SMS Scam ( 22 ): Is MCMC confused, or is Maxis confusing?

By Jeff Ooi Sep 18, 2007 12:00AM UTC

UPDATED VERSION. Yesterday, Maxis Communications Bhd (Maxis) made a PR announcement, picked up by Bernama Business, that it has rolled out its anti-spam platform — installed and operational in July 2007 — ahead of the September 30 deadline by the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry..

Maxis chief operating officer Jon Eddy Abdullah was quoted as saying that the platform was designed to block unsolicited short messaging services (SMS) — such as spam and spoof SMS — from reaching the operator’s postpaid and prepaid customer base.

“Since July 2007, the anti-spam platform, which works as a firewall, has eliminated over 1.2 million intrusive SMS from reaching customers,” Maxis said, effectively re-affirming that unsolicited SMS had been a piece of truth.

Is this the silver-bullet preventive solution from the celcos to battle the rampant spoofing of MOs (as if they are genuine from the unassuming mobile users) via international SMS gateway employed by its external content providers out to fleece the consumers?

A high-ranking Little Bird from MCMC, when alerted to the Bernama story, advised that ( A ) the preventive system and ( 2 ) the anti-spoof/spam mechanism are two different things altogether. Quote:

One is a platform to ensure automatic compliance to the Guideline for Mobile Content Service.

This is the one called Maxis Preventive Gateway (MPG). This is to be completed by end September 2007.

Anti spam/spoof is implemented at the international gateway, specifically to address spam and spoof.

It is to be highlighted that, last week, Maxis circulated a premeditated letter to its ECPs, asking them to “voluntarily” acknowledge that they (the ECPs) have “successfully migrated to Maxis Preventive Gateway (MPG)”. Fearing for being blacklisted for non-compliance, some ECPs voiced that they would sign the acknowledgment letter under duress. (Read this September 14 blog entry for context.)

So, which is which that Maxis and MCMC are talking about now?

Yesterday, Screenshots contacted several content providers asking them to read the Maxis PR on Bernama, and to give a YES or NO answer, as to whether Maxis has found the silver bullet to kill SMS Scams rampaging its network — and continue to fleece mobile users — once and for all.

All of them are skeptical. One said: “Either MCMC is confused, or Maxis is confusing it.”

We will come back to this angle, later in this blog entry.

Matrix CEO responds; Case escalated to MCMC

Meanwhile, Ati El Bakush, CEO of Matrix Internet & Wireless Sdn Bhd, has responded to the latest case of SMS Scam by contacting this blogger via email.

It’s pertaining to a Maxis017 supplementary line, used by a Form 1 student, bombarded with horoscope alert subscription via shortcode 32321 throughout August-September — that is AFTER Maxis claimed that its preventive platform has been installed and operational since July.

Read more here - http://asiancorrespondent.com/5718/sms-scam-22-is-mcmc-confused-or-is-maxis-confusing/

Mail story a test of governance at MCMC

By Jeff Ooi Jun 25, 2007 12:00AM UTC

Li/Jonathan Wong, a Maxis postpaid user, was scammed 210 times over 17 days in April/May via short code 32355 owned by a triple non-compliance offender identified by MCMC, and a total of RM270.00 was skimmed in the stealth process.

According to Weekend Mail, the victim contacted the content provider and ordered it to stop delivering the unsolicited SMS content to her supplementary line. However, similar charges were made in her May/June itemised bill, amounting to RM77.00.

In a situation where the mobile user has contacted the content provider and ordered it to stop and yet the consumer’s demand was not fulfilled, based on precedent actions taken by MCMC, this is classified as (request of service) Termination not Processed.

It is a serious, punishable offence under the industry Guideline implemented since July 2006.

Most importantly, the content provider should adhere to provisions in Clause 10.4 under Customer Service, which stipulates that:

Content Providers shall attend to complaints reported, whichever mode the complaints is (sic) received, without delay and to provide a satisfactory explanation to the complaints within reasonable timeframe depending on the level of complexity involved in resolving the complaints.

In Li/Jonathan Wong’s case, the victim received no reply to her inquiry and continued to be charged after a demand to stop the unsolicited SMS had been made.

Going by records, MCMC has invoked the same Guideline to act on a one-time offender,UnrealMind Interactive Berhad, which was faulted for Termination not Processed, among other things.

The case was escalated to effect a FIR (Further Investigation Report) and ultimately, Unrealmind was made to cough out multi-million ringgit refund to the mobile users via the three Celcos.

The action was taken during the reign of the same MCMC Chairman, Dr Halim Shafie. With his express consent and approval, the same industry Guideline was invoked to punish a non-compliant content provider, and the industry noticed it

THE CONTEXT. In Li/Jonathan Wong’s case, a triple non-compliance offender has been implicated in yet another fault breaching the maximum threshold allowable under the same Guideline that was used to punish a one-time offender, Unrealmind.

So here we go.

It matters not whether the COO of any rogue content provider comes knocking on the regulator’s doors early this morning, or on any Monday morning, just to plead ignorance and innocence.

However, it matters most that the acid test for consistent, defensible governance is Mr MCMC‘s ball that’s sitting right there in his court. He has to pick it up and play till game over.

POST-SCRIPT. The NCCC is currently running a campaign to collate more evidence of unsolicited SMS. It can be contacted at Tel: 03-78779000 or 78748096 or fax: 03-78748097.

Consumers can also lodge complaints, with their itemised bills, via email atnccc@nccc.org.my.

NCCC also provides e-aduan forms available at its website: www.nccc.org.my.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Regulator should take action on telcos that fail to deliver

01 November 2012

IT looks like with a mobile telephone penetration rate of 133.3 per cent per 100 inhabitants, the telco industry is expected to further grow and expand.

According to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, a 133.3 per cent penetration rate equals to almost 38.5 million mobile phone subscribers in the country.

The question is while the telcos are raking in profits are the consumers getting a fair deal?

After years of ineffective regulation, it looks like MCMC has finally woken up to its role and has expressed, at least publicly, that it would act sternly against service providers who have been taking consumers for a ride.

In the past MCMC was a weak and ineffective regulator; hopefully that will change. The statement by the new chairman gives us hope.

Complaints received by the National Consumer Complaints Centre against the telecommunications sector involving hand phones, Internet and satellite television increased from 1,297 in 2006 to 8,181 last year; an increase of 530 per cent in just 5 years.

What is shocking is that the complaints are almost similar over the five years.

This means that the service providers continued to offer shoddy products and weak service.

Service providers focused on increasing their consumer bases, never to provide quality service. They sold confusing plans and did not deliver on their promises.

Coverage is often low and consumers are subject to long periods of network instability resulting in no lines or "dropped" lines, where the call just gets cut-off and the consumer has to make the call again, often several times.

For Internet providers, the quality of the installation is so poor that often after NCCC makes the complaint, the installation unit is replaced.

Consumers keep getting unsolicited messages; where do businesses get consumers' telephone numbers? This raises the question of personal data security.

In many instances, there are billing disputes, in which charges are unexplained and unreasonable. Charges must be transparent and with the consent of the purchaser, and not arbitrarily billed.

In most of the companies additionally, the customer service quality is extremely unsatisfactory. Promises made by the call centre are not followed through.

These consumer grouses have been going on for too long.

With greed for profits, the companies have expanded their consumer base without regard to their ability to provide even the most basic service.

The Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations looks forward to MCMC taking on a more proactive role.

It should have a minimum quality level that service providers must comply with, or there would be consequences.