goodwill
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by goodwill
-
-
Yes, another day or two worth. I was originally curious to see if there was a pattern of national/international 'premium rate' numbers. I tend to agree with Buzby here, they appear to be local calls made by a local petty thief.
-
Looks like it. local to Playa del Carmen area.
-
As requested, here is a sample of my £1700 o2 bill for fraudulent Mexican calls.
@kooglesarmy thankyou
DATE TIME NUMBER DEST DURATION COST
20 Feb 08 17:29:06 529841330045 MEX 00:19:23 33.030
21 Feb 08 12:07:55 529841451639 MEX 00:01:49 3.390
21 Feb 08 12:19:59 529848795061 MEX 00:00:48 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:21:02 529848762626 MEX 00:00:15 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:37:32 529841164118 MEX 00:05:50 10.170
21 Feb 08 12:44:17 529841164118 MEX 00:00:14 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:44:37 529848032149 MEX 00:02:10 3.820
21 Feb 08 13:01:43 529847450593 MEX 00:01:19 2.550
21 Feb 08 13:54:04 525555170159 MEX 00:07:30 12.710
21 Feb 08 18:26:26 529841340506 MEX 00:01:01 2.120
21 Feb 08 20:17:19 529841402011 MEX 00:01:47 3.390
21 Feb 08 20:22:39 529841402011 MEX 00:02:16 4.240
21 Feb 08 21:11:44 529841350477 MEX 00:00:49 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:23:14 529841201393 MEX 00:01:18 2.550
21 Feb 08 21:30:13 529841201393 MEX 00:00:31 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:30:50 529841201393 MEX 00:00:28 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:31:57 529841201393 MEX 00:00:41 1.700
22 Feb 08 11:28:24 529981855425 MEX 00:02:23 4.240
22 Feb 08 11:36:49 529841375044 MEX 00:04:16 7.630
-
-
@kooglesarmy
Did you get an itemised bill from o2? What numbers did the crook call?
-
dont know how they got my number
been receiving texts from a company called no worries loans
they keep trying to make me apply for a loan
ime getting three of these texts a day
the number is 0871 7111 789
can some one put my mind at rest
is this company making money out of me by charging for these texts
that i never asked to receive
many thanks
Hopefully not. Look on your bill, contact your network operator and ask.
There are two types of unsolicited text msg. Premium Rate 'services' that are charged and spam advertising that is not charged.
You can register your mobile number with the TPS to stop some of the spam advertising.
On a more serious note, I still remain amazed that a third party that you have no contractual agreement with, can simply initiate a call you your mobile number and claim money, and you don't have a leg to stand on. Talk about human rights? This one needs stopping before it gets out of hand.Yes! The ICO has been asked why we can 'opt-out' of receiving unsolicited free spam advertising but not opt-out of receiving unsolicited reverse billed [problem] 'services'.
They refused to admit it exists. The problem of unsolicited billing goes back to at least 2000.
There has never been a single criminal prosecution.
-
Do not ignore these costly text messages and don't bother trying to get the money back from your own phone company.
I can only assume that these companies make so much money and don't want to be investigated, so quite happily give you your money back, if you can get through to them!!!
That's exactly how it works! And our regulators know this. Providing a difficult route to obtain a refund is par for the course, many just give up - so congratulations!@buzby: are you sitting down? I absolutely agree with you and well done jodilauren.
re: reverse billed premium rate 'services'
The mobile networks take 20% to %50 of the revenue although they all claim the problem is nothing to do with them.
The EU Commission attempted to have mobile phone accounts protected by the same laws that bank/credit card accounts are subject to.
The mobile operators and premium rate industry successfully lobbied the UK Government to be exempted from those regulations.
Here's a list of the PhonePayPlus (Icstis) adjudications and 'fines' from Feb 2004 to March 2008.
A FINE record. It takes a minute or two to down load.
