Vodafone and the. Vodafone logos are trade marks of Vodafone Group. Any product or company names mentioned herein may be the trade marks of their respective owners. • Press: activate the lock screen/wake up the screen. Standard Home and the Simple Home screen. You can set this. Buy Kogan Mobile SIM - Prepaid Starter Pack from Kogan.com. Want unlimited standard national calls and text, and loads of data to use in Oz? Grab a Kogan Mobile SIM Starter Pack and recharge to get: Amazingly low prices Unlimited standard national calls Unlimited standard national SMS & MMS Loads of data to use in.

You don't need to be 18+ to buy a SIM card. True And you don't need to sign anything. Technically we are supposed to sign 'the form' that all is true and correct. IMO its all just big brother stuff. Whenever I travel OS I purchase local sims, none of the BS that is required here. Trust me I dont deal in drugs, or sex, (rock n roll sometimes):) and I dont do terrorist stuff. Convince me all the ID BS is necessary!

The authorities ask the phone company if they want the details. And they may not need a warrant to get it. The 'authorities' are the ones that force the Telcos to do all this stuff in the first place. Not that its really enforced that much anyway. Depends very much on where you purchase.

I thought of this aswell. But it should be something more major than simple drug dealing for police to obtain details from a number. From my knowledge, they (police) need to apply for a warrant against a judge just like anything else. Doesnt sound logica I know most criminals arent smart, but lets say a criminal with half a brain were to use a pre paid sim for illegal activity, you would think they would use the details to set up the pre paid sim using someone elses identity. Its not that hard lol But yeh, criminals in australia are so goddamn stupid its not funny. If someone goes and buys a 'off the shelf' sim for eg. $2 Vodafone Sim.

They can just enter a fake name, address etc and the sims activated? Well I'll be damned. First they have to obtain the SIM. The stores/shopfronts selling the SIM may ask you for ID, so you may dodge that bullet, then I know Telstra and Vodafone ask for ID, but Optus don't (online) Not sure if resellers follow their base network, as I know Red Bull Mobile (Vodafone) require ID for online activation and the same applies to Amaysim (Optus) all can be easily be fooled by incorrect details? Looking at it that way, any Prepaid service can have false ID and other invalid information, but if the carrier decides to do an ID or Verification Check and your ID doesn't match (their reliable sources), then they have the right to suspend/cancel your service. You have always needed to provide your ID when operating a communications device: Ham radio, cb etc. It is a requirement of the act.

Technically the onus of providing theID was on the user of the device but Mobile phones (glorified 2 way radios) have become so common that the govt could alter the act to enforce telcos to collect the customer info on the customer's behalf ( easy to pick on) to give to the govt. Also you must be 16 to purchase and 'have ownership' of a prepaid account in Australia. If any store doesn't fill out an AMTA form when you purchase a SIM they are up for serious fines if busted including personal fines for the sales person! Also remember, part of this is about possibly saving your life. All phones sold in the US have tracking capabilities tied to the 911 service. There is no similar service for 000 calls in Australia.

There are times in an emergency that you cannot talk to the operator. Perhaps your hiding from an intruder, perhaps you'd badly inured, etc. In Australia you'll be asked to press buttons on the phone to confirm you require assistance. Fine of your on a landline, they know where you are. On a mobile, some information is better than none. Im sure if you go to Woolworths or Coles and buy a Optus sim the 17 year old worker wont give a care to bother looking at ID to be honest.

I have bought three amaysim sims recently from Coles. All at separate times. Each time I had to have ID and had to fill in the paperwork. I remember once I tried to get a sim at woolies, and did not have any ID. They wouldn't sell it. However, I can recall going to places other than supermarkets in the last year or two, and not having to supply ID. However, when I got to activating those sims online (from memory they were either virgin or vodafone) I had to supply ID then.

Whether or not that ID was accurate was debatable. Not everyone has a DL. It is typical of Australia to have a knee jerk reaction to anything that has happened, and penalise the majority of users because of it. IIRC, it was the Bali bombings that brought in these ID laws for mobiles, as the bombs were detonated remotely using sim cards in mobiles. So politicians, who like to look like they are doing anything constructive, can turn around and say that can't be allowed to happen here, and the laws get changed accordingly. No matter that any person who wants the sim for nefarious purposes will get that sim without providing their real ID. I have nothing to hide, so I supply my details when getting a sim.

But there are so many loopholes for those who want them for evil that the law is rather pointless. But it looks good on paper, and gets seen to be proactive in the war against everything. Go bing it or whatevs. The Telecommunications (Service Provider – Identity Checks for Pre-paid Public Mobile Telecommunications Services) Determination 2000 (the Determination) was made under subsection 99(1) of the Act and sets out rules that apply to CSPs in relation to the supply of pre-paid public mobile telecommunications service it's a requirement of the Telco Act 199x The Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act) is the primary legislative instrument for the telecommunications industry. It imposes a range of obiligations on carriers and carriage service providers (CSPs), including internet service providers, and requires ACMA to monitor compliance with those obligations. American's can just walk into a gun shop and buy a gun no questions asked in some states I understand.

Hope you're not suggesting a similar thing here. It's almost entirely the non-criminals who's privacy is being trashed, as the criminals have always been able to get anonymous 'guns' if they have the $ – nothing whatsoever has changed in that regard. Any who believe otherwise are living in a deluded fantasy world. Wanna meet my pet elf:) It's all smoke and mirrors.

Any serious gang just gets their phones overseas and uses them here, putting up with the extra charges. Or use stolen phones/cards. It was never really about terrorism gang.it's a requirement of the Telco Act 199x. Can't remember what exact year which was a rejigging of the 197x Act or something like that.go bing it or whatevs. Australian governments think we're still a prison colony & nobody can be trusted but them.

Either way, I'm going to try get a Optus sim from various places without ID this week, I'll keep you guys posted. Get strangers to buy you one eg tourists, drunks, people in pubs near servos etc. Use your imagination:) This is starting to sound a bit suspicious, should I contact AFP?:P I hope you still have your fridge-magnet comrade citizen! Ve Vill Be Checking! Silly question, but why do you need to stay anonymous? To me and many others it seems utterly crazy not to want to protect your privacy: There are lots of thieves, scammers and far, far worse floating around in all circles. Governments can go bad or very, very bad at some point in the future.

Some police and security agency operatives are corrupt. Some people in phone companies or phone stores will give out your details. There are plenty of other reasons as well. Why on earth would you make it easy for thieves, scammers, snoops, control-freaks, power-hungry petty tyrants, sociopaths etc. So if the service is used for illegal or malicious purposes they have a rough idea of whose causing the trouble Yep – for me, this is the best reason. But putting aside the argument about holding an owner accountable, there are plenty of reasons to want the telco to have a uniquely identifiable user/owner for a service.

I hope the OP never has to: • replace a damaged, faulty, lost or stolen SIM card • port his/her number to a post-paid service • change the ownership of the service • report harassing or threatening phone calls • upgrade the SIM card in order to use a new (faster/better/cheaper) service. G O F writes.

Silly question, but why do you need to stay anonymous? To me and many others it seems utterly crazy not to want to protect your privacy: There are lots of thieves, scammers and far, far worse floating around in all circles.

Governments can go bad or very, very bad at some point in the future. Some police and security agency operatives are corrupt. Some people in phone companies or phone stores will give out your details. There are plenty of other reasons as well. Why on earth would you make it easy for thieves, scammers, snoops, control-freaks, power-hungry petty tyrants, sociopaths etc.

Yeah 'live off the grid' no internet, no mail, no licences, no permits, no passport, pay cash for everything, have an alias bank account or two, work for cash, pay no taxes, no medicare, no hospitals, don't use the same doctor twice, don't use the police, no landline and above all don't vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's only the Preppers who will have whats needed when the time comes no matter what happens. Cause if all you've got is a unregistered sim card. You aren't gonna make it when the crunch comes. Yeah 'live off the grid' no internet, no mail, no licences, no permits, no passport, pay cash for everything, have an alias bank account or two, work for cash, pay no taxes, no medicare, no hospitals, don't use the same doctor twice, don't use the police, no landline and above all don't vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The opening of your biography?

Cause if all you've got is a unregistered sim card. You aren't gonna make it when the crunch comes They're always registered – just not by nor to me:) It's always funny when I get a scam spam call trying to tell me that I have a computer virus or some other crap (as most recently happened just about a month ago now): Him: 'Mr _(Name of sim registration.

Ie: not my name)_ our records show that your computer is infected by a virus blah blah blah.' Me: 'Sorry that's not my name and I don't have a computer or internet so your records are wrong bla bla bla' After annoying them for a bit I hung up saying 'sorry I have to go out now – I'm running late'. That night a woman rang back trying the exact same scam and I told her that their records are wrong, as I told the other gentleman who rang earlier today, then said I have to go now, sorry, then hung up. They said they were from 'corporate security international' or something similar – both foreign sounding, and no calls since:) Thank god for fake details:D. Seems like I've proved most of you wrong.

