do accept that the kids who are the buyers are not to know about such things and therefore the marketing is more unscrupulous than fraudulent.

I would also expect that there will be little response from the mobile companies here as well. It's like complaining to JVC or Panasonic about pornographic material on your tv, or complaining to Dell or HP about spam in your e-mail. Don't shoot the messenger.

As an aside, you should at least check the €2 charge for disconnection. In all of your mail, I believe that this is the only thing that Jamster have technically done wrong. In codes of practice on ringtones etc, it is a requirement that unsubscribe text messages are free.

Finally, if you don't want your kids to be wasting money on these things, ring your phone operator and have them block premium text messages. It's a simple thing to do and prevents them getting caught out in the future. There's no reason for them to be able to send such messages, or receive, apart from for ringtones.


----------



## tonka (27 Jun 2005)

Jamster are fraudsters. The ODCA tried to unsubscribe from the 'one off' and could not.

The ultimate culprits are the morons in charge of premium text number regulation, http://www.comreg.ie/ and [broken link removed]  , I strongly suspect the latter.

Comreg should bar premium text number access for prepaid phones until the owner can prove they are 18 and therefore get access (read CONTRACT) as per the law. Regtel should test the damn things and ruthlessly close them down for non compliance. 

If your phone is post paid there is a contract and you are over 18 (or the contract owner is) so no worries .


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Jun 2005)

I'm with Tonka 100% there. I rang Meteor and they insist they have 'no way' of barring premium text number access for either pre-paid or monthly-billed 'phones. _'Course_ they don't...

Update on the Jamster scenario, as promised -
God bless that oul' German efficiency!  Having sent off my e-mail only yesterday (Sunday), I got a reply from Jamba's Berlin offices at 9:31 this morning (OK, 10:31 in Berlin...) confirming the cancellation and promising a full refund within 20 days.

So sometimes it _does_ pay to kick up a stink!

Wonder how long I'll have to wait for a response - if indeed any is forthcoming - from Meteor/Comreg/Regtel/the OCDA...?


----------



## Humpback (27 Jun 2005)

tonka said:
			
		

> Comreg should bar premium text number access for prepaid phones until the owner can prove they are 18 and therefore get access (read CONTRACT) as per the law.


 
Strongly disagree. You would then be enforcing an idiotic rule on people who are over 18.

Consumer beware should apply here.

You shouldn't implement rules just cause some people (a minority) are getting caught out because the can't or don't understand the conditions of the service are availing of.


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Jun 2005)

Further update (in fairness...) Got this 20 mins ago from Meteor:



> _Dear [X],_





> _Thank you for your email. I can confirm that your comments have been noted and passed to my relevant supervisors. I can also confirm that Meteor shares your views with regards to the Premium Rate SMS services and this is why we always urge our customers to call Regtel in relation to this. _
> 
> _The reasons it is not possible for Meteor to act in these cases are firstly it is not possible to block SMS be they incoming or outgoing and secondly once subscribed to a Premium Rate SMS service our customers contract is with these third party companies such as Ringtone king and due to Data Protection Law which was passed in Ireland in 1988 and amended in 2003 we cannot be involved in these transactions._
> 
> ...


 

And I still agree with Tonka. Would you argue that ...ah, forget it.


----------



## zag (27 Jun 2005)

I'm with DrMoriarty and Tonka here.

No matter what way I look at it, I can't see how a 9 year old can be held to a contract that they entered into like this.  If I go up to some kid and tell them I will give them a huge bag of sweets for that €2 coin in their hand and they agree to it, do you think it would be a legally enforceable contract when I give them a 10c bag of sweets and then come back a few minutes later for my next €2 ?  I don't think so.  Would it make it any more enforceable if I had a 20 page piece of paper (which I didn't show them) outlining exactly why I can take their money off them ?  The only advantage that the ringtone messers have is that they can extract the money through a 2nd/3rd party - the mobile provider.

As for the providers saying they cannot block premium calls - this is utter commercialism at its worst.  Of course they can block the numbers - they just don't want to because it earns them money.  Even eircom let you block access like this - although they do charge you about €24.50 to set it up and €3 a month.

z


----------



## tonka (27 Jun 2005)

Eircom must let you block premium 15xxx numbers for free. It costs €0 setup and €0 a month on your bill , just ring 1901 

Eircom were accused of deliberately circumventing this regulation by bringing into existance a  special porn dialler international band a few years ago at twice the cost of a premium number , about €4 a minute for this international call.  