-
can anybody post a link to any consumer Act/law/regulation that confirms this?Because you've been paying the debt is admitted, and as you agreed to repay, this will be taken as full admission.here's a recent article from the US
http://communitydispatch.com/Announcements_9/Stolen_Cell_Phone_Bills.shtmlOctober 10, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO -- California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced a “groundbreaking settlement” with AT&T Mobility (formerly Cingular) that will prohibit the cell phone carrier from charging customers for any calls made after their phones are lost or stolen. Brown alleged that the company violated California law, including Public Utilities Code section 2890, which bars phone companies from charging customers for unauthorized services.
“No cell phone company should profit from calls made by thieves or unauthorized users,” Brown said.
The agreement, a stipulated judgment filed today with the San Francisco Superior Court, requires the company to credit a customer’s bill or immediately investigate customer reports that the calls were made after the phone was lost or stolen. The company may only charge a customer if an investigation determines that the customer actually authorized the charges.
The judgment requires AT&T Mobility to inform each of their customers of their legal rights regarding lost or stolen phones. Under the agreement, AT&T must either credit the disputed charges or inform customers of their legal rights which include:
• The right to have the case investigated within 30 days
• The right to provide information showing a customer did not authorize the calls
• The right not to pay disputed charges during the investigation
• The right to appeal the outcome of an investigation to the California Public Utilities Commission
AT&T must notify customers--in writing--of these new requirements and assist customers to obtain credit for amounts already paid on lost or stolen phones, back to year 2003. AT&T will also pay the Attorney General's Office $500,000 for costs of the investigation and for the Unfair Competition Law Fund, administered by the California District Attorneys Association.
“This groundbreaking settlement makes AT&T the first cell phone company that has agreed to protect its customers from cell phone rip-offs and other unauthorized uses,” Brown said. “It is now time for the rest of the cell phone industry to step forward and follow AT&T’s example,” Brown added.
The Attorney General’s Office began the investigation in 2006 after several consumers complained they were being charged thousands of dollars for calls made on cell phones that were stolen. In one case, calls originated from Mexico, a country the customer had never visited. Although customers could fully document that the calls were unauthorized, AT&T refused to credit the accounts.
The law for cell phones is similar to that for credit cards: customers have a right to dispute unauthorized charges and request an investigation. Customers should not be held responsible for charges until the investigation concludes.
By entering into the agreement, AT&T does not admit it violated any laws or engaged in any wrongdoing. The state’s complaint and the agreement are attached.
That's interesting:
In 2000 the EU Commission introduced the e-Directive which stated that mobile phone accounts should be subject to the same FSA rules and regulations that UK bank and credit card accounts are subject to.
for example:
KYC (Know Your Customer)/"Due Diligence" test.
POCA (Proceeds of Crime) and money laundering laws.
The UK Government allowed the Network Operators to be exempt from these laws.
-
hi emptyingpockets
Have you ever wondered why so many stolen phones (home and abroad) result in grotesquely high phone bills for the victim?
When a new account is opened, the mobile network operator puts in place a upper charge limit on calls from that account. It's only removed after a number of bills have been payed. This helps protect the phone company from potential 'contract' fraud by showing that the account/person is 'billable'.
When calls (international/roaming/home) are made, they are monitored/logged through each network that call goes through. The revenue share bill accounting between these companies takes place almost instantaneously.
Vodafone have in place AIT (Artificial Inflated Traffic) mechanisms to detect abnormal call patterns. Unfortunately if the account is billable they appear to turn this protection off. Here's an article explaining how they protect themselves from fraudsters using bogus accounts.
Classification, Detection and Prosecution of Fraud on Mobile Networks
I believe the mobile networks were recently asked to be more pro-active in protecting their customers from this type of fraud.
-
Mobile phone firms on edge as Ofcom prepares to set out plans for 3G auction - Times Online
January 3, 2008
The initial sale of 3G licences, at the height of the dot-com boom, attracted bids at unimagined levels.