It does sound strange that various people experience different results purchasing a prepaid sim? I have purchased 2 recently for friends on Amaysim, 1 from a 7-2-7 petrol station and the latest a week ago from Aust. Post at no time was i required to present ID. I/they registered both over the phone and supplied the pre-requisite details at the time that included their name, address and driver lic.

Taking details at the point of sale would be pointless as the purchaser may not be the user, as in my case. They were both purchased for use by elderly people and one did ask if it was safe to use his real name. I pointed out that he could probably use an alias however in a case of emergency it may lead to problems with obtaining help from emergency services. Keep that in mind Aspec:) Edit; Keep in mind Emergency Services have access to this data, should you become unable for whatever reason to inform them of your home location they will be able to track you down. Which is what should happen. Thanks for the link Flopmate!, strange that in many cases it isn't enforced by the retailer's, i do remember some time back, maybe 2Yrs.

Back my wife having to supply Id. When purchasing a Crazy Johns pre-paid card. Perhaps it comes down to the proliferation of the product and gifting after all why should a retailer take onboard the time/cost/responsibility of the various CSP's.? Perhaps this is proof of a law not making any sense in real world application:) Edit; insert link. IIRC, all carriers (not sure about Vodafone) online verify the street, against some database Some tourists I met recently purchased two Telstra $2 SIMs at a c-store (cash, no ID requested by the cashier) and then registered the SIMs online at the business centre in their hotel. They used the address of the hotel at which they were staying for registering the SIMs and for ID they used their foreign drivers licences (I daresay they could have used any old serial number if they had wanted).

No problems getting activated. Thes people were not aware of the Aust ID requirements for mobile phone activation. I would like to know the 'legal' procedure for overseas residents obtaining a SIM card while here on holidays. Do the forms (and online activation processes) even allow for an overseas address? Pretty pathetic if they are selling SIM cards in airports and cant 'legally' offer them to international tourists. They usually ask for the address of the place they are staying in and for a passport.

It's like this in most of Europe (Well everywhere I've ever gone in the past 5 years) as well. Most of the time I just say I don't know where the hotel is, and they will just guess a location and put it down.

All of them wanted passport info though. Strange that in many cases it isn't enforced by the retailer's Talking to one of my neighbour's teenage kids yesterday, it is apparent that at least one major retailer turns a blind eye to dubious, er, SIM 'distribution' methods. The kid says that at the supermarket where he works there is a large bin of $2 SIM starter kits which are replenished about once a week. Apparently the supermarket's remaining online stock count for these SIMs (decremented by 1 every time a checkout scanner records a SIM kit purchase) is always way over the physical number of SIM kits held at the supermarket. IOW, a large proportion of SIMs walk out the door, stolen, with no payment and no ID check. The shrinkage rate for these SIMs is way outside the norms for all other stock and way over the relatively high shrinkage rates that are typically encountered for small, higher-value items such as razor cartridges etc.

His manager doesn't seem to be bothered by this. It seems that although the supermarket foregoes the $2/SIM revenue, allowing the SIMs to 'depart without hindrance' reduces the staff time required to do ID checks.

Importantly, the main game for supermarkets is that they get ongoing commission from the telcos for recharge voucher sales. There's a close correlation between recharge dollar revenue and the number of SIM cards that the supermarket pushes into circulation. So presumably the petty criminals who rip off SIM cards can just as easily activate those cards using false name and address data. If this is going on at every shop that distributes SIM cards from self-serve bins around Australia there must be many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of activated SIM cards acquired anonymously and carrying false registration data nation wide.

The telcos would probably have at least a rough idea of the size of the problem but I notice they never discuss it in public. The government probably has a fair idea too. It would be a trivial exercise for the ACMA to ask the major retailers to provide data comprising SIM card retail sales and SIM card stock shrinkage then compare that with the data that telcos release about total prepaid SIM activations. However, nothing seems to happen on this front. I guess the genie is out of the bottle.

If ACMA decided to get tough, it would probably wind up enforcing the shut-down of hundreds of thousands of prepaid accounts and trigger a consumer backlash. The politicians would likely respond by repealing the legislation that encourages false ID behaviour. ACMA probably prefers to let the sleeping dog lie quietly and only step in if there's a clear cut criminal intent to this activity – even then, the crime of, say, terrorism probably carries a far heavier penalty than the crime of registering a SIM using false information. I doubt that the average terrorist quakes in his boots at the thought of being nailed and penalised for committing the latter offence. And when you activate online, Optus doesn't collect any ID online.

I can confirm this. Bought an unlocked phone from Harvey Norman in April and no ID was required for the purchase. Bought an Optus starter pack from my local tobacconist who also required no ID. I activated the SIM card online and didn't need to provide any ID details. I was previously using Telstra pre-paid and always had to provide ID details when activating Telstra SIMs (although I suspect these details weren't verified in any way as my children activated Telstra SIMs while young teenagers using the reference numbers on their birth certificates). I guess the genie is out of the bottle.

I guess you're probably correct given your excellent post and feedback from others in the thread:) The politicians would likely respond by repealing the legislation that encourages false ID behaviour. Given the failure to collect Id. Information at point of sale, it follows that the 'false ID behaviour' must be at the activation stage. ACMA have apparently failed to enforce collection of ID at point of sale, should they wish to get tough they would need to trawl through millions of account activation details held at the various Telcos' and check their veracity, just can't see that happening.

So to put it another way, it looks like the horse has bolted. Hi B0M8, also it's so people can't make terrorism threats from anonymous numbers. And various other illegal activities so it can't be traced. This link posted earlier in the thread by Flopmate! States, The mobile telecommunications industry has worked with the Federal Government to produce new ID pre-paid identity check forms to assist police and national security agencies in their investigations.

It seems however that the actual implementation has failed on both counts, be it at point of sale or at the time of activation. I'm not surprised by the failure of ID collection at the point of sale as it makes little sense as the purchaser isn't necessarily the user. I had thought that at the point of activation the correct ID details would be aquired by the various Telcos', however it seems i'm wrong from what others have stated in this thread. It is indeed possible/simple to both purchase and activate a pre-paid simcard anonymously. I had thought that at the point of activation the correct ID details would be aquired by the various Telcos The main problem is that if telcos provide convenient automated online activation facilities they cannot verify the information that the consumer provides. In particular, government data bases such as birth records, tax records, passport office details, driving licence etc cannot in general be accessed by non-government entities.

Privacy legislation, in particular, ensures this. Most telcos do address verification, ie they check that the address entered by the consumer matches Australia Post's national address data. However, this does not verify that the consumer lives at the address – it merely verifies that the address is in the data base. Australia Post's address data base is of good quality in urban areas but in more isolated areas it can be problematic. There is agitation, especially by the banks, to change this. The banks argue that, given they are required to identify their customers in order to provide AUSTRAC with accurate financial reporting data, eg details of high value transactions, the most bullet proof way to ensure consumer ID data is up to date is to allow it to be cross-checked via government data bases. If the banks get the access to government databases that they want, presumably other industries will eventually get similar rights.

However, there is resistance, especially amongst key politicians. To allow the changes to the law that would permit the exchange of consumer ID information with government agencies. I for one would be quite concerned if the dude manning a Crazy John's kiosk had full access to my ID information.

That's a recipe for triggering the increased occurrence of ID theft. This is where it gets all heavy and legal lol but it if the customer provides false details even to an automated activation system, they are commiting an offence tantamount to fraud. You wouldn't steal a handbag. But the Automated system would have to do checks, to find out if it's false?, when the prob just care about $$ I for one would be quite concerned if the dude manning a Crazy John's kiosk had full access to my ID information. That's a recipe for triggering the increased occurrence of ID theft.

Prob the reason why people do, not terrorism, sharing amongst companies maybe. It is indeed possible/simple to both purchase and activate a pre-paid simcard anonymously. Actually, I've noticed that the thoroughness of ID checks seems to go in waves. Presumably ACMA sends out a missive to retailers about their ID obligations, staff get told to do what ACMA says and things are all very diligent – for a while. But staff turnover in retail is high and within a year there's a large proportion of new faces – everyone from management down, none of whom know about the ID intricacies of selling a $2 SIM card. ID checks then become problematic industry-wide.