Comreg eventually shut that eircom scam down around about a year back so now you must opt in if you want to ring the porn dialler countries and nobody does .


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Jun 2005)

You can block voice calls (e.g. to 15** numbers), but not SMS, according to Meteor. Does that ring true, from a technical viewpoint? (no pun intended! )


----------



## Humpback (27 Jun 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> You can block voice calls (e.g. to 15** numbers), but not SMS, according to Meteor. Does that ring true, from a technical viewpoint? (no pun intended! )


 
It's definitely possible to do this, both blocking on sending, and receiving which is just as important.

Assuming Meteor at least have similar equipment to their competitors.


----------



## Humpback (27 Jun 2005)

tonka said:
			
		

> Eircom must let you block premium 15xxx numbers for free. It costs €0 setup and €0 a month on your bill , just ring 1901


 
No they don't.

They charge you the privelage of blocking such numbers.


----------



## tonka (27 Jun 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> No they don't.
> They charge you the privelage of blocking such numbers.


Eircom do not charge you for blocking 15xxx numbers like I said, it costs €0 to set up and €0 per month. I have blocked them for years from home.


----------



## Thirsty (28 Jun 2005)

As the child is a minor they cannot enter into a legal contract (which is what this subscription is); once you mention this fact to Jamster and their ilk you will get a refund.

I've sucessfully retrieved €70 from this gang for my own daughter, who was 15 at the time and frankly should have known better.

Interestingly enough, the refund was sent back to me in cash!


----------



## icantbelieve (28 Jun 2005)

To me these ringtones really are a scam but I can kind of see the attraction to kids but who in their right mind young or old subscribes to the "horoscope", "love poetry", "text your and your lovers name to find out your suitability" etc.
And yet presumably someone does because a) the operators pay to advertise these things and b) there are loads of the bloody things.
You have to feel that Mr Hannum underestimated when he said that "there's one born every minute", in fact search result number 8 when I plugged this into google.ie came back very apropos


----------



## daltonr (28 Jun 2005)

> who in their right mind young or old subscribes to the "horoscope", "love poetry", "text your and your lovers name to find out your suitability" etc.[./Quote]
> 
> I'm thinking it's the same people who vote in You a Star and watch Big Brother and in all probability it's the same people who voted "A Man running up a field" as the greatest moment in 40 years of GAA tv coverage.
> 
> ...


----------



## icantbelieve (29 Jun 2005)

Having thought a bit further on the "won't pay 1 euro for the song but will pay 2-3 euros for a 10 second clip" I checked and there is loads of software out there (shareware, freeware etc..) that will convert mp3's into ringtones for your phone, even if you had to spend 20 euros on a licenced package it'd pay for itself in no time. Your kids would have the added benefit of being able to be truly unique by choosing which part of the song the use. As for legality, well if you pay for the song then as with burning cd's for your own use or put songs on mp3 players then putting a section of the song on your phone should also be within copy right.
Can you imagine if this caught on, the airways would be free from all those annoying ringtone ads and companies like jamster would go bust.


----------



## Humpback (29 Jun 2005)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> there is loads of software out there (shareware, freeware etc..) that will convert mp3's into ringtones for your phone


 
The new motorola 3G phones provide this software and a data cable as standard out of the box.

Here's a question though. 

If you're covered on copyright, which I don't doubt, do you think that IRMA might try to get you for sharing/broadcasting???


----------



## MonsieurBond (29 Jun 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> The new motorola 3G phones provide this software and a data cable as standard out of the box.
> 
> Here's a question though.
> 
> If you're covered on copyright, which I don't doubt, do you think that IRMA might try to get you for sharing/broadcasting???



With the Sony Ericsson V800, you can just copy MP3 tunes directly onto the phone or memory card (the phone memory is better for this purpose).

Well, more or less - you have to create a Digital Rights Managament DRM file first, but there is a free tool to do this available on the Sony Ericsson Developer Site. The idea is that if you own the CD, you can rip it to an MP3 ringtone and put the tone onto the phone. Granted, it doesn't allow you to edit the file but other tools do that.


