Appalled at Vodacom for being billed for services I have no knowlegde of

[lilDeath]

I often wonder why I bother trying to engage in level-headed debate....

Maybe you will stop wondering when clients actually get satisfactory service, results and answers

Of course then no debate will be required either

 

[vodacom3g]

Well done for sorting it out. If Metoman's daughter was a minor at the time I am not sure it was "legitimate". If it was technically legit, it was in any event slimy. Is any effort ever made to ask the potential subscriber whether they are over 18? I thought not!

From her on-line registration form:

----------------
Gender: F
Age: 30
----------------

 

[adsl3g]

I'd love to be able to blacklist all these please call me's that I get sent too. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not going to.

Bwana, you can block Please call mes if you are on vodacom - don't know about the other providers. i did it a while ago but cannot remeber the USSD commands - I'll scratch around and see if I can get them - I think I did post it here.

 

[Peter_J]

The answer is to stop on-line purchasing and go back to producing proof (ID, etc.) by voice, fax or mail before we're allowed to purchase anything.

Online purchasing via the net is normally by an active bank deposit or by credit card. The latter method has vast amounts of consumer protection as one would know if you have ever had a legitimate dispute. The former requires normally the protection of your online banking procedures. So you do not have to revert to fax and mail - that is a huge exaggeration. The cell providers offer nothing like the consumer protection of Visa or Mastercard - in fact they try to get out of the loop when a devious "content provider" starts raping your cell contract. They are simply pathetic and IMHO the whole business model of these WASP types or whatever they call themselves should be outlawed. How the hell can you take real money on the basis of an unverified SMS?

 

[bwana]

Bwana, you can block Please call mes if you are on vodacom - don't know about the other providers. i did it a while ago but cannot remeber the USSD commands - I'll scratch around and see if I can get them - I think I did post it here.

That would be awesome if you could hook me up with those commands!

EDIT - found it

You can turn those 'please call me's' off - I did it a while back cause I kept on getting them from an ******* who had the wrong number - damn can't remember how to do it....

EDIT: Dial *140# from your cellphone

Now that thats been sorted how about the ability to block smses from specific senders? Having been a recipient of smses that bordered on harassment it would have been appreciated. It is my phone and I would like to be able to decide who I receive smses from.

 

[pip]

From her on-line registration form:

----------------
Gender: F
Age: 30
----------------

OK. But the ringtone purveyors don't ask my daughter her age!

 

[lilDeath]

Well done for sorting it out. If Metoman's daughter was a minor at the time I am not sure it was "legitimate". If it was technically legit, it was in any event slimy. Is any effort ever made to ask the potential subscriber whether they are over 18? I thought not!

They rely and prey on the naive / gullible / uneducated / desperate people in order to make a quick buck.

People will believe anything, if you make it believable enough.

 

[pip]

How the hell can you take real money on the basis of an unverified SMS?

Yes - they don't know who is using the handset. It is a bit like if online banking verified identity via IP or MAC address! Cr@p I reckon!

 

[adsl3g]

OK. But the ringtone purveyors don't ask my daughter her age!

That's where the parents come in.... - if you give her a contract phone - so be it!!! You responsible.
On this point - do they accept sign ups from pre-paid phones - no record of the owner and if there is money owing to them then what.

 

[vodacom3g]

Online purchasing via the net is normally by an active bank deposit or by credit card. The latter method has vast amounts of consumer protection as one would know if you have ever had a legitimate dispute. The former requires normally the protection of your online banking procedures. So you do not have to revert to fax and mail - that is a huge exaggeration. The cell providers offer nothing like the consumer protection of Visa or Mastercard - in fact they try to get out of the loop when a devious "content provider" starts raping your cell contract. They are simply pathetic and IMHO the whole business model of these WASP types or whatever they call themselves should be outlawed. How the hell can you take real money on the basis of an unverified SMS?

Don't disagree with you. There are 2 issues here:

1) How you pay for the service.
2) Do you understand what you're buying.

Paying can be done either by some strong verification, and I don't include Credit Cards in this. If my daughter can get hold of my phone to subscribe, she can probably get my credit card details as well. It's still an 'anonymous' transaction.

I just bought some software for my K-Jam a few minutes ago. Typed in my CC details and got my serial number. How did the trader / bank know it was me? They don't and the only way I can get my money back, is to prove I reported the card lost before this transaction.

So on-line purchasing is always going to be a mine-field.

The important issue is that the trader should make it VERY clear what you're buying, so you can be sure.

But with a lot of people it's always going to be an uphill battle.....