So then ACMA issues another missive. $2 SIM, no questions asked =) Probably will be when you activate it though:P Anyways weighing in as someone whose worked in a retail store that sells these, i do normally get them to fill out the form, and definitely if they complain about filling out the form they are not getting the sim (i had one dodgy dude offer me a tip to not fill out the form lol). However i also write my initial wrong/messy on the form because i don't want to be linked to a form with incorrect details etc. I don't find it a big deal as you have to register details when you activate the sim anyways. Why do you want to stay anonymous? I don't get it. Some of us consider ourselves as 'our own person', not 'public property' or the 'perpetual surveillance subjects' of a country where all citizens are in the process of losing their privacy and freedoms.

Other countries recently had violent revolutions to try to regain their privacy & freedoms, so do we learn from them, or do we doom ourselves to the same fate by our inaction in the face of 1984‑ish government intrusions into our private lives and relationships. I seriously don't get what the big fuss is, it's 2 minutes of your life. It doesn't matter how long it takes, I just don't want to hand it over. I'm sick of ending up on marketing lists, but more importantly I'm also still reeling from being the victim of identity theft (dodgy real estate sold my info, undoing it to this day. Some of us consider ourselves as 'our own person', not 'public property' or the 'perpetual surveillance subjects' of a country where all citizens are in the process of losing their privacy and freedoms. Other countries recently had violent revolutions to try to regain their privacy & freedoms, so do we learn from them, or do we doom ourselves to the same fate by our inaction in the face of 1984‑ish government intrusions into our private lives and relationships.

You honestly think Telstra, Optus whoever your with and the government gives two sh**s about your relationships and texts. Unless you are doing something illegal they won't. You to me seem like one of those people you see on Criminal Minds who are afraid the government is after them and end up going on a rampage in a government office, or cut their arms open cause they think they are being tracked.

Enjoy your paranoid life. It doesn't matter how long it takes, I just don't want to hand it over. I'm sick of ending up on marketing lists, but more importantly I'm also still reeling from being the victim of identity theft (dodgy real estate sold my info, undoing it to this day.

At the risk of further being labelled a nut. So used your home computer did you to stay 'Anonymous' LOL I registered the card through TOR. So yes, It is completely anonymous. No details with telco, no details from IMEI, no details from connection I registered it with. Awks cause you still have a phone number that could end up on a marketing list, just under a different name. It can end up on marketing lists, but it's pretty obvious when they call up and ask for the name I used to register it with. When they call up and have your details, it's harder to ascertain who they are without asking more questions.

That's some shabby real estate, you think a massive corporation like Telstra would sell your info? No I don't think a massive corporation would, they aren't a person after all. The estate agent who sold my drivers license and other details didn't do it with his companies endoresement either. Apart from this person who has a half legit excuse the rest of you are crazy tbh. All your excuses are the biggest load of bull.

I wouldn't normally even talk about this, most people don't care, I get it:) This thread just seemed like the place. I really believe in a right to privacy, though after many debates, I know it's controversial so I wouldn’t push that upon other people. However, if anyone tries to extract my details though process or compulsory acquisition, then they best be very clever about how they do it, because I intend on resisting. I didn't know that the Australian Government sold your details for marketing purposes. Sort of no, but sort of yes.it's not as openly sinister as you suggest, however I still would rather third parties (gov included) only have the least amount of information possible. Your personal information will not be disclosed to any person, body or agency (other than the individual concerned) unless: •you give us permission •it is authorised or required by law or •it meets one of the other exceptions in the IPPs. Source: IPP’s (Information Privacy Principles) are here I’d rather not be part of that process where possible.

You can be though, I have no problem with that. The biggest one is because I have the right to protect my own information and it's none of your flapping business. Remember, you only have as much of a ‘right’ to privacy as the Government in whose jurisdiction you reside grants you; it is not an intrinsic God-given right just because you're born. That's not a for-or-against argument, by the way; I'm simply sick of people misguidedly thinking that they are born with rights that are not completely dependent on someone or some entity bigger than oneself granting and upholding those rights.

Remember, you only have as much of a ‘right’ to privacy as the Government in whose jurisdiction you reside grants you; it is not an intrinsic God-given right just because you're born. That's not a for-or-against argument, by the way; I'm simply sick of people misguidedly thinking that they are born with rights that are not completely dependent on someone or some entity bigger than oneself granting and upholding those rights. My post is strictly directed at those individuals producing the moronic statements to the effect that only those who are up to no good would want to retain their privacy and there couldn't possibly be any other motivation. It's not for or against the idea of having to surrender one's data when applying for a prepaid service. Nobody can give me one valid reason to stay anonymous.

Maybe you want Nineteen Eighty-Four. There's the best reason of all. Not everyone has facebook just because you do. Guess again; I've never gone near Facebook. I also have no issues with providing proof of who I am when signing up for something like a phone service. Seriously, what has 9 pages of discussion come to?

Identity theft or taking a personal stance, as reasons for not wanting to disclose information besides from the obvious white elephant of criminal activity. I'd be curious as to how many individuals have had issues with identity fraud from providing information for a mobile phone service to a legitimate business. I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread, but people just need to take off the tin hat occasionally, and get out in the sun and breathe. The world is not wicked, evil, corrupt place that current affairs television would lead you to believe. Everyone is not out to get you.

Now you might be thinking, this guy is losing the plot but I only need to remind you of what happened in Nazi Germany. The government decided jews did not have the right to exist. In your wording would you expect the jews to say we do not have the right to live and it is not our god given right because the government says otherwise? The old internet 'support my argument or you're Hitler' go to. In summary, my point is that governments are not the authorities to determine what a right is. Humanity determines what rights are, governments simply choose to recognise or ignore those rights.

A government elected by humanity decides what rights are. That's what democracy is all about & this is certainly the case in Australia.

Most of the things we take as rights are actually Acts of parliment. I stand by comments of other in previous comments that if you desire true annonmity from all you're Crook or Crackpot. Sorry I forgot Well I'm under the assumption, correctly or otherwise, that the details asked for when buying a sim are not going to be used to make me a part of the 'great holocaust of 2013'.

Why do you want to remain anonymous when buying a sim if I may ask? And, 'just because I want to' is a valid answer (That's right, to reiterate, so people don't think that was at typo, having no good reason is okay). Just don't expect anyone to actually change any laws based on a reason like that. If you have valid concerns though, they'll likely be listened to.

In this entire thread, there isn't a reason beyond people just wanting to not provide details. I remember I bought an Amaysim from DSE to try out in my ipad.

They asked for no ID and happily sold it to me along with a top-up credit. When I registered I'm certain I could have put in any details I liked, though it did ask for Drivers Licence Number and I have no idea if that actually gets validated or not, or could I have just put in any old random number. Regardless I'm certain there are ways of bypassing the system if you really wanted to. It's like anything, a lock on a door really only stops honest people, if you want to get in badly enough you'll find a way.

When I registered I'm certain I could have put in any details I liked, though it did ask for Drivers Licence Number and I have no idea if that actually gets validated or not I used to work for an MVNO that offered prepay services, and they didnt do any validation on the customers ID. Validation was only done on the address which I believe was only for IPND compliance. For those who choose to enter in fake details, just be sure to remember what those details are in the event you do require help from customer service. I remember one idiot who actually registered their number under the name Donald Duck (yes I'm serious!). He ended up having issues with his phone, but we refused to assist him until he could prove his identity by sending us a copy of his drivers licence/passport. Obviously we never heard back from Mr Duck. I remember one idiot who actually registered their number under the name Donald Duck (yes I'm serious!).

He ended up having issues with his phone, but we refused to assist him until he could prove his identity by sending us a copy of his drivers licence/passport. That's really poor of you. Issues with the simcard have nothing to do with the person's identity, identity shouldn't matter. Using his inability to prove his ID as an EXCUSE to make his life miserable, is much worse than him giving a false name. Hat's really poor of you. Issues with the simcard have nothing to do with the person's identity, identity shouldn't matter.

Using his inability to prove his ID as an EXCUSE to make his life miserable, is much worse than him giving a false name. Get off your high horse, I was only doing my job. The T&C's at the time stipulated that we could terminate any service if we suspected the customer details registered were fraudulent. Mr Donald Duck should have thought of that before he registered his service under a BS name. What would your stance be if we fixed Mr Duck's service, who then proceeded to engage in criminal activity under his assumed alias? The T&C's at the time stipulated that we could terminate any service if we suspected the customer details registered were fraudulent. You don't know that it is fraudulent, you have no right to inconvenience him just because you suspect it.

What would your stance be if we fixed Mr Duck's service, who then proceeded to engage in criminal activity under his assumed alias? It's none of your business what he uses the service for. He paid for the service, you should give him what any other customer gets. I could ask you the same question – what if he sends proof of ID, and you use it for identity theft? Or you stalk him at his private home, or on his birthday, because you might have some kind of duck fetish? He has every reason not to give you his ID. How is it unenforceable?