----------



## Seagull (29 Jun 2005)

It's not just kids who got caught out by this. There was an article in the Sunday Times by one of their journalists who got hit by this. All he wanted was to buy the ringtone. He did it on the basis of a TV ad. The details that this would subscribe him to their "service" with charge back SMS's was in tiny print scrolling across at the bottom of the screen, where it wouldn't be noticed. He's established that the way the terms and conditions are displayed don't meet the legal requirements.


----------



## daltonr (29 Jun 2005)

Why do Charge Back SMSs even exist.  
I can think of no legitimate use for them.

Even if you accept that an informed consumer should be able to pay
€2 for a ring tone, why not allow Jamster to send you a txt message
to which you must reply in order to be charged.

I'm sure the phone operators make money by allowing companies like
Jamster to exist,  but they'll end up creating more distrust of the technology 
than if they adopted a more restrictive policy by only allowing you to be charged for Calls & Txts that you originate.

-Rd


----------



## Vanilla (29 Jun 2005)

Got the following text this am:

' Get ur FREE poly TODAY!! Reply X1 for CrazyFrog, X2 for Amarillo, X3 for U2 Beautiful Day. From Thursday get 4 polys/week/2Eur. SP:Juicy 01 2186831 16+ Stop'

I can't understand a word of it. How could a 9 year old? Does it mean if you get your free 'poly' you are automatically charged 2Eur per week thereafter? I doubt my mobile would even be able to play one of these things- a poly is a ring tone, right? Its old and has never been asked to do anything other than make and receive calls. Mr.V is constantly at me to upgrade, but I just can't be bothered.


----------



## Humpback (29 Jun 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> I'm sure the phone operators make money by allowing companies like Jamster to exist, but they'll end up creating more distrust of the technology than if they adopted a more restrictive policy by only allowing you to be charged for Calls & Txts that you originate.
> -Rd


 
I'm sorry daltonr, but that's like saying that the production and availablility of porn movies is going to be responsible for people starting to have a sense of unease in using DVD players.

If you don't want to avail of services such as Jamster, then you have no reason to worry that such things are out there and available.


----------



## DrMoriarty (29 Jun 2005)

Vanilla, I'd check your bill pretty quickly if I was you. Jamster/Ringtoneking were supposed to charge you €4/week, but the OCDA experiment linked to above shows that double-charging seems to be commonplace.

I was intrigued by the 01 number provided, and it. Nice list of 'reputable' advertisers there...!  Looks like these are your crowd: http://www.puca.ie/



> *Email: [email="info@puca.com"]info@puca.com[/email]
> 
> Ireland
> 
> ...


* *
_[Edit: Ronan D, I'm beginning to suspect you work for or have some other association with one of these outfits...?_
_If these companies' operations are as legitimate and respectable as you seem to believe, then tell us where Púca's Terms & Conditions are available __here__, for example.]_


----------



## icantbelieve (29 Jun 2005)

That is one spurious porn/dvd argument
a) children can't buy porn dvds
b) if you buy one porn dvd you don't then get sent and charged for loads of others unsolicited
it might have a bit more weight if you used porn/sky moive ordering service except that b) still applies and that in order for children to order them they'd still have to have access to their parents account details rather than using their pocket money.


----------



## tonka (29 Jun 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> If you don't want to avail of services such as Jamster, then you have no reason to worry that such things are out there and available.


I blame Comreg and Regtel for letting scum mug  kids for their pocket money. 

I'd simply block all PR texts bar 50nnn  and 51nnn by default and allow a full opt in once the mobile phone owner can establish that they are over 18 by producing proper ID in a shop belonging to a mobile operator . If the phone is in contract I would unblock all PR txt number ranges  by default.  

I see no prob with that  admin system given how much the operators themselves make on PR txt . 

The operator would be obliged to hand them a leaflet , produced by Regtel and the PRS operators, detailing what is allowed and what is not allowed and how to complain and get reimbursement if they get slammed by chargeback mechanisms or if opt outs mysteriously fail to work. As for chargebacks, I would not allow them except in the lower ranges for stuff like weather forecasts for 30c and the like. 

That would flush the premium text scum out fairly sharpish.


----------



## Humpback (29 Jun 2005)

icantbelieve said:
			
		

> That is one spurious porn/dvd argument


 
My comment was particularly focused on the comment regarding people doubting the technology purely because of the content available on the technology. I was not commenting on anything else from this thread in that particular post.




