Vodacom stops 'illegal' competition

Kosmik : Actually that is incorrect.

They take the cost of the sms (what you normally pay for a standard sms) and then a percentage of the rest as admin fees, and the percentage varies depending on the cost of the Premium rated sms. (or at least thats the way it is with VC)
 
A little fact that some people might not be aware of is that what ever the service ( competition , downloads etc ) where a cellphone number is used as a billing service, the cellular provider takes 30% of the transaction irrespective.

For eg: the Nelson Mandela charity fund that was a sms service a while ago ? 30% went to the cellular providers.

Of course with the Vodacom competition this point is moot as they are a cellular provider but I thought I'd bring it up.

Your close but not quite right ;)

The network makes their normal sms rate, the WASPA is the people ranking in the cash :)
 
Your close but not quite right ;)

The network makes their normal sms rate, the WASPA is the people ranking in the cash :)
True, and in this case the 100 BMW promo is not run by a WASPA member, but by Vodacom itself and they are not members.
 
Last edited:
Kosmik : Actually that is incorrect.

They take the cost of the sms (what you normally pay for a standard sms) and then a percentage of the rest as admin fees, and the percentage varies depending on the cost of the Premium rated sms. (or at least thats the way it is with VC)


Recently my company was involved with another that assisted in the online billing etc. Part of the cost breakdown was the basic cost of the sms but the providers take a very large percentage, for as you say admin fees. When all was said and done we found that about 30% of a transaction was taken. An extra 5% for other arbitrary costs but those had nothing to do with the cellular providers. I'll admit this was not a straight value added service transaction but we were informed that it was part and parcel of doing business with the cellular providers.

*EDIT* If anyone can give me some information on a way to cut out that cost, it would help a lot as 35% is quite a wack for any business venture before a profit can even be made. I'm just passing on my experience so guys don't take offense.
 
Last edited:
The 100 BMW promo is not run by a WASPA member, but by Vodacom itself and they are not members.

No skeptic, you're reading it wrong. I was responding to a comment made about the Subscription sms and so forth. Read the guys post befor the one I quoted
 
Recently my company was involved with another that assisted in the online billing etc. Part of the cost breakdown was the basic cost of the sms but the providers take a very large percentage, for as you say admin fees. When all was said and done we found that about 30% of a transaction was taken. An extra 5% for other arbitrary costs but those had nothing to do with the cellular providers. I'll admit this was not a straight value added service transaction but we were informed that it was part and parcel of doing business with the cellular providers.

*EDIT* If anyone can give me some information on a way to cut out that cost, it would help a lot as 35% is quite a wack for any business venture before a profit can even be made. I'm just passing on my experience so guys don't take offense.

Go to WASPA directly ?
 
I'm with you. It has taken ages to train the kids not to sms those numbers and to understand that the tiny illegible crap on the TV ad that vaguely looks like "subscription" something before the picture changes is just a license to rape their limited cell accounts.
No, wrong analogy, "rape" is done against a person's will. Here, nobody has been forced to do anything, and there are no victims. As much as I hate all that 3xxxx number nonsense, the freedom (people died for etc.) means people have the right to sell stupid junk and to buy stupid junk. The idea of calling for laws to quelch other peoples rights is disgusting and immoral. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but you have no right to impose on others what to spend their money on when it doesn't harm you. There must be a lot of people who DO want that junk or it wouldn't sell. At best I can agree that the text advertising the costs and conditions should be larger, but that's the limit. Nobody is being "raped", how ridiculous.

This sounds to me like the Lottery just being pissed at having some competition for gambling services for a change. Much as you and I might not like it, others should have a right to gamble their own money - IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS to tell others how to spend their money - and Vodacom should have a right to operate gambling services if they so wish and if the customers want it --- I mean, the logical extension of banning gambling is that individuals would not even be allowed to have a game of poker in their own game. I don't want some nanny state looking over everyone's shoulders and coddling us. If it was illegal, I think the law is unethical - how can they rightfully force people to not be allowed to gamble? Or how can they rightfully argue, effectively, that only the state can provide or "license" gambling services? That sort of crap is what oppressive fascist governments like the old apartheid government did.

Sheez, I can't believe how many people are calling for the bad old days to come back and actively openly calling for their own rights and freedoms to be destroyed, when are people going to "get" the concept of freedom. If you people think the country would be "better" if government took away more of your rights then you deserve whatever government you get. "Ooh something I don't like, let's legislate it away". Somebody smarter would realise that a lot of people have way too much disposable income, and offer something better for them to spend it on.
 
Last edited:
No, wrong analogy, "rape" is done against a person's will. Here, nobody has been forced to do anything, and there are no victims. As much as I hate all that 3xxxx number nonsense, the freedom (people died for etc.) means people have the right to sell stupid junk and to buy stupid junk. The idea of calling for laws to quelch other peoples rights is disgusting and immoral. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but you have no right to impose on others what to spend their money on when it doesn't harm you. There must be a lot of people who DO want that junk or it wouldn't sell. At best I can agree that the text advertising the costs and conditions should be larger, but that's the limit. Nobody is being "raped", how ridiculous.