 

[vodacom3g]

However I do think that the various network operators should provide customers with password protected blocking controls to prevent unwanted WASP subscriptions etc, e.g. on vodacom4me.co.za Vodacom could have several blocking and blacklisting settings to prevent specific or all WASP subscriptions for both post-paid and pre-paid.

There is an international effort on the go to put a global mobile SPAM management system in place. If it's not subscribed to by all operators it's bound to fail.

However, I believe the answer is to blacklist on the handset, poetic justise in a spammer paying for a message you never see!

 

[bwana]

However, I believe the answer is to blacklist on the handset, poetic justise in a spammer paying for a message you never see!

What about the operator allowing that facility via their website?

 

[pip]

I just bought some software for my K-Jam a few minutes ago. Typed in my CC details and got my serial number. How did the trader / bank know it was me? They don't and the only way I can get my money back, is to prove I reported the card lost before this transaction.

So on-line purchasing is always going to be a mine-field.

You are simply not correct here. If someone else had fraudulently used your CC to buy that software, it is just a matter of disputing it with your Visa/Mastercard supplier/bank. You do NOT have to report the card stolen at all. The banks are very good about sorting this kind of fraudulent transaction out in my experience.

 

[Peter_J]

Excuse me for being anal here, but I find the term "cell providers" confusing, are you referring to the cellular retail service providers that do the actual customer billing for post-paid [contracts] based on raw usage received from the relevant cellular network operator?, or are you referring to the cellular network operators [Vodacom & MTN & CellC]?

Whichever of them is the institution that takes the money from your account/contract and pays it over to the WASP.

IMO anyone that allows someone else to use their cell phone, and ends up paying for the consequences, is barking up the wrong tree when acusing the network operator of wrong-doing.

I don't accept that in the slightest. Many parents buy phones for their kids, effectively "allowing" someone else to use the phone. The network operator has the right to charge your account, but does not have the recourse mechanisms available through e.g: the credit card system. In fact they don't want to get involved, even though they transacted your money on your behalf. Their wrong-doing, as you put it, is in not having such mechanisms. Or if they do, they are so bad-mannered about it that you have to hold on for 45 minutes before talking to an incompetent.

However I do think that the various network operators should provide customers with password protected blocking controls to prevent unwanted WASP subscriptions etc, e.g. on vodacom4me.co.za Vodacom could have several blocking and blacklisting settings to prevent specific or all WASP subscriptions for both post-paid and pre-paid.

This is an excellent idea!

 

[vodacom3g]

You are simply not correct here. If someone else had fraudulently used your CC to buy that software, it is just a matter of disputing it with your Visa/Mastercard supplier/bank. You do NOT have to report the card stolen at all. The banks are very good about sorting this kind of fraudulent transaction out in my experience.

Probably need to move over to a banking forum , but my understanding is if a person quote the 3 digit number on the back of the card (the security code), the transaction is legit.

 

[pip]

Whichever of them is the institution that takes the money from your account/contract and pays it over to the WASP.

Yes - they are paying over your money on your behalf, acting like a bank, without any of the masses of laws and regulations that govern banks in order to protect the consumer. It is only the generally smaller nature of the transactions that allows them to fly under the regulatory radar. IMHO a harmful business practice.

 

[pip]

Probably need to move over to a banking forum , but my understanding is if a person quote the 3 digit number on the back of the card (the security code), the transaction is legit.

I have called my banks's CC dept to ask - they say you can still dispute any transaction, whether the 3-digit CVV number was quoted or not.

 

[JBFRobisher]

Yes - they don't know who is using the handset. It is a bit like if online banking verified identity via IP or MAC address! Cr@p I reckon!

The person who started this thread demonstrates this perfectly. The phone in question is owned by a male ( presumably from his name ), yet the networks allow a female ( from the quoted registration ) to enter into a contract that costs the owner money, purely on the basis of the number rather than identification. No verification of the contract by the owner at all. This sort of contract should not be allowed.

 

[pip]

The person who started this thread demonstrates this perfectly. The phone in question is owned by a male ( presumably from his name ), yet the networks allow a female ( from the quoted registration ) to enter into a contract that costs the owner money, purely on the basis of the number rather than identification. No verification of the contract by the owner at all. This sort of contract should not be allowed.

Yes!! Like your missus taking your credit card and feeding it into an autoteller which requires no PIN number! Eish!

 

[bwana]

I have called my banks's CC dept to ask - they say you can still dispute any transaction, whether the 3-digit CVV number was quoted or not.

I would expect that to be the case. If your card can be cloned in seconds I dont think it is beyond reason that they could memorise your 3 digit number while handing back your card.