			
				DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> _I'm beginning to suspect you work for or have some other association with one of these outfits...?_


 
No association at all. Merely trying to logically look at the arguments, with a little bit of devils advocate thrown in as well.

While I understand there are concerns from a childrens point of view here, getting overcharged and not understanding etc., my main interest in this thread is the over-reaction by some parties to a situation over which they themselves have control.

Bringing in legislation, rules or whatever, to control something that people can simply control themselves is an over-reaction of the highest order, and is indicative of the way in which many people are actually encouraging a nanny state by their reactions to such issues.

e.g. 
Complaint - my kid is getting ripped off after the subscribed to a jamster ringtone service.

Solution 1 - don't give your kid a phone until they're old enough to understand the consequences of using it.

Solution 2 - if you are giving them a phone, sit them down (being a parent and all) and teach them the ins and outs of using the phone. Let them know what it can be used for, and what it can't or shouldn't be used for. They're your damn kids - if they still go off and subscribe to such a service, see Solution 4.

Solution 3 - block their phone from sending and receiving premium SMS and MMS messages.

Solution 4 - cancel the subscription, and show them that that's a lesson learned on not spending money until the understand what they're spending their money on. Take the phone off them for a while if necessary.

Why, oh why, don't parents take such matters into their own hands and sort their kids out instead of crying out for others to protect them and their kids from the big bad world??



			
				DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> _then tell us where Púca's Terms & Conditions are available here, for example._


 
To my knowledge, Puca, in this particular advertising according to the Regtel Code of Practice, have done everything necessary in order to follow the Code. They have given contact details and clearly shown the price. They are not obliged to do any more.

Finally, to provide balance to my views, if people aren't happy with the Code of Practice, Regtel are giving you all an invitation to submit your observations on the Code as it is at the moment, and what you may feel needs to be done in the future.

[broken link removed]

Can I suggest that, for anyone who has either followed steps 1 through 4 and has found that their kids are still disobeying them and subscribing for ringtones, or anyone who can't be bothered, follow up with Regtel to see if they'll protect your kids from getting ripped of better than you can as parents???


----------



## Humpback (29 Jun 2005)

tonka said:
			
		

> I blame Comreg and Regtel for letting scum mug kids for their pocket money.


 
If only I'd have seen this before starting my post above. Perfectly exemplifies my point I think.


----------



## DrMoriarty (29 Jun 2005)

Bit late for RegTel submissions...





> Please let us have any observations in writing within 28 days of today's date (3rd November 04).


The email address provided is the one to which I CC'd my complaint to Jamster/Ringtoneking/Jamba last Sunday.

Jamba GmbH replied on Monday morning and offered a cash refund.
Meteor on Monday afternoon (message copied above)
Comreg, O2 & Vodafone on Tuesday - all three pointing out that this is RegTel's baby.

In fact, the only party I haven't heard a squeak from so far is ...RegTel!

But I was delighted to read this in their [broken link removed]:



> Though some difficulties emerged during the year, all were not negative. I look forward to the continuing good relationships and informal channels of communications that exist between Network Operators, Service Providers and Regtel. Constant engagement and a partnership approach enables speedy communications in preventing and helping to resolve issues of common concern. This is particularly true in attempting to eliminate some unsavoury aspects of Premium Rate Services that manifested themselves in the course of the year and resulted in sanctions been taken against a small number of Service Providers.
> 
> *It is imperative that, as we approach our 10th Anniversary, consumers have trust in the variety of Premium Rate Services being offered today.* _[my emphasis]_
> 
> ...


So - forgive me, but what exactly has changed...?  Maybe I should e-mail RegTel a link to this thread.

Ronan D, I'm reluctant to engage seriously with your arguments - we clearly inhabit different planets, and I've no desire to change your views on the matter. But pointing to Tonka's slightly emotive use of language doesn't 'exemplify' (prove? support?) your point at all.


> Complaint - my kid is getting ripped off after [he] subscribed to a jamster ringtone service.
> 
> Solution 1 - don't give your kid a phone until they're old enough to understand the consequences of using it.


So...

Complaint - my kid's lunch money is being scammed off him by a guy playing find-the-lady card tricks in the schoolyard, and the principal won't do anything about it.

Solution 1 - don't give your kid lunch money until he's old enough to recognise a rip-off artist when he sees one?

One last point. The Púca ad I linked to above absolutely does _not_ 'clearly show the price'...