No police is going to spend time and energy verifying the true identity of every simcard user. Simply because even if their ID is not accurate, they have caused no harm in doing it, and there are bigger criminals to catch. Even if someone is 'found out', how is the police going to prove it wasn't a case of an innocent mistake. That makes it unenforceable. The only way the police will care is if the person does something harmful to begin with, then is traced backwards to the simcard, but in this case they would be charged with more serious offences than the simcard one.

You don't know that it is fraudulent, you have no right to inconvenience him just because you suspect it. Err, yes I can as per our T&C's. You can argue all this point all you want, as I said earlier, I was just doing my job.

It's none of your business what he uses the service for. He paid for the service, you should give him what any other customer gets.

Other customers also do the right thing and register their correct details. It is also our business to know what the service is being used for, especially if we suspect that they are using our service to menace, harass or offend.

T&C's also sets out the conditions of use, so it's definitely our business to know. I could ask you the same question – what if he sends proof of ID, and you use it for identity theft? Or you stalk him at his private home, or on his birthday, because you might have some kind of duck fetish? He has every reason not to give you his ID. What a load of drivel.

All we asked for was proof of ID. This is something that needs to be supplied anyway at the time of registration.

If someone is going to be that paranoid with identity theft, guess they'll never have to apply for a loan, credit card, passport, postpay mobile service etc etc. I'm done arguing with you. Judging by your name, Donald was probably was one of your mates. I was just doing my job. You went out of your way to punish someone because they refused to show you ID. Sounds like a power trip to me, perhaps your whirlpool name played a role in it too.

It is also our business to know what the service is being used for, especially if we suspect that they are using our service to menace, harass or offend How is someone called Donald Duck, in itself, menacing, harassing or offending others? All we asked for was proof of ID. You are discriminating on your customers, you don't ask other customers for ID, you singled him out just because of his name. If someone is going to be that paranoid with identity theft, guess they'll never have to apply for a loan, credit card, passport, postpay mobile service etc etc. Banks and government agencies have a much tighter control over private information. On the other hand, mobile phone employees are notorious for breaking privacy laws.

Probably because there is such a large turnover of phone employees, they can get away with being slack. Just have a look at some of the threads in this forum, so many reports of privacy breach by Vodafone and the like. Quite simply – we don't trust you to keep our information safe! It's none of your business what he uses the service for. It is actually the business of the provider to know what their services are being used for.

That's why they have terms that allow them to cancel services. He paid for the service, you should give him what any other customer gets. Every other customer gets to properly identify themselves and prove who they are prior to telecommunication services (or other utility services) being rendered.

He is getting the exact same service as other paying customers. What if he sends proof of ID, and you use it for identity theft? That's exactly why access to private details should be audited by any decent business. You can't rely on honest employers.

He has every reason not to give you his ID. And the business has every right to not grant service. Having access to a mobile phone service is not a birth right.

If you choose to use the service, then you choose to jump through the hoops, or face the consequences if you are caught out, just like Donald did. There are bigger criminals to catch Tracing and tapping phones is an invaluable method of evidence gathering. The first step to any sort of wiretap is having access to the phone services that someone uses. It's also not a simple task to get a wiretap authorised, and there are many hoops to jump through so abuse these days is minimal. Anonymous services void this method of evidence gathering. Now how many phones used by the 9/11 terrorists, or Bali bombers do you think were registered to the perpetrators? What bigger criminals did you have in mind?

I'm still waiting for some reasons why people need to buy sims anonymously. I've asked three times now and it just keeps coming back to tin hat situations like the telco stealing your identity. You don't ask other customers for ID I am asked to prove who I am every time I deal with a utility provider. If I had a name like Donald Duck, or Mickey Mouse, I'd expect to be asked for more information personally. If the customer felt hard done by, they could have raised a formal complaint.

We don't trust you to keep our information safe! BIG difference between services being hacked (which is the majority of leaked person details), and an employee leaking information. BIG difference. Do you have a license? Do you have a power utility in your name? Landline phone?

Ever booked a plane ticket? Every put a CC number into an online form to shop online? You think those employees are generally any different to a telco? There are MANY places you'd have issues before a telco. Hey, I get that some people want to be anonymous; I'm querying why outside of the tin-hatters this is the case, when it seems to be so hypocritical given the other places they'd freely hand out their personal details to. And the business has every right to not grant service.

That's fine: if he was rejected the service from the very beginning for failure to provide ID, no complaints. He would then go to another provider. But that's not what happened. His service was approved, then later ImBored went out of his way to revoke his service. Probably lost credit money in the process. That is improper conduct in my opinion. Anonymous services void this method of evidence gathering.

I don't think so, when the police get authority to tap a mobile number, they have the power to do it regardless of what name the simcard is registered under. I'm still waiting for some reasons why people need to buy sims anonymously How about this (true story, has been known to happen). You register your simcard under your true name and address. You use that phone number. One day you give out your number to someone who turns out to be a psycho. You ignore his calls and abuse.

Soon after, you hear your doorbell ring, and find him at your doorstep threatening you. How did he find out where you live? Well, he has 'a mate' who works at your Telco company.

Are you going to regret registering your true info with the telco now? I'm still waiting for some reasons why people need to buy sims anonymously.

I'll have a go at this, or more broadly why governments should collect as little data as possible on us. I wouldn't actually have a problem with it if you could guarantee the data was going to be 100% secure and only ever accessed in the event of a court order. But that's impossible. We've seen time after time government databases get hacked or 'lost' (DVDs left on trains, laptops stolen, etc – the UK went through a particularly bad run a few years ago) and you can be sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.

So if this data is collected, then you have to be prepared to have it made available outside of the telco and government. Now sure, it is still unlikely but it could happen to you and it WILL happen to some people.

Then these databases could be released publicly. All of a sudden anyone can see every number you've called, texted, possibly the contents of your texts, tied back to your real name and address. And you don't have to be doing anything illegal to want to keep all that private.

Some things look bad out of context. Perhaps you don't want your workmates to know that you call out for pizza 5 nights a week. Or that you have a habit of calling ex-partners at 3am every Saturday morning.

Or that you've made several calls to the STI clinic in the past month. (And now there is talk of collecting your Internet browsing history and contents of your emails – imagine that getting out) Or, possibly worse, a database may not be released publicly but quietly gets into the hands of people who will use it for identity theft and fraud. You may never even know the database is stolen.

On top of that, people who have legitimate access to these databases can and will abuse it for personal reasons. I've worked at a hospital and some people had no qualms looking up personal health records of people they knew or wanted to find out more about.

It was audited and in those cases they got caught and fired (that's how I knew about it – although it was kept pretty hush-hush) but it is hard to detect illegitimate queries from legitimate ones. No doubt there were others who never got caught. It really comes down to the fact that if you don't collect data it won't be abused. But if you do, it will be. And you'll never really know the full extent of that abuse. That doesn't mean we shouldn't collect data, but if we do, there should be a very good reason, or some basic precautions taken (like making data anonymous so statistics can be collected but individual privacy is protected).

We shouldn't be asking 'why not have this information collected', we should be asking 'why does this information need to be collected'. Given the real criminals can easily work around this issue, I'm not sure why it should be.

Personally, I abide by these requirements. But I do object to them being there in the first place. I think each individual should have the right to make their own decisions about their privacy. And the 'if you have nothing to hide' argument is really annoying and dangerous. Anyone who makes that argument should just be challenged to immediately post the contents of all their emails and browsing history for the past 12 months.

And to install public webcams in all rooms of their house. After all, if they have nothing to hide. What identity theft can be gotten from this form? You are right, they can't identity theft from this form alone. But it does have your address recorded on the system, which can be a problem (not identity theft but exposure to potential harassment). I was talking about identity theft because I'mBored (the mobile company employee) demanded 'a copy of driver's licence/passport'. This is not just that prepaid form, it is a scan or photocopy of the ID.

This CAN lead to identity theft. (see his post here: ).

It was audited and in those cases they got caught and fired Getting fired is a possible consequence of abusing private information, when the employee is working at a bank or government body. But it does not happen in telcos. I've had a couple of Telco staff members revealing my private info unlawfully, I complained about it, and nothing happened. Just a weak 'sorry about that, we all make mistakes, won't happen again', and the employees still continued to work there as if nothing happened.

This is why I don't trust telcos with my private info, and anyone who values their privacy should be like that. No police is going to spend time and energy verifying the true identity of every simcard user. Question How will compliance with the new prepaid mobile service ID check process be ensured? Answer The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the regulator for the telecommunications industry. ACMA will carry out audits of information held by mobile service providers and conduct mystery shopper spot checks at point of sale outlets to ensure that the form is being completed correctly. This is why I don't trust telcos with my private info, and anyone who values their privacy should be like that. Those are good reasons.