The operators, convinced that it was make-or-break technology, paid a total of £22.5 billion during frenzied bidding.
However, after the technology and telecoms market crashed they were left with significant debts and technology that had failed to live up to its promise. One industry executive remarked that the early handsets were hot enough “to fry an egg on”.
While 3G was supposed to transform handsets into mini-computers, consumers remained uninterested in using them for anything other than calls and texts.
The Government/DTI allowed a 'better regulation' market place where this 'inward investment' could be repaid (with interest).
Mobility: Content: A cut above1/9/2007
Based on the model of a premium SMS costing 1.50, Orange UK keeps 68 pence including VAT while Virgin Mobile keeps a whopping 98p.
-
It is true that I do hold strong views about the increasingly unethical and immoral strategies employed by big business that is (imo) directed towards emptying the pockets of the ordinary person - who I believe have been largely disenfranchised and rendered impotent by successive governments.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs that is set to become worse over time, not better, I think. And so I argue that people need to become increasingly aware of these business strategies and need also to unharness their naiveté if they are to have any chance of recapturing rights that were extant and considered natural, obvious AND legal... only three decades ago.
Well said. Absolutely agree.
and (imo) they all appear to share a common factor.
They all operate in the 'regulated' ("regulation with a light touch") sector of UK commerce.
Telecoms, Energy Suppliers, Water Companies, Financial (Banking,Insurance). Train Companies, Airline Companies...etc,etc...
-
this may be worth keeping an eye on
'Cash martyr' takes BT to court for fees - Telegraph13/02/2008
A solicitor is taking BT to court over the charges the telephone company levies on customers who pay their bills by cash.
.........
.......
The case will be heard next month at Walsall County Court. District Judge Hearne has already ruled that her claim is "of considerable public importance".
-
I didn't actually receive it. It was posted Odd Fellow here:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-711648.html
Thank you for your correspondence. Every single customer is important to us and we take your views seriously.I am glad that you have written because there has been a lot of confusion about what we are planning and l am grateful for the opportunity to put the record straight.
It is true that from May 1; BT is introducing a fee for customers who do not pay their bills by Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan. This is not a penalty charge but a discrete fee for methods of payment which cost us more to process.
In summary; the effect on any individual customer will be either 50p up or 50p down a month. Let me explain why. The £4.50 a quarter increase will be offset by a £3 a quarter cut in line rental for non-Direct Debit customers so the net effect is £1.50 a quarter or 50p a month. Non-Direct Debit customers with both phone and broadband from BT will see a cut of 50p a month, because broadband pricing is going down by £3 a quarter.
BT's fee for non-Direct Debit payments is amongst the lowest around. For example, Virgin Media charge £5 a -month. Many companies, such as Gar phone Warehouse, will only accept customers who agree to pay by Direct Debit.
I also want to reassure you that the fee will not apply to customers on BT's special rates for low income and vulnerable customers, such as In Contact Plus, the Light User Scheme and Pay & Call.
We have introduced these changes because it costs more to accept non-Direct Debit payments from customers. This is not just because of the cost of taking the payments, but because on average customers are more likely to forget to pay or not pay, and this leaves us with bad debt of around £100 million a year.
At BT; we are committed to offering our customers a wide choice of ways to pay their bills; 23 at the last count: Whilst we encourage choice of payment, it is worth pointing out that Direct Debit has benefits for customers. It saves time and is convenient. It means that your BT bill is one less thing to worry about.
If you choose to pay by Direct Debit, we try to give you ten days from the time of receiving the bill before processing the Direct Debit payment giving you plenty of time to ask questions, and we tell you on the bill when the amount will be taken from your account. There is also a Direct Debit Guarantee which protects you and your money. If any error is made by BT or your bank or building society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paid.
We will also waive the non-Direct Debit fee if you choose to switch to Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan after receiving your first biII after May 1st.
