NEWS ICSTIS, the body that regulates premium-rate phone services in the UK, is clamping down on criminals targeting dial-up internet users.
The regulator announced on Thursday that telecoms companies such as BT will no longer be allowed to pass on call revenues to premium-rate service operators until at least 30 days after the call was made.
At present, telecoms companies will typically share revenues with premium rate operators within a couple of days. The new ruling will come into force on 15 September.
Rogue diallers are pieces of software that a user unknowingly downloads on to their computer. If the PC has modem connected to the internet then the dialler can secretly reroute this connection via a premium-rate telephone number.
Complaints about rogue diallers soared just over a year ago, with dial-up users facing unexpected phone charges of hundreds of pounds. Victims of rogue diallers are often not aware they have been scammed until their next phone bill, which could be up to three months after a suspect call has been made.
ICSTIS says the 30-day waiting period will protect consumers, and make it much harder for criminals to operate rogue-dialler scams.
An ICSTIS spokesman said: "Some people were getting a premium rate number on the Friday, defrauding people on Saturday and Sunday, and then the telephone company would hand over the money to them on Monday. That will no longer be able to happen."
ICSTIS now has the power to order a telecoms company to freeze revenues while a particular premium-rate line is investigated, rather than passing it on.
Graeme Wearden writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
How can waiting 30 days to pay out help consumers when they get a BT bill every 90 days? If ICSTIS really wanted to stamp it out, they would make the payouts match the billing cycles.
2. anonymous
The rogue firms will at least by then have had to pay BT for the service.
Plus - cash flow. A couple of days, to a month is a big change in cash flow, making it much less of an immediate money-spinner.
Though this is such a common problem, I'm surprised MS hasn't put a dialling-prefix "block-list" into the dialup API.
3. Nick Cole
What about the 3 months between bills? How is a consumer supposed to know until he gets his (or her) itemised bill?
It needs to be 4 months to allow time for the bills to be sent out, checked and investigated.
4. James Button
Better idea would have been to ALSO make the 'providers', or customer billers such as BT have to absorb the costs of any illicitly generated, or caused 'billed items'
I.E. If the customer shouldn't pay, then the provider won't get the money, and if the provider wants to pay somebody else before they collect the cash from a customer - then that's their loss.
There is still the scam to deal with where prepay customers are charged for unwanted txt's sent to them.
Perhaps a 'double the cost' refund would stop that practice, maybe it would even stop most of these scam's