Do you have a bank account? Internet service? You should start demanding anonymity there too, because you are just as much at risk from any of these (and many more). Face it, there IS no privacy anymore. On another note, I do find it hilarious that even in the face of what happened on 9/11, you can apparently still get a prepaid phone in the USA with no ID.

Very fair points to make. We do need to remember though that we are at the mercy of a provider with any service, and breaching the terms is breaching the terms. They have the power to do it regardless of what name the simcard is registered under That's right. So how do they know what the number is when the perpetrators they are after are all using sims that have been purchased without any ID? It makes relating the number to the person very difficult. How about this Fair point again.

How often does it happen though? What about mates in the police who have access to car rego lookups? This isn't about the industry, it's about the individual. Isn't it just as discriminatory to say that all telco workers will leak your information to anyone who asks, as it is to say that everyone who wants an anonymous sim is a criminal? You give them your phone number.

Not my fault you're a bad judge of character!;P For those without a sense of humour, I'm joking. Very easy for an outsider to bribe a Telco employee Really? You call a call centre. Problem already, I don't know who the provider is. Okay, let's assume I do.

I get someone on the other side of the globe. Okay I need to get money to them which is a traceable transaction and will get them fired. All of a sudden they're not so easy to bribe.

Flap it I'll just walk into random telco stores and offer a kid at the counter $50 to look you up. As long as the person I want to stalk is with Telstra, Optus of Voda there are plenty of stores. Still seem easy?

It's a case of having to know someone. It is still unlikely but it could happen There's a higher risk of a horrible death in a car accident, than a plane crash, but people fear flying and not driving. That's tin hattery to me (but I realise that it's in the exact same vein as the car-plane analogy and valid to some). Talk of collecting your Internet browsing history Which has what to do with providing details to a telco? If you don't collect data it won't be abused. But if you do, it will be.

How many companies have you provided your details to, and what bad things have come from it? So a friend of a friend of a friend of some stranger on A Current Affair is a victim of identity fraud. Oh wait, I stopped caring long ago. Data will not be abused simply because it is available.

Data is collected to analyse and use for a meaningful purpose. Data collection for telcos allows them to introduce services based on usage patterns, regions people live in and vist, number of services in a family, etc., etc. There are also legal compliance issues, for a lot of services where thet are effectively credit providers and legally need information.

Data is abused by people, not by nature of it being data. Sure, anyone can be the victim of a criminal activity. That can also happen to someone not stepping out their front door for fear of being mugged though.

Once more, tin hat. Given the real criminals can easily work around this issueHow many opportunistic criminals do you think there could be though? Isn't keeping the honest criminals, honest a valid reason (along with plenty of others)? Each individual should have the right to make their own decisions about their privacy I agree. And any business should have the right to deny service if they don't get the information they deem is required.

Post the contents of all their emails and browsing history for the past 12 months Which has what to do with purchasing an anonymous sim? We are at the mercy of a provider with any service, and breaching the terms is breaching the terms. There was no breach of terms there, the provider already registered the SIM under the Donald Duck name before with no problem. And he didn't do anything wrong afterwards. It was just a busy-body employee, who decided to go out of his way to punish the user because of his name. I dislike employees like that, they usually do that for shits and giggles and a power trip.

It went beyond the terms. So how do they know what the number is when the perpetrators they are after are all using sims that have been purchased without any ID?

There are other ways for police to get ID from a simcard, if the need arises – the police can see what numbers that simcard have called or received calls from, then follow on those leads. This isn't about the industry, it's about the individual. Isn't it just as discriminatory to say that all telco workers will leak your information to anyone who asks, as it is to say that everyone who wants an anonymous sim is a criminal?

I never said that Telco workers will definitely leak the information. I said they might, and they have in the past. It is risk management, why expose yourself to a known risk, when you don't have to? And it is about the industry, Telco workers have a rather loose culture where privacy matters aren't treated seriously. If police or hospital staff leak private info, they get the sack.

But if Telco workers leak private info, absolutely nothing happens, the complaints department might pacify you by saying they will fix it but nothing ever happens, you can be assured the private leak could happen again. You call a call centre Bribes don't happen over the call centre, they happen instore where there is no record of the unauthorised access or the bribe (if any). As long as the person I want to stalk is with Telstra, Optus of Voda there are plenty of stores. There are only 3 networks in Australia, all the other phone providers still use Optus or Vodafone. You can find out what provider the number is connected to, using free lookup tools on the net, or by listening to the message you get when you call the number when the phone's unavailable.

How many companies have you provided your details to, and what bad things have come from it? That's like you saying, you've never been cut by a knife before, so you can assume you will never get hurt by a knife in future. Bad argument.

Data is abused by people, not by nature of it being data. Exactly, it is abused by people, and we can't trust people to do their jobs properly in safeguarding our data.

That's why we shouldn't provide data that is unnecessary. That can also happen to someone not stepping out their front door for fear of being mugged though People are exposed to mugging risks because they have no choice, we need to move about to do our business. But Telco privacy breach is a risk we can and should avoid, especially when it comes to mobile phones. There's no advantage for us in giving our true info when registering prepaid sims. Any business should have the right to deny service if they don't get the information they deem is required. That's fine like I said, if they deny it from the very beginning.

Then we will simply shop around for another provider that will accept it (they exist, despite what they might say in lip service). What is wrong is if they accept, then later after getting your money deny the service. There was no breach of terms there, the provider already registered the SIM under the Donald Duck name before with no problem. I dont know how many times I have to say it.

The T&C's at the time stipulated that we could terminate any service if we SUSPECTED the customer details registered were fraudulent. I asked him to verify, he failed, bye bye mobile service. If that makes me a 'busy-body employee' on a 'power trip' because I enforced our T&Cs, then so F'n be it! If Mr Duck had called up to recharge his service using a credit card, would it be remiss of me to accept payment without verifying ID first?!? That's fine like I said, if they deny it from the very beginning. Then we will simply shop around for another provider that will accept it (they exist, despite what they might say in lip service).

What is wrong is if they accept, then later after getting your money deny the service. And how do you suppose we (and other providers) do this? For virtually all prepay services, customer registration is done after the point of sale. Mr Duck would've gone to a retail channel, purchased a SIM (probably without filling the AMTA form) and then proceeded with activation. Now, just before the final step of full activation, the customer is required to tick a checkbox acknowledging that they agree to our T&Cs.

If Mr Duck didn't like the T&C's, then he had every right to return his SIM for a full refund. If he didn't read the T&C's, well that's his problem. But fact is, he ticked that checkbox and agreed to our T&Cs, which allowed me to go on my 'power trip' and ask him to verify his identity If you must know, I'm a closet Donald Duck fan and I just couldn't sit back and watch someone steal the identity of my beloved Disney character.

Already registered the SIM under the Donald Duck name Which is a breach of terms as false information was provided. Anonymous!= lying. Your other comments are very valid, but not knowing the exact situation it is hard to reasonably chastise someone for doing their job. Follow on those leads Like herding cats? An anonymous number, calling an anonymous number. They still need to start somewhere. Anonymity removes the starting point.

Why expose yourself to a known risk, when you don't have to? You are legally obliged to provide details when purchasing a sim, so you do actually have to do that.

Why drive a car? Why drink alcohol? Why take drugs? Why do anything, as everything involves a level of risk?

You can be assured the private leak could happen again. Are you assured, or is it merely a possibility? It cannot be both? How did the subsequent breaches of privacy come about in your situation, and how are you certain without a doubt that the same telco did this? There are only 3 networks in Australia And to my knowledge (though I could be wrong) if you're signed with an MVNO, the parent company does not have any of your details.

[Redacted dodgy stuff!!] Bad argument. So your answer is that you have had no issues elsewhere, and choose to not answer the question becuase of that. That's why we shouldn't provide data that is unnecessary. Once mor eyou a legally mandated to provide that data.

You have decided it is unnesessary, based on having never run a telco, or having those legal responsibilities. We need to move about to do our business You don't hire a body guard though? Telco privacy breach is a risk we can and should avoid Again, you are legally obligated to provide those details. There's no advantage for us in giving our true info when registering prepaid sims. A decision you have made in breach of the terms of purchasing that service. Another provider that will accept it Once more, you legally need to provide that info. Now if it were not legally mandated, I'd personally still think tracking communications devices like this would be a good idea (assuming a relative level of care with my information).

That's a moot point though. It is a legal requirement to provide these details. I'm happy enough to hand over my personal details to secure a communications device as is required by law (or instrument thereof). I accept the risk of my personal details being stolen from a secured & user ID footprinted Database (as is required by law now) to reduce the remote, but infintely worse outcome, of being blown to itty bitty pieces/several large chunks or having all my stuff stolen by an organised group (take your pick either way it's not cool). At the end of the day the legislation is about make life a little bit harder for organised criminals, nerdowells & other shitheads (won't stop them from obtaining annonymous Comms but it does expose them a little bit more). There are facilities for those who have a geniune need to remain annoymous (none have been touched on properly here).