_
If you do not have a bank account, but would like to take advantage of Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan, a basic bank account is now available to almost everyone in the UK through the Post Office or many high street banks. You can contact the Financial Services Authority for a list of current basic bank account providers.
I hope this lengthy explanation has been useful. As I said at the outset, we do value your custom however you decide to pay your bill. We are also committed to offering our customers great value which is the reason last summer we announced over £200m of price cuts and from June 1 we are extending our special offer of free evening and weekend calls as a 'thank you' to our loyal customers.
Yours sincerely
pp
Gillian Lewis
Head of Complaint Management, Customer Services
An article of general interest:
Dutch directness boosts BT - Times Online
February 11, 2007
So why penalise those who want to pay their bills by cheque? BT announced last week that customers will now have to pay £6 extra if they don’t make direct-debit arrangements.
“Look,” he bristles, “either we are a company or an institution. If you want us to be an institution, then maybe we’ll run the social services. Direct debit makes life easier, saves us truck loads of money and is better for the environment — none of that paper trail.”
In other words its a profit creation scheme and all there blah blah is a smokescreen to cloak this.Absolutely! Customers who pay by direct debit are more profitable to BT. They are conning people by using the 'bad debt' excuse. The 'bad debt' only exists on paper (admin costs and real bad debt is factored in to the retail prices).
They are trying to force customers onto direct debit not to mitigate losses but to increase profit.
-
The £4.50 non direct debit 'processing' charge is actually a rolling monthly penalty charge (£1.50/month). It has very little to do with the BT bill or what's on the bill.
It's most certainly unfair but whether it's illegal or not I don't know.
from their standard reply letter:
We have introduced these changes because it costs more to accept non-Direct Debit payments from customers. This is not just because of the cost of taking the payments, but because on average customers are more likely to forget to pay or not pay, and this leaves us with bad debt of around £100 million a year.They have calculated that on average each of their 5 million non direct debit customers are responsible for bad debt of (£100m / 5m) = £20/year = £5/quarter.
The actual figure BT decided was £4.50/quarter or £1.50/month.
-
The £100m bad debt argument is a red herring. Ofcom already allows BT to factor in 'bad debt' into their retail prices to offset any bad debt.
All the regulated utilities use this method.
Can you provide a source for this? Would be useful to enter into evidence in support of claims that are proceeding.
not really on basic Geographic calls (but as I understand it the bad debt associted with that is minimal)
but
on NTS and PRS call billing
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/NTSfin/ccp/ntsruprs.pdf4 April 2005
Charges between Communications Providers: Number Translation Services Retail Uplift charge control and Premium Rate Services bad debt surcharge
PRS Bad Debt Surcharge.
5.1 PRS services are one type of NTS service. PRS services include calls to recorded information (e.g. a recorded weather information service), voting lines, competition lines and live conversation (e.g. Chatlines). PRS calls generally have higher retail prices than other NTS calls in order to provide additional revenue to Service Providers, to cover, inter alia, additional costs of providing the service and associated content.
5.2 Some costs of retailing are more closely linked to the retail price of the call rather than the volume of call minutes made. Examples of such costs are the costs of bad debt and the costs of financing working capital. As the retail prices of PRS calls are higher than the retail prices of other NTS calls, PRS calls will all other things being the same incur relatively higher costs of bad debt and working capital expressed on a per minute basis. In addition, PRS calls, as compared with NTS ‘local rate’ or ‘national rate’ calls, may experience a different level of bad debts expressed as a percentage of relevant turnover due to the fact that the customers who make these calls are more (or less) likely to default on payment – the 'incidence factor’.
5.3 It is also appropriate to allow for the recovery of additional working capital costs associated with PRS calls. These arise because on average, BT receives call revenues from retail customers after it makes the payment to the TCPs. This leaves a period in which BT must finance its debtors after it has paid its creditors. This implies that BT is incurring an opportunity cost due to this timing factor. The generally higher prices and terminating payments for PRS calls implies that this cost is higher than for other NTS calls.