My my, this seems to have got your goose!

Now, let's see. The purveyors of this cell-junk are fully aware that many of those under 18, thus legally prohibited from entering into a contract without the approval of their guardian, possess cell-phones and that these cell-phones contain money ( in one form or another ). Legally the phone belongs to the guardian normally, so legally there is no "issue" with their cell-junk "contract". But, of course, we all know that the guardians and parents are not in any kind of position to completely police their kids' phones, so this opens up the opportunity to steal candy from babes, as it were, and ain't that candy SWEET.

So we obtain some complete trash, doll it up, get some sucker ad agency to create a TV commercial that DELIBERATELY states the "subscription" nonsense in tiny letters so as to be virtually illegible, and make sure that this legalese is flighted for the shortest possible time - so short that Superman's x-ray eyes would struggle to read it. Then we punt our trash day-in and day-out, and steal the money from the children, leaving their parents with very little recourse. We also make it difficult for anyone wishing to object by hiding any bricks-and-mortar business office, and join the industry association that we have set up to protect ourselves while claiming legitimacy.

You're right - it is not "rape" - it is "statutory rape". This slimeball "industry" should be banned, along with kubus kulture.
:eek::eek:
 
My my, this seems to have got your goose!

Now, let's see. The purveyors of this cell-junk are fully aware that many of those under 18, thus legally prohibited from entering into a contract without the approval of their guardian, possess cell-phones and that these cell-phones contain money ( in one form or another ). Legally the phone belongs to the guardian normally, so legally there is no "issue" with their cell-junk "contract". But, of course, we all know that the guardians and parents are not in any kind of position to completely police their kids' phones, so this opens up the opportunity to steal candy from babes, as it were, and ain't that candy SWEET.

So we obtain some complete trash, doll it up, get some sucker ad agency to create a TV commercial that DELIBERATELY states the "subscription" nonsense in tiny letters so as to be virtually illegible, and make sure that this legalese is flighted for the shortest possible time - so short that Superman's x-ray eyes would struggle to read it. Then we punt our trash day-in and day-out, and steal the money from the children, leaving their parents with very little recourse. We also make it difficult for anyone wishing to object by hiding any bricks-and-mortar business office, and join the industry association that we have set up to protect ourselves while claiming legitimacy.

You're right - it is not "rape" - it is "statutory rape". This slimeball "industry" should be banned, along with kubus kulture.
:eek::eek:

Excellent post!:D:D:D
 
Tx JBF. My cell company does not allow me to make international calls etc without putting down a deposit. However the same company deducts mponey from my account for something that a 10 year old boy has done. 10 Years old do not have any legal standing.

I have no problem that the services exist, it is however up to those services to ensure that they are dealing with a legal entity, and that there is guardian permission for that person to use the services.

However, I do believe that parents have a recourse. Take your cell company to the small claims court for fraud. They will not be able to come up with any contract that you have signed.
 
http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Letters/0,,2-2127-2129_2274088,00.html

According to Shameel Joosub - Managing Director for Vodacom South Africa:

"Whilst Vodacom remains of the opinion that the '100 cars 100 days' promotional competition is legal, the company took a decision to end the '100 cars 100 days' promotion at midnight 18 February 2008.

As the promotional competition has almost reached the end of its cycle and Vodacom believes that it is in all parties interests to draw the promotion to a close. A final draw [took place] on 19 February 2008 - at which all the remaining BMWs [were] allocated to winners."

Two questions arise from this:-

Is Vodacom being quite honest saying ' they took a decision '? I thought the decision was imposed on them.

If the competition was illegal, was it legal to continue awarding prizes ?
 
If the competition was illegal, was it legal to continue awarding prizes ?

It's VC's way of trying to not have to pay people back. Don't give away 100 cars and suddenly you have to problem where you are not giving out what you advertised. I don't think this story is by any means over yet.
 
Id be really pissed if my R10 entry won me a BM and now because of all the other fools I dont get my BM:(

I think they already have 90 winners that might not get their prize!!
 
Well, here's an example of futile optimism:

I inderstand that the vodacom competition has been suspended. I am really not interested in any *** stories from the samoosa eating whoevers. I want to know when I am getting my bmw? yes that is right the one that you told me of that is within my reach. I spent R15000 because of your lies. If I was the only one who fell for this *** I would have thought that I learned a lesson. But seems to me that everybody I speak to feels the same. Where can we get a lawyer that will sue vodacom on our behalf. Because this story is going to be swept under the rug. Mark my words. There is no ways that anybody in this corrupt country of ours will adhere to the complaints of the man on the street. Yes, Yes vodacom answers every complaint in this site. But read the answers carefully. It is only a standard message to all complaints just to say that vodacom has done their part. Why have we not been contacted yet by vodacom??? Well I suppose the whole top managment is lying very low at present. I WANT MY BMW. I WANT MY BMW. I WANT MY BMW. There is no ways that I am going to leave this. Even if it means that I must get statements from other competitors then I will do so.

http://www.hellopeter.com/the_comment.asp?recid=137184

:D
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X