MASSIVE BT Bill

Rex_Mundi

GeoThermal wrote:

There is no regulation of rogue dialers, viruses, trojans etc. The people that create them are not ethical businesses and do not conform to rules and regulations. There might be more being done to detect them with software or to catch the writers but that is a different thing entirely.

But there is very strict regulation concerning the use of premium rate numbers. The problem got so bad a while back that the regulator icstis requires that anyone who wants to apply for one of these numbers has to be licensed by them. No phone company is allowed to issue these numbers now without a license first from the regulator.

GeoThermal

That will help a lot with premium rate numbers. I wonder though about international numbers? It would be interesting to know what number was being dialed by the OP's in-law's PC.

MDUK

There is an interesting article here about this. There is a solicitor in Manchester getting a group of people together to make a case against BT. I think they will struggle, as this was not CAUSED by BT.

I have had a couple of embarassing situations, some friends got a high bill, i suggested it might be a rogue dialler and they asked me to have a look. it was, hubby had been surfing !!!!!!. Then my sister in law asked me to have a look at theirs as it was playing up, it had 6 diallers on it (the history cache explained where they had been picked up- hubby again) the only reason they didnt get stung was they could only use the pc with an extension lead as there wasn't a socket in the room, so it wasn't permanently plugged in. In both cases i told the husbands (out of earshot of their wives) how they had picked them up. It is a bit embarrassing, so if anyone asks me about their PC again - ill say i know nothing about them.

Anyone still on BT should ring them and ask them to block all premium rates as a MINIMUM step (money saving suggestion, while you are tell them you want to 'opt in' for the new friends and family scheme that automatically works out which numbers will save you the most money, rather than nominating numbers on the current scheme)

GeoThermal

Thankfully my only experience of them is a friend who got one through his kids downloading from a free games site. Thankfully his phone bill "only" got to about £60 before he noticed. I guess as more people change to braodband it will become even less of an issue.

seaniboy

bt software is crap, I could not use it with Telewest although it installed automatically with my BT yahoo internet software, also on a BT line will it not recognise cps short codes and automatically refused to connect me via 1899

gregg1

intel wrote:

Well you can hardly blame BT they are just a company who are in the business
of making money, its down to the PC user to wise up and stop blaming everyone else
as rogue dialers have now an acceptance button nowadays, a while back they used to install no matter what, but not theese days you have to click Yes.

Its been on TV Radio and Internet and Newspapers, if people dont educate
themselves about theses issues they shouldnt be on the net.

Or at least seek advice at a college night school course or read up.

People spouting patronising garbage like this make me want to throw up - you have no idea what you are talking about!

We too were victims of this sort of scam in 2004 (£250). Being unable to have broadband installed because of our rural location we went for midband. Specifically asked BT whether it would be secure (we DID have a firewall and virus checker and - they still got through). BT thoroughly misled us - but after all, as you say BT are out to make money (even at the expense of the innocent). That does not make it right. We are thoroughly IT literate so that was not the problem either.

The problem was that BT knew about these scams a full 12 - 18 months before it happened to us but they were making so much money off the back of it that they failed to inform people of the danger or to put a block on the numbers involved (ICSTIS has a list of the numbers - so this begs the question, why was a block not put on them?). At the time it happened to us we had certainly not seen anything in the press about it (and yes, we do read the papers daily (and not The Sun!). We told BT not to pay the scammer the £240. We informed BT that if they decided to go ahead and pay the bill to the third party then it should be their loss and not ours. They refused - what a surprise, could it be anything to do with the fact that they would loose their cut. I totally agree with the journalist who alleged money laundering. When you look at ALL the facts CAREFULLY it is outrageous that BT have managed to wriggle out of this situation. And before anyone has a go at me for making sure of my facts, I have been in discussions with my MP, and the Chairman of BT along with ISCTIS over this so am fully aware of the facts.

It was only when the case was highlighted that BT were shamed into handing over their cut to a charity.

We got our bill frozen after almost 18 months of fighting. BT make enough profit (millions) in the ordinary course of their business dealings. This was not business - this was GREED. Whats more, BT went out of their way from the beginning to be as unhelpful and difficult as they could with us. They should have been looking after and helping their customers - on the contrary, some may even suggest they were actually lending a hand to rip them off!

redux

gregg1 wrote:

People spouting patronising garbage like this make me want to throw up - you have no idea what you are talking about!

You'd do well yourself not to slag off others quite as much, as there is more to it that you don't know about either.

BT did block premium rate numbers a while back, but had to cease doing so after legal action from some of the provider companies - presumably about restraint of trade.

Like it or not, there are people who want to use these premium rate numbers for whatever use, and BT are hardly able to decide who they might be. As far as I'm aware, the dialler installs by consent or at least a positive action, even if the user did not appreciate the terms.

However, despite being forced to re-allow such access, they do make available advice about the subject.

So your allegations that BT are actively promoting these schemes, and possibly involved in money-laundering, may be found by BT to be defamatory. And you haven't stated some of these facts, despite claiming to be aware of everything

mrJ_5

gregg1 wrote:

We too were victims of this sort of scam in 2004 (£250). Being unable to have broadband installed because of our rural location we went for midband. Specifically asked BT whether it would be secure (we DID have a firewall and virus checker and - they still got through). BT thoroughly misled us - but after all, as you say BT are out to make money (even at the expense of the innocent). That does not make it right. We are thoroughly IT literate so that was not the problem either

The connection itself may be secure - via your firewall/anti virus - but rouge dialers don't nessisarily get onto your system this way. A website could be designed to install this dialer in secret, or knowingly - but when you try to access a site

Blackjack_Davy

Unfortunately Firewalls and Anti Virus don't protect against Autodiallers - they usally come under the description of Spyware and you really need some Anti-Spyware software on your PC - AdAware, Spybot S&D and Spyware Blaster will deal with most and they're free.

spankymonkey_2

i agree in some cases what gregg1 said ictis do know about some of these scams way before alot of us do and they do tell the telephone companies. one of the agreements of these dialers is that they should have a cut off limit. which is £20. and i know alot of them do not disconnect at this limit as it happened to me and tried to dial again 3 times in the space of 1 hour...but these scammers move away before they get summonsed and set up again reaping in their rewards, and we all lose out because bt and ictis (and any other provider) is letting them. the people who scammed me had moved away and changed name by the time they had been fined so didnt get the summons and i didnt get my money back, even though they were in the wrong!