5.4 For these reasons, in addition to the NTS Retail Uplift, BT also retains a further charge to cover the extra bad debt costs and financing of working capital associated with PRS calls compared to other NTS calls. This additional retention is otherwise known as the PRS bad debt surcharge.
-
I've read the excuse BT give for levying this payment (£1.50/m) 'processing' charge. It does not reflect the true cost that BT incurs for non direct debit forms of payment.
We have introduced these changes because it costs more to accept non-Direct Debit payments from customers. This is not just because of the cost of taking the payments, but because on average customers are more likely to forget to pay or not pay, and this leaves us with bad debt of around £100 million a year.Yours sincerely
pp
Gillian Lewis
Head of Complaint Management, Customer Services
The fee BT charge to cover the cost of a particular form of bill payment must by law reflect the true cost that BT incur for processing the bill.
The costs BT incur for chasing late payment is already covered by their late payment penalty (£7.50).
The £100m bad debt argument is a red herring. Ofcom already allows BT to factor in 'bad debt' into their retail prices to offset any bad debt.
All the regulated utilities use this method.
It's clear the £1.50/m rolling penalty for non direct debit payment bares no relationship to the actual cost to BT of 'processing' the payment.
It appears to be being used by BT to force customers onto direct debit.
note:
Last year Ofcom promised on their web site to publish their initial findings into this charge sometime in Jan 2008 (now). That date has recently been removed from their statement.
-
Telecoms: BT gets its lines crossed with a fee for all | Money | The Guardian
BT gets its lines crossed with fee for all
November 10 2007
People moving home are being charged a £125 reconnection fee by BT - even if the previous owner was a customer of the telecom giant. Those who call BT to complain have been left waiting on hold for hours.
Two weeks ago, Guardian Money told how BT was penalising people moving into a new home where the previous occupant had switched their landline to a rival supplier.
Now it appears the former monopoly provider has been taking advantage of consumer confusion, and its dominant position, by applying the same charge randomly to thousands of customers moving house.
The £125 fee, which, some might say, makes a mockery of Ofcom's attempts to bring down the cost of phone and broadband services, came about because it seems no one at the regulator considered what would what happen to "movers" under its new regime.
It does not help that the BT department responsible for connecting new customers appears to be in chaos. People are complaining it is impossible to contact - and those that do get through are often given contradictory information.
Some customers told Guardian Money they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone trying to resolve the problem, while others complain the £125 fee was "absurd" and "exorbitant".
Meanwhile, engineers are not turning up to appointments. In 2005, Ofcom insisted that BT create a separate company (now called Openreach) to manage the engineers who connect homes to the exchange. The split was intended to give all the telecoms companies equal access to the exchange network, to stimulate competition.
However, one of the unintended consequences of the decision appears to be much higher reconnection charges when a customer moves house.
BT's residential arm is allowed to charge the £125 fee if the previous occupier switched their landline to a rival supplier, through what is known as local loop unbundling. It appears to have plucked this unregulated figure out of the air, as it pays Openreach considerably less for the switch.
The problem is occurring when someone informs their telephone provider they are moving and that they want to terminate their contract.
After extensive questioning this week, BT revealed that the imposition of the charge largely depends on whether the house is near a busy exchange, where demand for lines is high. In that case, lines freed up are being quickly offered for re-use. In quiet areas, they can sit undisturbed for up to five years.
New occupiers are automatically charged the £125 fee, regardless of who used to supply the phone service. However, BT said this week that the charge should not be payable if the previous occupier was with BT. This has been refuted by readers' experiences.
Police officer Fred Trott contacted Money after reading our original article. He said he and his wife had been charged £125 when they moved into their home in Haslemere, Surrey.
The previous owner had been with OneTel, but had agreed to switch their service back to BT before they moved out. The Trotts moved in but faced an endless battle to make BT see this - its staff insisted the £125 fee was payable.