It aint ever going to go back the other way for a good reason. There's a higher risk of a horrible death in a car accident, than a plane crash, but people fear flying and not driving. That's tin hattery to me (but I realise that it's in the exact same vein as the car-plane analogy and valid to some).

And you have a far higher chance of being victim of a data breach than dying in a car crash. I don't quite understand the point of your analogy. What other event are you trying to compare a data breach to?

Which has what to do with providing details to a telco? You can use your mobile phone account to browse the web. Your identity is tied to your SIM and recorded. If the government requires ISPs / telcos to record web history, all it takes is one data breach (to the telco or government) for your browsing history to be revealed to the world. It's just another requirement coming in that makes the ID requirement more significant. The point is, it will happen to some people – will you be happy if it happens to you? How many companies have you provided your details to, and what bad things have come from it?

Biology Dictionary Java. I've seen things from the other side. Small (individual) data breaches that just get covered up. The victim never knew. I've seen how shocking the security and checks and balances on these systems can be.

Generally I'm cautious about supplying my details, especially financial. I just always ask myself the question do I need to be providing this information. If there is a good benefit then I will. Otherwise, I would rather not.

Call it tin-hattery if you want, but I liken it to defensive driving. I avoid unnecessary risk – without having to work out exactly how high or low the risk is. So I don't like it when a government mandate forces you to take more risk than is personally beneficial. Data is abused by people, not by nature of it being data. That can also happen to someone not stepping out their front door for fear of being mugged though. Once more, tin hat. Do you regard avoiding some places when walking round in the dead of night as tin hat as well?

And any business should have the right to deny service if they don't get the information they deem is required. I don't have a problem with business requiring information to do business with them. You will find generally businesses don't care if you are anonymous as long as you pay them. You can always go to their competition. A government mandate is different.

Which has what to do with purchasing an anonymous sim? It's a commonly used argument against the desire to stay anonymous – whether it is buying a SIM card, posting on forums such as this, etc. It's been used several times in this thread already. I asked him to verify, he failed, bye bye mobile service.

You asked him to verify by giving 'a copy of a driver's licence/passport'. That is very dangerous for him, because a copy of that can be used by others to do all sorts of things under his identity.

The proper way would have been to ask him to verify by showing his ID at one of your stores (without a copy being made), or to check his details against a secure identity verifying database (like what online banks use). Granted, even if you asked for ID the proper way, Mr Duck still probably wouldn't respond, but at least you would have enforced the ID requirement in a more professional and safe manner. Fact is, he ticked that checkbox and agreed to our T&Cs, which allowed me to go on my 'power trip' and ask him to verify his identity Legally, you had a right to do it. But exercising a discretion is not always the right thing to do.

It stands that you went out of your way to enforce one of your T&Cs, when you had no obligation or need to do it. You could have just left it the way it was (like an ordinary disinterested employee would), then everyone would be happy.

But no, instead you put effort into inconveniencing someone, without benefiting anyone at all. That is a waste, regardless of what the law permits you to do. And yes, it is one hell of a power trip I'm sure. If you must know, I'm a closet Donald Duck fan and I just couldn't sit back and watch someone steal the identity of my beloved Disney character. There we go, that explains why you picked on the poor guy. Anonymous!= lying. People lie all the time, it is not against the law to lie, so lying in itself is not the problem.

You are legally obliged to provide details when purchasing a sim, so you do actually have to do that. No, some sim sellers don't even bother to fill out the identity form when selling sims, if they don't follow the particular law why should the users. Also lots of people break the law without consequence, have a look at copyright law, it's broken everywhere on the internet but no one cares. Same with jaywalking laws. Police even break their own laws sometimes, like speeding without knowing. Why do anything, as everything involves a level of risk? You do things that have risk, if you get some kind of benefit.

People drive a car to get to places, they drink for enjoyment, there's a benefit to those risks. But there is no benefit to providing details when buying a sim. Are you assured, or is it merely a possibility?

I'm assured it is a possibility, what's wrong with that? The Telco refused to guarantee the private info wouldn't be leaked again, that possibility in itself is a problem.

The proper way would have been to ask him to verify by showing his ID at one of your stores (without a copy being made) We didn't have any stores. Only retail channels like 7Elevens, convenience stores, petrol stations etc. Have you actually ever applied for a postpay service in a store before? I've done so with both Optus and Vodafone, and both made copies of my drivers license. Legally, you had a right to do it. And that's all that matters You could have just left it the way it was (like an ordinary disinterested employee would), then everyone would be happy. I'm happy, and that's all that counts:).

There's a higher risk of a horrible death in a car accident, than a plane crash, but people fear flying and not driving. That's tin hattery to me (but I realise that it's in the exact same vein as the car-plane analogy and valid to some). [OT] Thats more about personal control than anything else.[OT] Data is abused by people, not by nature of it being data. And most of your data is already out there. If you use anything in our western society, you are already 'in the system'. Getting all bent out of shape over having to give ID to get a SIM card is just fruitless.

If you don't want to give your ID, IMO don't get a mobile phone. Problem solved. But ONLY for the mobile. Your information is still out there.

Like you, JDL, still waiting for a valid reason not to give an ID. .The T&C's at the time stipulated that we could terminate any service if we SUSPECTED the customer details registered were fraudulent. Are there any Telco's that do not terminate only on Suspicion? I'm pretty sure Indians and Phillipino's at Optus and Virgin do not terminate on suspicion.

Too manynquestions will be asked and they just dont want to risk their jobs. Feeding their family is more important in a third-world country. Only first-world countries have Donald Duck fans that terminate based only on suspicion. Are there any Telco's that do not terminate only on Suspicion? You will find that most will give the end user the opportunity to verify their ID, which is what I did. I'm pretty sure Indians and Phillipino's at Optus and Virgin do not terminate on suspicion. Too manynquestions will be asked and they just dont want to risk their jobs.

No they wouldn't, not unless they were the call centre manager. But in my instance, we had a Filipino call centre and it was the CSR that raised the issue to head office in regards to the name. Only first-world countries have Donald Duck fans that terminate based only on suspicion. I would have also done if it was Mickey Mouse or Goofy. It was just a busy-body employee, who decided to go out of his way to punish the user because of his name. I dislike employees like that, they usually do that for shits and giggles and a power trip. It went beyond the terms.

Legally, you had a right to do it. But exercising a discretion is not always the right thing to do. It stands that you went out of your way to enforce one of your T&Cs, when you had no obligation or need to do it. That's a nice breakthrough in this merry-go-round, and I think we're done.

The key call-out is that what you as an individual think is ‘right’ does not oblige anyone else to accommodate you; why don't you accommodate their idea of ‘right’ instead? It really isn't important what you would like. By the way, as an telco employee I'mBored most likely has an obligation to uphold the terms and conditions of the service agreement, and certainly more of an obligation to do so than to turn a blind eye and ‘be nice’.

I dislike people who somehow thinks their world views have any standing with their equals, and should be accepted and catered to by default. There's no advantage for us in giving our true info when registering prepaid sims. I just always ask myself the question do I need to be providing this information. If there is a good benefit then I will. Otherwise, I would rather not. Which is why the law sometimes compels us to do what, as individuals, we do not consider advantageous or beneficial to ourselves.

If you don't agree with the law, then feel free to remove yourself to live outside of its jurisdiction and not enjoy its protection. The answer to the initial question is that it is possible to remain anonymous and get a prepaid service. However, to do so requires breaking the law. As we have seen here there are some people happy to break the law. But they must accept the consequences, as Donald Duck found out.

Those saying that the CSO should have just fixed the service are forgetting that, for privacy reasons, the identity of the caller must be verified for every support call, to avoid threads like Another case on Whirlpool a few months ago was a case of an underage person who signed up using an incorrect birthdate. When the time came to port to another provider, he was unable to remember the birthdate used, and without the birthdate to verify his identity was unable to port his number. Which is why the law sometimes compels us to do what, as individuals, we do not consider advantageous or beneficial to ourselves. If you don't agree with the law, then feel free to remove yourself to live outside of its jurisdiction and not enjoy its protection. As I said, I do adhere to this law (and all laws, even those I personally disagree with).

I recognise the benefits of society and laws. But I strongly disagree with the sentiment that people who disagree with a specific law should remove themselves to a lawless society. That is obviously completely ludicrous (and undemocratic). We should all have the right to offer our opinion and speak against laws if we wish. This whole debate comes down to where you draw the line on public benefit vs personal liberty (as well as the amount of public benefit that this law provides), and that's subjective. I would just urge people to always consider both the need and the unintended effects of data identification and retention laws.

