Review of rules for mobile premium services

The ACMA is reviewing the effectiveness of rules which protect premium SMS and MMS customers from rogue operators.

The rules being reviewed are within two service provider determinations which came into effect in 2010:

1. the Barring Determination which provides customers the option to bar premium SMS and   MMS and avoid unexpectedly high bills.
2. the Do Not Bill/Do Not Contract Determination which prohibits mobile carriage service providers from contracting content providers not included on an industry register, and gives the ACMA regulatory powers to direct mobile service providers not to bill for a mobile premium service  found to cause significant financial harm to consumers.

To inform the review, the consultation paper Premium messaging services: Review of the Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determinations 2010 (No.1) and (No.2), is available for comment on the following questions:

Questions relating to the Barring Determination:

1. Has barring premium messaging services (at customer’s request) been an effective method for enabling customers to control expenditure on these services?
2. Are the methods for barring premium messaging services that are currently available to customers appropriate and convenient?
3. Is the time frame for ceasing to charge for premium messaging services appropriate?
4. Are the current information requirements, including the frequency of provision, appropriate?
5. Is there any additional information that customers should be made aware of when deciding to bar premium messaging services?
6. Are the current methods for communicating to customers effective?
7. What other methods are available to more effectively communicate this information to customers?

Questions relating to the Do Not Bill/Do Not Contract Determination:

1. Have the Do Not Contract provisions enhanced compliance with the registration requirements of the Mobile Premium Services Code?
2. Is there any evidence that these provisions have resulted in unintended impacts?
3. Have there been any financial costs associated with the implementation of the Do Not Contract provisions?
4. What other measures could be more effective in enhancing compliance with the registration requirements provided under the Mobile Premium Services code?
5. Have the Do Not Bill provisions provided a deterrent to the operation of premium messaging services that cause significant detriment to consumers?
6. Is there any evidence that these provisions have resulted in unintended impacts (financial or otherwise)?
7. Have there been any financial costs associated with the implementation of the Do Not Bill provisions?
8. Are there any other measures that would be more efficient in deterring the operation of premium messaging services that cause significant detriment to consumers or in mitigating the severity of the detriment that may be caused?