The pair, loyal BT customers for many years, say they have spent more than 10 hours on the phone to various BT departments trying to get the charge repaid - but to no avail.
A spokesman for BT says the current position regarding the £125 fee is "not ideal" and that it is looking at how it can be changed. "Where a working line exists, our intention is that reconnection should be free - but a charge of £125 applies where we have to involve an engineer.
"Where a customer is returning to join BT from a local loop unbundled competitor, our systems default to charging £125. We do intend to change this as soon as possible. It is one of a number of complex changes arising from BT Retail's adoption of a new IT system to comply with its commitment to the regulator, Ofcom."
It also confirmed that it has now refunded Mr Trott's £125 charge.
Ofcom says it is aware of the situation and that it is working with the Office of the Telecoms Adjudicator (OTA) to rectify this problem. "The matter should be resolved by next spring," says a spokeswoman. "It is important that customers are confident in the switching process and it is essential that there are no obstacles in the way. We are working via the OTA and industry to have all telecoms providers on the new system by spring 2008."
Anybody who is moving their BT service to a new billing address should check the pre-existing status of line at that address.
-
@ Redstar7
What was the 0871 number on your bill?
-
Thank you buzzer very informative to the OP and I'm sure your opinions will be a big help.
perhaps you could move on to the bit you didn't quote? You know, where you believe that nobody is responsible if your computer does anytihng without your say-so? Don't let logic get in the way, as you've still to tell us thay 0871 is undoubetedly a Premium Rate call.I think you may be getting a little confused. You wrote it as your opinion. I never wrote it. I have no idea why you wrote it.
@ Redstar7You'll be telling me next that if someone uses your phone line to make calls without your authority, you'll not have to pay for them. I hadn't stopped laughing after the first time you suggested this.This is plain rubbish please explain how you came to this conclusion.
What was the 0871 number on your bill?
-
thanks buzzer old boy
I need to provide a link to verify my opinion? I've really no idea what you're talking about.I just wanted you to confirm that everything you have posted here is purely based on your opinion and not any written laws you may have seen.
@ Redstar7
What was the 0871 number on your bill?
-
absolutely and it's not the first thread he's done it on.
any way
@ Redstar7
What was the 0871 number on your bill?
-
You continue to lose the plot. The example was to prove that through inaction you can be held responsible. Not having the ability to supervise your equipment or ensure malicious software remains the problem of the line renter, nobody else. Further, the OP goes on to talk of 'rogue' dialler on a standard non-premium rate number.
put some links to verify your opinions.
As for what appears in print in the 'Daily Mail' for goodness sake, find anyone else that supports their viewpoint in the media and I might take a bit more notice.MoD Demands Payback Over BT '[problem]' |Sky News|Business
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/BT-phone-calls-fraud-could.3223975.jp
icLiverpool - BT staff in £8m phone [problem]
http://www.northantset.co.uk/kettering/Kettering-call-centre-implicated-in.3192639.jp
well?
Still, we all know your position, people don't need to be accountable for their actions if they can find someone else to blame, and your posts in this regard simply give them false hope.accountable to who? for what?
I got my money back. explain that
You'll be telling me next that if someone uses your phone line to make calls without your authority, you'll not have to pay for them. I hadn't stopped laughing after the first time you suggested this.This is plain rubbish please explain how you came to this conclusion.
-
Yeah yeah. My computer downloaded porn from some site I didn't know about - so I can't be prosecuted? What nonsense!
of course it's nonsense. its utter nonsense but why are you saying it?
You keep spouting the same rubbish about porn sites and burglars breaking into houses.
Where have you read this rubbish?
"Rogue diallers" have little if anything to do with porn sites. that was the cock and bull story the staff mentioned in this article were told to tell the public.
'BT in call centre fraud to ensure winning £1billion business contract' | the Daily MailBT covered up a massive fraud by call centre staff to ensure it won a new contract worth more than £1 billion, an employment tribunal was told.