Yes, the SIM card issue is fairly minor but it is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to proposals that are starting to be made (like mass retention of our browsing and email histories). As pretty much everyone here is acknowledged, people do sometimes abuse data when it is collected.

The more that is collected, the more opportunity there is for mistakes or malicious behaviour. Funnily enough, none of the other developed English speaking nations – UK, USA, NZ or Canada – require ID when purchasing a SIM.

We should all have the right to offer our opinion and speak against laws if we wish. I don't have an issue with that. I'd be perfectly happy if the likes of CuteBirdy staunchly express the sentiment that being required to give and prove his/her identity feels like a gross personal violation, and that it is only under duress and to his/her distress that he/she does so to comply. I have an issue with people who act in contravention of laws with which they do not personally agree, and/or cast blame on the agents of enforcement of those laws; the agents are not the instruments of the perceived violation. That's a nice breakthrough in this merry-go-round, and I think we're done. There was no contradiction in the passages you cited from my posts.

When I said 'it went beyond the terms', I meant it went beyond what the terms REQUIRED. There was nothing in the terms requiring the employee to actively go on a witch-hunt to find and punish all customers with suspicious details. The terms allowed him to do it, but did not require or even encourage him to do it. I'mBored most likely has an obligation to uphold the terms and conditions of the service agreement He would have still upheld those terms, by ignoring the Donald Duck name.

More of an obligation to do so than to turn a blind eye and ‘be nice’. Where do you get the idea that he had an obligation to ban the user?

He had the power to do it, but not an obligation. I dislike people who somehow thinks their world views have any standing with their equals, and should be accepted and catered to by default.

I never said my views should be accepted by everyone, everyone can have their own opinions. But I do think my views have merit and at least equal standing to the opposing views on this thread. Some people happy to break the law. But they must accept the consequences Nobody is ever 'happy' to break the law, but they might do it if the law does not make sense to them, puts them at risk of harm, and is unenforceable. Which is the case for this ID law, for some people. Refusing to provide ID in itself also harms nobody, even if it is illegal the penalty might be nothing, given that courts have discretion over what penalty to apply. Those saying that the CSO should have just fixed the service are forgetting that, for privacy reasons, the identity of the caller must be verified for every support call CSOs must verify that the identity of the caller MATCHES THEIR CUSTOMER RECORDS.

But that's not what we were talking about. We had a CSO who wanted to verify the identity of the caller is completely true and accurate, against a driver's licence/passport. This type of verification did not need to be done by the CSO. When the time came to port to another provider, he was unable to remember the birthdate used, and without the birthdate to verify his identity was unable to port his number That is a possible consequence of not providing accurate details, but avoidable.

Ask Donald Duck and the other person I mentioned who lost his number Their self-harm could have been avoided if they picked a suitable provider (without busy-body power hungry employees), and if they remember the details they entered. So you are suggesting it really was Donald Duck on the other end, because that is what the customer records said.

If Donald Duck was already registered and approved (which it was), employees can rely on that to verify the caller. Most employees do, thankfully busy-body employees are rare. There was nothing in the terms requiring the employee to actively go on a witch-hunt to find and punish all customers with suspicious details. I'm afraid you're confused.

The terms of the service agreement is between the customer and the service provider, which no doubt included a requirement that the customer supply personal identity information details that are genuine, since: The T&C's at the time stipulated that we could terminate any service if we SUSPECTED the customer details registered were fraudulent. He would have still upheld those terms, by ignoring the Donald Duck name. Where do you get the idea that he had an obligation to ban the user?

He had the power to do it, but not an obligation. I'mBored, as an employee of the service provider, had an obligation to act in the best interests of the company in the course of performing his/her work duties, and why wouldn't you conclude that upholding the terms of the service agreement and exercising the provision to terminate the service is not in the best interests of the company? He/she has no obligation to accommodate the self-proclaimed Mr Donald Duck, irrespective of why the latter thought/felt giving fraudulent personal details was acceptable or warranted, and put the interests of Mr Duck ahead of the service provider's. If I'mBored was doing a search across the customer database and actively looking for names of Disney characters, then you might say he/she was on a witch-hunt. On the other hand, what happened certainly seemed to be within standard process for a customer interaction. TL;DR – The T&Cs of the service agreement oblige the customer to give (genuine) personal identity details, in accordance with the law.

I'mBored's employment contract with the service provider, on the other hand, creates an obligation on him/her to work in the company's best interests, and since he/she suspected the details supplied were fraudulent, it's perfectly rational that a judgment call is made when the customer failed to validate his details. I'mBored, as an employee of the service provider, had an obligation to act in the best interests of the company in the course of performing his/her work duties, and why wouldn't you conclude that upholding the terms of the service agreement and exercising the provision to terminate the service is not in the best interests of the company?

He wasn't 'upholding the terms of the service agreement', he was exercising a provision in it that allows a DISCRETION to terminate the service. The service 'could' be terminated, not 'must' be. As for whether it was in the best interests of his company to exercise that discretion, I'd argue it was not. Donald Duck bought the SIM, and paid for credit, he was generating income for the company. It shouldn't matter who Donald Duck really is, since he provided a financial benefit to the company.

The time to disqualify Donald Duck would have been at the time of registration. After successful registration there is an implied approval from the company that it has accepted Donald Duck's details. It is wrong to go backwards on that, and ban him afterwards. The T&Cs of the service agreement oblige the customer to give (genuine) personal identity details, in accordance with the law. That might be true, but it is not the provider's responsibility to ensure that the details are absolutely accurate. It is like ISPs and copyright breach – ISPs have no responsibility to ensure that their customers don't break copyright law.

Whatever customers do is their own responsibility. The same principle applies to customers who don't provide real details for SIM registration. And leave to company open to prosecution if an audit found that it was aware that the name might be fraudulent but did not act on it. No phone company has or will be prosecuted for failure to ensure a customer's provided details are accurate. So many SIM services are registered under false details every day, and it has been going on for years, yet it is never investigated because it isn't a problem. Only busy-body employees think it is a problem. You are wrong.

We disagree then, unsurprisingly. Until somebody complains when the law is applied. As explained before, the provider needs to apply it (if at all) at the time of registration. After successful registration, the provider is taken to have impliedly accepted the customer. Any employee who comes along later and bans the customer is a busy-body who has deprived their company of income, and is acting against the best interests of the company and the customer. A loss-loss situation. The provider has already violated that 'regulation' you referred to with their registration system, having an employee come along later to 'rectify' it for one or two suspected customers is not going to fix it or make it better, so why bother.

Yet most prepaid providers don't verify ID, they might say it's verified but it's not, another case of a useless regulation that nobody really cares about. The providers aren't wrong, it is the regulation that is questionable. It depends the *degree* of verification. Most Providers now check that your residential address complies with the Australia Post PAB database of street addresses. The legislation doesn't state *what* needs to be Verified.

Thus, they have satisfied their Verification requirement since they have verified *something*! And no amount of fixing up later is going to satisfy that regulation. Actually clause 7.2 (b) of the legislation specifically allows for this situation. 7.2 Restriction because of incomplete or incorrect records A carriage service provider must not allow a person to use a number issued in connection with a pre-paid public mobile telecommunications service if: (a) the carriage service provider has not collected the required identifying information about, and, if necessary, verified the identity of, the person in accordance with this Determination; or (b) the carriage service provider has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the written records kept by the carriage service provider in relation to the service contain incorrect information.

Actually clause 7.2 (b) of the legislation specifically allows for this situation. So what, if the customer happens to have a name that matches a cartoon character or a celebrity, there is automatically 'reasonable grounds' for suspecting the records are inaccurate? There has to be reasonable grounds, which means, the person said or did something showing they lied about their identity, or someone else complained of identity theft, or something to that effect. Refusing to provide a copy of a driver's licence or passport is NOT enough to satisfy the reasonable grounds.

If I ask for your personal ID and you refuse to give it to me, I can't assume your ID is incorrect, you refused because you were not comfortable with giving me the info, same situation with prepaid sims. I have an issue with people who act in contravention of laws with which they do not personally agree, and/or cast blame on the agents of enforcement of those laws; the agents are not the instruments of the perceived violation. If the law is wrong so is its enforcement. My telling you that it would be good to kill your neighbor would be wrong.

You're doing so would also be wrong; the fact that I may have counselled you to do it would not remove your culpability. Replace you with policeman and me with the state. The same applies.

Just to clarify (after reading through multiple pages of arguing). With some service providers (specifically AmaySIM), and depending on where you buy, you can: • Purchase a cheap pre-paid SIM and not provide ID at time of purchase. • Activate the SIM online and provide bogus details that are unlikely to ever be checked. As long as you specify a real address (though not necessarily your own), and a name that is not obviously suspicious (e.g. Mickey Mouse, Barack Obama) then you are unlikely to ever be 'caught'.

