"Angry of Limerick" replies:Dear Mr XXXXXXXX,
I refer to your email of 26th June 2005.
While children do access Premium Rate SMS Services, they are designed to appeal to a wide audience and are not specifically aimed at children. In accordance with our Code of Practice, Service Providers are required to state in all their promotional material that the service is available to over 16’s only. If a child decides to ignore this warning, there is no way of verifying if the child is over 16yrs of age. In the current review of our Code of Practice, we are contemplating the implementation of a second age verification via text by asking the consumer to confirm their age. In particular, the area relating to subscription services is being strengthened with new monetary limits being imposed for those under 18 years of age.
Part of the advertising requirements is that it must be made clear that "This is a Subscription Service". Other requirements include showing the cost per week / month, the age restriction (in this case 16 years or over), how to get out or "opt-out" of the service and the Service Provider helpline number. The first text message received should also outline the above. To simplify "opting-out" of any subscription service all consumers should have to do is reply to the shortcode number by texting the word STOP. This procedure should automatically disconnect you from the service.
The Regulator of Premium Rate Telecommunications Services is concerned solely with the content and promotion of Premium Rate Services. In relation to your comments concerning the facility to allow parents block Premium Rate Services from their childrens mobile phones, our remit does not extend to the Network Operators. In this regard, it is my understanding that following a consultation process, the three mobile carriers have published a Parental guide to mobile phones, which I believe is available on their websites. Its primary aim is to inform parents of some key safety tips that will encourage responsible use of mobile phones by their children.
Should an under-age child access the Ringtoneking / Jamster service, the policy of the company is to refund consumers without quibble. Therefore, with your permission we would like to forward your complaint to our contact within Ringtoneking to allow them address your concerns and organise a refund directly. If this is acceptable to you, I would appreciate if you could please respond to this email outlining your permission to do so.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
YYYYYYYYY
Complaints Executive
Regtel
3rd Floor
Crescent Hall
Mount Street Crescent
Dublin 2
++353 1 6767025 Tel
++353 1 6767035 Fax
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.
With regard to your comments about advertising and other requirements governing the provision and operation of these services, I would respectfully submit to you that observance of the law is apparently not yet quite as it should be among certain companies operating in Ireland (neither specifically nor exclusively Ringtoneking, Jamster, or their parent company Jamba/iLove GmbH). I refer you in this regard to the following recent discussion thread on the respected personal finance forum Askaboutmoney.com: http://82.195.144.147/showthread.php?t=11784, which you might care to bring to the attention of the Board of RegTel.
I am pleased to hear that RegTel is contemplating the introduction of further protective measures to prevent vulnerable minors from being taken advantage of by dubious marketing methods and obfuscatory 'inertia'-type subscription models, because I'm afraid I can't really accept that the methods and media channels employed 'are not specifically aimed at children'. Why are these ringtone services so copiously advertised in publications (eg. various comics) and on TV channels (eg. Nickleodeon) that quite clearly target an under-age audience?
Furthermore - the mobile network operators have told me that they're powerless to act; I quote:
'O2 has a regulatory obligation to open up access on its network to third party service providers once their service has been authorised by the Regulator for Premium Rate Services (RegTel). Regtel is an independent body whose responsibility it is to regulate the content and promotion of premium rate telecommunication services in Ireland. They authorise all Premium Rate SMS and have the responsibility for ensuring service providers comply with their Code of Practice.'
Comreg, the statutory body responsible for the regulation of the electronic communications sector, have similarly told me that they have no role in relation to Premium Rate Services.
And now RegTel are telling me that their own remit 'does not extend to the Network Operators'..?
I'm no lawyer, but there would seem to be something of a regulatory 'short-circuit' at work here (or 'loop-circuit', or whatever is the appropriate electronic metaphor) and that, for the time being, the Ringtone is indeed King...
Yours sincerely, [etc.]
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!!!
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.
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"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?