----------



## DrMoriarty (29 Jun 2005)

*P.s.*

Again from RegTel:



*



Notice​

Click to expand...

*


> *To: ALL SMS SERVICE PROVIDERS & NETWORK OPERATORS*
> 
> *Re: SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES*
> 
> ...


​


----------



## daltonr (29 Jun 2005)

> I'm sorry daltonr, but that's like saying that the production and availablility of porn movies is going to be responsible for people starting to have a sense of unease in using DVD players.



Actually it's nothing like that.
There's nothing inherently wrong with kids having mobile phones.  If it provides a way to check that they're ok when they're 30 mins late getting home at night,  and gives them a way to call home if something happens then it's worth them having it.

if the mobile phone needlessly becomes a mechanism for companies to scam money from kids,  let's call a spade a spade, that's what this is.  Then parents will choose to not allow their kids to have phones.

I'd have no problem with a kid having a DVD player.   If by watching a DVD the kid could end up being charged €2 a week without fully grasping why, then I'd have a problem with the DVD player.   It's a features of the DVD player that serves no useful purpose but gives me a headache that can only be eliminated by taking away the technology.

Can you educate kids about ringtone scams?   yes,   but why should you have to?
The technology serves no useful purpose and will eventually be bundled into a new type of scam and you have to start educating about that one.

Simple solution.  Remove the phone.

Phones don't scam people.   People scam people.   Why on earth we facilitate them with the technology to do it I can't understand.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why we need this technology?   Or why phones don't come with a default bar on them which can be reversed,  possibily by ringing your phone company and confirming that you are  over 18.

In order to set up the ability to receive Faxes on my mobile I had to ring Vodafone.

-Rd


----------



## tonka (30 Jun 2005)

I am not being _emotive_ when I describe PR txt suppliers who chargeback at will while ignoring stop txts thereby committing larceny on a large scale,  as *SCUM* . Far from it me dears . 

Thats because I know some of these PR operators _personally_ and I even know where they have their racks in Tele City Docklands


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Jun 2005)

*RegTel speaks...*




> Dear Mr XXXXXXXX,
> 
> I refer to your email of 26th June 2005.
> 
> ...


"Angry of Limerick" replies: 


> Dear Ms YYYYYYYY,
> 
> Many thanks for your detailed reply. With regard to the immediate problem described in my e-mail of the 26th, I'm glad to report that Jamba's Berlin offices replied to me almost immediately the following morning, confirming the cancellation, promising a full refund within 20 days and asking me not to contact their customer services again in the meantime. I assume that this written undertaking will be honoured, so that there should in principle be no need to forward my complaint to Ringtoneking's offices (wherever they are) - but please do feel at liberty to do so. As you'll have seen, my original complaint was e-mailed in the first instance to info@ringtoneking.ie and info@jamster.ie, so I would imagine that they must already be aware of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Moneypit (30 Jun 2005)

I've only read through all the previous replies to this very quickly but my hubby got 'stung' by Jamster a few months ago too.  One night, had a tipple too many and thought it might be funny to get the most freeking annoying frog tune on his phone, so he texted the number to get it.  Two things:- a) the tune never actually arrived and b) he started to notice his phone bills getting higher.  Further investigation into it showed that they were charging him for all the annoying text messages which we assumed were just spam and deleted as soon as they arrived, every Sunday morning he would turn on his phone and receive 3 texts from them in a row all of which he promptly deleted.  What we didn't understand or know was he had signed up the Jamster club which if you look very closely at the TV screen it does say it but by no means it is clear.  I rang Jamster to complain and I have to say there were very quick to send a full refund (in cash via normal post strangely enough).  I also wrote a letter of complaint to Regtel, was quite disappointed and surprised by their very unsympathetic letter, they even referred to the fact that joining the Jamster club wasn't that expensive and good value!!!


----------



## daltonr (30 Jun 2005)

> was quite disappointed and surprised by their very unsympathetic letter, they even referred to the fact that joining the Jamster club wasn't that expensive and good value!!!



I got a sense of approval from the RegTel mail posted above.   Offering to send the complaint to *their contact*, etc.    Sounds kind of like IFSRA defending PTSB lying about having the highest interest rates.    It took quite a bit of shoving from Clubman before they reluctantly relented and accepted that PTSB was lying.