Staff made millions of 'false' calls on auto diallers to make sure bonus-linked performance targets were met under a lucrative contract handling calls from Ministry of Defence bases.
The fraud had been going on for at least four years and involved staff phoning themselves to ensure calls were answered under the time allowed.
-
Don't talk daft. PC's don't "make calls". PC's are machines that are used to make calls. People make calls.
In the case of "rogue diallers" it's the person who hi-jacks the computer with that illegal software who is responsible for making the call. It's the person who programmed that specific number into the software who is responsible for that specific number being dialled.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Am I liable ?
in Telecoms - mobile or fixed
Posted
DATE TIME NUMBER DEST DURATION COST
20 Feb 08 17:29:06 529841330045 MEX 00:19:23 33.030
21 Feb 08 12:07:55 529841451639 MEX 00:01:49 3.390
21 Feb 08 12:19:59 529848795061 MEX 00:00:48 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:21:02 529848762626 MEX 00:00:15 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:37:32 529841164118 MEX 00:05:50 10.170
21 Feb 08 12:44:17 529841164118 MEX 00:00:14 1.700
21 Feb 08 12:44:37 529848032149 MEX 00:02:10 3.820
21 Feb 08 13:01:43 529847450593 MEX 00:01:19 2.550
21 Feb 08 13:54:04 525555170159 MEX 00:07:30 12.710
21 Feb 08 18:26:26 529841340506 MEX 00:01:01 2.120
21 Feb 08 20:17:19 529841402011 MEX 00:01:47 3.390
21 Feb 08 20:22:39 529841402011 MEX 00:02:16 4.240
21 Feb 08 21:11:44 529841350477 MEX 00:00:49 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:23:14 529841201393 MEX 00:01:18 2.550
21 Feb 08 21:30:13 529841201393 MEX 00:00:31 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:30:50 529841201393 MEX 00:00:28 1.700
21 Feb 08 21:31:57 529841201393 MEX 00:00:41 1.700
22 Feb 08 11:28:24 529981855425 MEX 00:02:23 4.240
22 Feb 08 11:36:49 529841375044 MEX 00:04:16 7.630
22 Feb 08 12:02:37 529848032149 MEX 00:00:38 1.700
22 Feb 08 12:11:19 529848032149 MEX 00:01:1 1 2.120
22 Feb 08 12:19:56 529841252554 MEX 00:00:20 1.700
22 Feb 08 12:23:45 529841069128 MEX 00:00:38 1.700
22 Feb 08 13:22:33 529841162315 MEX 00:02:04 3.820
22 Feb 08 13:25:03 529848032149 MEX 00:06:10 10.590
22 Feb 08 14:03:30 529999422671 MEX 00:02:36 4.660
22 Feb 08 14:22:40 529841350477 MEX 00:02:32 4.660
22 Feb 08 14:25:21 529848032149 MEX 00:01:06 2.120
22 Feb 08 14:26:34 529841350477 MEX 00:07:09 12.280
22 Feb 08 14:40:52 529841350477 MEX 00:00:27 1.700
22 Feb 08 14:46:57 529841350477 MEX 00:01:10 2.120
22 Feb 08 16:13:13 529981857393 MEX 00:00:27 1.700
22 Feb 08 16:17:59 527717171073 MEX 00:00:24 1.700
22 Feb 08 16:26:26 529847457967 MEX 00:02:51 5.090
22 Feb 08 16:32:37 527717171073 MEX 00:07:57 13.550
22 Feb 08 17:06:09 529841351162 MEX 00:00:52 1.700
22 Feb 08 17:45:42 529841252554 MEX 00:03:31 6.360
22 Feb 08 17:51:44 529841340506 MEX 00:00:39 1.700
22 Feb 08 17:57:26 529841148359 MEX 00:01:06 2.120
22 Feb 08 17:59:33 529848033725 MEX 00:00:41 1.700
22 Feb 08 18:01:10 529982101298 MEX 00:00:18 1.700