Screenshots

I ) CPs cited for single case of non-compliance:

1 ) Radius Ed Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for charged spamming, had a total of seven 3xxxx short codes suspended for about 6 months, from June 21 to Nov 6, 2006. It was also compounded.

2 ) Unrealmind Interactive Berhad, which was faulted for termination not processed, auto-subscription and unclear pricing information, had a total of three 3xxxx short codes suspended for three months, from July 21 to October 21, 2006.

3 ) Malaysian Allied Mobile Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for charged spamming, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for about one month, from June 30 to July 21, 2006.

4 ) MCCM Media Technology Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for termination not processed, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for about four months, from July 24 to November 16, 2006.

5 ) Neurolight Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for termination not processed, registration keyword not used, no pricing information and unclear advertisement, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for about three months, from September 13 to December 6, 2006.

6 ) Ace Serve Anaconda Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for termination not processed, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for two weeks, from September 14 to 27, 2006.

7 ) Parade Nine Techno Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for no reminder prior to renewal, had one 3xxxx short codes suspended since january 10, 2007.

8 ) Rentak Setia Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for spamming, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for one month, from March 7 to April 6, 2007.

9 ) Sealord Technologies Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for charged spamming, had one 3xxxx short code suspended for two weeks, from March 3 to 12, 2007.

10 ) Sybase 365 Asia Sdn Bhd, which was faulted for charged spamming, had a total of twenty-three 3xxxx short codes suspended for three weeks, from March 20 to April 17, 2007.

II )The 5 companies cited twelve repeat non-compliance are:

1 ) T-Force Technology Sdn Bhd (2 cases on non-compliance)

For a case of charged spamming, the company had one 36511 short code suspended for about three months, from July 16 to October 4, 2006.

For another case of termination not processed, the company had the same 36511short code suspended for three months, from December 12, 2006 to March 12, 2007.

2 ) Mobile 365 Sdn Bhd (2 cases of non-compliance)

For a case of termination not processed, the company had the 32120 short code suspended for about seven weeks, from November 3 to December 22, 2006.

For another case of termination not processed, the company had the 32130 short code suspended for about five weeks, from November 16 to December 22, 2006.

3 ) Macro Kiosk Berhad (3 cases of non-compliance)

For a case of termination not processed, the company had the 33380 short code suspended for one month, from July 24 to August 25, 2006.

For another case of termination not processed, the company had the 36116 and 36226 short codes suspended for about two weeks, from August 7 to 22, 2006.

For a third case of termination not processed and wrong pricing information, the company had the 32400 short code suspended since October 31, 2006.

4 ) Nextnation Network Sdn Bhd (3 cases of non-compliance)

For a case of termination not processed, the company had the 32099 short code suspended for about one week, from November 20 to December 8, 2006.

For another case of termination not processed, the company had the same 32099 short code suspended AGAIN for about one week, from December 21 to 27, 2006.

For a third case of termination not processed, the company had the 32966 short code suspended since April 12, 2007.

Interestingly, Nextnation's associate Dubaitech Marketing Sdn Bhd was also cited for two cases of non-compliance in the same fraud list published by MCMC, making a total of cases of non-compliance inflicted by group.

5 ) Dubaitech Marketing Sdn Bhd (2 cases of non-compliance)

For a case of termination not processed and unsanctioned transfer of short code, the company had the 33566 short code suspended for about five weeks, from July 24 to December 1, 2006.

For another case of termination not processed, the company had the 33522 short code suspended for about three weeks, from December 27, 2006 to January 18, 2007.

To illustrate the magnitude of corporate presence in the CPs cited for non-compliance and punished thereof by MCMC, it's worth to take a look at their parent companies:

1. Macro Kiosk Bhd is owned by Goldis Bhd, which is largely known to associate closely to the former Tan & Tan;


2. Nextnation Network Sdn Bhd and Dubaitech Marketing Sdn Bhd are owned by Nextnation Communication Bhd;


3. Mobile 365 and Sybase 265 are interlinked through their American owners


4. Unrealmind Interactive Bhd, recently acquired by UK-based Monstermob Group Plc, which is listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange.

Another MCMC letter to the Celco CEOs

In discussion the issue of non-compliance, we need to understand the benchmark document that spells out the Do's and Don't's that the CPs -- who are ASP licensees registered with MCMC -- must adhere to at all times.

It is also pertinent to note, subsequent to the April 9 letter to the CEOs of the three respective Celcos, informing them of the actions towards resolving the issues of SMS Spoofing and Short Code Masking, MCMC followed up with another letter dated May 8 to alert them on the incidents of non-compliance where their external CPs -- as listed by Screenshots above -- were involved, exposed on the worldwide web, and punished.

In the May 8 letter, a copy of which was obtained by Screenshots, MCMC reiterated to the three CEOs that the 15 CPs were found non-compliant despite the implementation of the Guideline on the Provision of Mobile Content and Services -- essentially a Celco/operator nominated document without a consumer perspective -- since July 1, 2006.

A copy of the Maxis Guideline on the Provision of Mobile Content and Services, released June 9, 2006, can be downloaded here (PDF, 176kb).

In the May 8 letter, the MCMC stated that the non-compliant CPs had had their 3xxxx short codes suspended in accordance to Section 9 of the Guidelines, titled: Suspension and Re-activation Process., and the company names have been published on its official website.

The objective, added MCMC, was to inform the consumer/public on the actions that have been taken by the industry regulator against the rogue CPs. At the same time, it was to caution other CPs as a "deterrence for them (for) not (complying) with the Guidelines.

Most importantly, MCMC also told the CEOs in the May 8 letter that it had "identified the CPs in the list who have REPEATEDLY been non-complying with the Guidelines.

"These CPs are currently under investigations by our Enforcement Department for violating the license condition," MCMC said.

As it is, the ball is in the MCMC's court to publish its First Investigation Report (FIR) pertaining to these CPs who serially violate the Guidelines as punishment under Section penalty under Section 9.5 has been avoided by MCMC.

We need to know why the rogue CPs caught for repeat non-compliance are still non-complying till today, Mr MCMC.

Is it because the punishment meted out, as named in the MCMC letter May 9 letter, is NOT sufficient enough to deter them from repeating the offence, Mr MCMC?