What is it with these bodies that supposedly regulate industries to defend consumers?
They become the best advocate for the worst practices.

-Rd


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Jun 2005)

My own sense of all this is that 'these bodies that supposedly regulate industries to defend consumers' in fact serve to perpetuate/enhance the profit margins of the companies operating within or on the edges of said industries.

RegTel - who have been around since 1995 - state on their website that they are funded from an unspecified 'levy' applied on the Irish mobile network operators (the most profitable in the EU, remember?)

So whose interests would you expect them to serve...?

Something stinks, IMHO...


----------



## avantarklu (1 Jul 2005)

The only phone kids should have

[broken link removed]


----------



## SineWave (1 Jul 2005)

Brilliant!!!  Is there one for single or same-sex parent families?


----------



## tonka (1 Jul 2005)

I dont want to wreck your head but it is Comreg who regulate the number ranges that are open by defualt on a mobile network. Regtel deals with what happens when you get through to them . If Comreg mandated they be closed by default and operned on request (or on production of ID) then the mobile networks licenced by Comreg would generally so do ...after a moan and whinge. 

"What is it with these bodies that supposedly regulate industries to defend consumers?
They become the best advocate for the worst practices."

Yes, Galbraith observed that they ALWAYS become part of the industy they are supposed to regulate and lose the detachment that they should have. This prediction was made about  1955 in the book The Great Crash but the profusion of regulators set up in Ireland in the past 15 years or so are true to his prediction  . In 50 years they have learnt nothing and care less. 

Comreg are a dreadful bunch of tossers . They will try and try again to kick this out to Regtel before they accept any responsibility at their end. 

In a nutshell.

1. It is Regtels fault that the stop mechanism is not enforced and that the advertising is aimed at children and is misleading. Content based policing has failed . 

2. it is Comreg' fault that 57 and 58 and 59 Premium Number ranges are open to all by default , thereby facilitating fraud against the consumer. Access based policing has failed.


----------



## Humpback (1 Jul 2005)

tonka said:
			
		

> 2. it is Comreg' fault that 57 and 58 and 59 Premium Number ranges are open to all by default , thereby facilitating fraud against the consumer. Access based policing has failed.


 
Are you suggesting that in a free and open society that we all be unconditionally banned from using a particular service (premium rate calls/messages) on our mobile phones?

Is this not a bad way to proceed? As I mentioned earlier, would such a course of action not be meekly facilitating the onset of the "nanny state"?


----------



## tonka (1 Jul 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that in a free and open society that we all be unconditionally banned from using a particular service (premium rate calls/messages) on our mobile phones?
> 
> Is this not a bad way to proceed? As I mentioned earlier, would such a course of action not be meekly facilitating the onset of the "nanny state"?



In a free and open society the unwary is protected from scams and fraud . 

In a free and open society we have some protection from usury, otherwise we are free to go into bonded labour because the human can be used to discharge a debt ...or their children can go for them. 

In a free and open society we regulate moneylending !!!!!!

In a free and open society we are entitled to make rational decisions, buying a single ringtone because you want to is rational , the automatic chargeback authorisation is not. 

In  free and open society we band, inter alia, Dutch Auctions , Three Card Tricks, Betting Shops for the under 18 . Should we say This post will be deleted if not edited immediately it and open the lot up again, let them prey on the weak and the stupid and be a bit Darwinian about the whole thing . 

I say no, dunno about you mate


----------



## DrMoriarty (2 Jul 2005)

*Re: 'free and open society'?*

Sorry, ronan_d_john, but I've just lost patience with your 'logic' altogether...

Tonka's right, 'colourful language' or nay. These guys are scumbags of the highest order, and the various cartels and quangos that facilitate/perpetuate their schemes are little better. You'd want to see-to-believe the poxy, mealy-mouthed, 'cover-my-ass' letter I got from the ASAI - through the snail-mail, why I don't know... - last Friday. I couldn't even be bothered posting its contents here...


----------



## daltonr (4 Jul 2005)

DrMorirty,
No need to post that letter.   ASAI send them out to anyone who wants them.
Just write to ASAI on any topic and you can have your very own poxy, mealy-mouthed, 'cover-my-ass' letter.

ronan,  nobody sugested that you should be banned from accessing premium rate services.   Just that they shoudn't be enabled by default.   There should be a minimal hurdle such as calling the phone company to enable the services.

-Rd


----------