If you are 'caught', you might have your service cancelled. Is that an accurate summary? Just to clarify (after reading through multiple pages of arguing). With some service providers (specifically AmaySIM), and depending on where you buy, you can: Purchase a cheap pre-paid SIM and not provide ID at time of purchase. Activate the SIM online and provide bogus details that are unlikely to ever be checked. As long as you specify a real address (though not necessarily your own), and a name that is not obviously suspicious (e.g. Mickey Mouse, Barack Obama) then you are unlikely to ever be 'caught'.

If you are 'caught', you might have your service cancelled. Is that an accurate summary? I don't know anything about AmaySim. In general you only have to provide a name and address and no ID if you pay for a SIM with a credit card, including a prepaid debit card. Sometimes you don't even need to do that.

I notice vendors of prepaid SIM bulk lots on gumtree — these are probably five finger discounts. Activation involves filling out some details online from an identity document. If you know what a passport/license/medicare number looks like this will be accepted. The network operators don't have online access to any of the relevant databases. They probably have access to the Australia Post AMAS address checking system, but this merely checks whether such an address exists.

Hey guys, I just came back from woolies, wanted to buy amaysim simcard. Asked to provide an ID, all I had was my debit card on me. I was certain its all I need, but shop assistant told me otherwise. She also went to ask a supervisor, who was laughing at what I told her.

They thought Im out of my mind thinking that debit card is all I need for the purchase. Im just a little bit confused here, if someone could pelase clarify this for me. I was reading through Telecommunications (Service Provider — Identity Checks for Pre-paid Public Mobile Telecommunications Services) Determination 2000 Division 4.3 Verification of identity of end-user 4.5 Obtaining identifying information about end-user It says: The carriage service provider must obtain a total of 30 points of identifying information about the end-user of the service. Does it mean that I was right?

Bank card is all I need for the purchase? Strange reading. Telecommunications Act says it's necessary. 'typically involve credit checks' is different to a legal requirement for credit checks.

If they decide to run a credit check then yes they need to do an identity verification per the Privacy Act. Back in 2003 you regularly got a phone when you signed up. Of course a business wants to know who you are so they can come after you before you walk out of the store with a phone worth hundreds of dollars. But that figure is dropping (last I read it dropped from 80% in 2000 to 40% in 2013). But again, this is not a legal requirement, as you have shown by your quote. I think you would find that when you went to activate you would be prompted to call them because verification had failed.

The issue, for both prepaid and postpaid, is not about obtaining a SIM but activating it. No I have a few prepaid sims I have purchased using cash from supermarkets and activated online with 100% fake details, purely as an exercise, and they all work fine, some going strong for years now. I'm not doing anything nefarious with them so haven't been so careful as to never connect to my home wifi or only paying cash for recharges etc if some law enforcement agency wanted to they could track me down easily, but had I decided to be more careful since the initial activation I am sure it would more difficult.

I'm surprised that a prepaid provider is still allowing that. I don't use optus, only activated two to get the netflix codes, used fake details but then never used the services or recharged. But telstra and vodafone are still going fine even the more recent ones. At the end of the day AFAIK they merely check the ID numbers are valid, not that they match any particular record, so unless they get asked to do a proper verification they have no reason to think the details are not legitimate. This all started for me years ago after running a large retail store for years and never filling in those forms and nothing coming of it I started using fake details when I activated sims just to see what the go was.

And to date no issues at all. IMO Australia isn't too bad. Most 7 eleven shops don't really care.

I used to buy a new sim each time with 5 dollar voucher and use them till they've had -9 dollars credit on them. (Thank you optus for not having a decent and cheap data service) In Canada you need to have 2 pieces of ID as a proof (plus other stuff) for a $30-40 sim card that comes with nothing. It's even worse in my country where they have to photocopy your stuff and fax it, plus you have to be 18+ and the whole process takes longer than a day sometimes.

List • Website Vodafone Group plc is a British company, with headquarters in London. It predominantly operates services in the regions of,,, and.

Among globally, Vodafone ranked fifth by revenue and second (behind ) in the number of connections (469.7 million) as of 2016. Vodafone owns and operates networks in 26 countries and has partner networks in over 50 additional countries. Its division provides and IT services to corporate clients in 150 countries. Vodafone has a primary listing on the and is a constituent of the. It had a of approximately £52.5 billion as of 10 February 2016, the eighth-largest of any company listed on the London Stock Exchange. It has a secondary listing on. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Name [ ] The name Vodafone comes from voice data fone (the latter a of '), chosen by the company to 'reflect the provision of voice and data services over mobile phones'.

History [ ] The evolution of Vodafone started in 1982 with the establishment of the Racal Strategic Radio Ltd subsidiary of, the UK's largest maker of military radio technology, which formed a joint venture with called 'Racal', which evolved into the present day Vodafone. Evolution as a Racal Telecom brand: 1980 to 1991 [ ]. Vodafone's original logo, used from 1991 to 1997 In 1980,, the then chairman of Racal Electronics, agreed to a deal with of the to allow Racal to access some of GEC's tactical battle field radio technology. The head of Racal's military radio division,, was briefed by Ernest Harrison to drive the company into commercial mobile radio.

Whent visited a mobile radio factory run by (unrelated to GEC) in, USA the same year to understand the commercial use of military radio technology., head of a growing Swedish conglomerate, set up an American company, Millicom, Inc. And approached Racal's Whent in July 1982 about bidding jointly for the UK's second cellular radio licence. The two struck a deal giving Racal 60% of the new company, Racal-Millicom, Ltd, and Millicom 40%.

Due to UK concerns about foreign ownership, the terms were revised, and in December 1982, the Racal-Milicom partnership was awarded the second UK mobile phone network license. Final ownership of Racal-Millicom, Ltd was 80% Racal, with Millicom holding 15% plus royalties and venture firm Hambros Technology Trust holding 5%. According to the UK Secretary of State for Industry, 'the bid submitted by Racal-Millicom Ltd provided the best prospect for early national coverage by cellular radio.' Vodafone was launched on 1 January 1985 under the new name, Racal-Vodafone (Holdings) Ltd, with its first office based in the Courtyard in, Berkshire, and shortly thereafter Racal Strategic Radio was renamed Racal Telecommunications Group Limited.

On 29 December 1986, Racal Electronics issued shares to the minority shareholders of Vodafone worth GB£110 million, and Vodafone became a fully owned brand of Racal. On 26 October 1988, Racal Telecom, majority held by Racal Electronics, went public on the with 20% of its stock floated. The successful flotation led to a situation where Racal's stake in Racal Telecom was valued more than the whole of Racal Electronics. Under stock market pressure to realise full value for shareholders, Racal demerged Racal Telecom in 1991. Vodafone Group, then Vodafone Airtouch plc: 1991 to 2000 [ ] On 16 September 1991, Racal Telecom was demerged from Racal Electronics as Vodafone Group, with Gerry Whent as its CEO. In July 1996, Vodafone acquired the two-thirds of Talkland it did not already own for £30.6 million.

On 19 November 1996, in a defensive move, Vodafone purchased for £77 million, a 181 store chain whose customers were overwhelmingly using Vodafone's network. In a similar move the company acquired the 80% of Astec Communications that it did not own, a service provider with 21 stores. In January 1997, Gerald Whent retired and took over as the CEO. The same year, Vodafone introduced its Speechmark logo, composed of a in a circle, with the O's in the Vodafone logotype representing opening and closing quotation marks and suggesting conversation. On 29 June 1999, Vodafone completed its purchase of and changed its name to Vodafone Airtouch plc. The merged company commenced trading on 30 June 1999. To gain anti-trust approval for the merger, Vodafone sold its 17.2% stake in.

The acquisition gave Vodafone a 35% share of, owner of the largest German mobile network. On 21 September 1999, Vodafone agreed to merge its US wireless assets with those of to form. The merger was completed on 4 April 2000, just a few months prior to Bell Atlantic's merger with to form Verizon Communications, Inc. In November 1999, Vodafone made an unsolicited bid for, which was rejected. Vodafone's interest in Mannesmann had been increased by the latter purchase of, the UK mobile operator. Chris Gent would later say Mannesmann's move into the UK broke a 'gentleman's agreement' not to compete in each other's home territory. The hostile takeover provoked strong protest in Germany, and a 'titanic struggle' which saw Mannesmann resist Vodafone's efforts.

However, on 3 February 2000, the Mannesmann board agreed to an increased offer of £112 billion, then the largest corporate merger ever. The approved the merger in April 2000 when Vodafone agreed to divest the 'Orange' brand, which was acquired in May 2000. Vodafone Group plc: 2000 to present [ ].

The headquarters of in Bucharest On 28 July 2000, the Company reverted to its former name, Vodafone Group plc. On 17 December 2001, Vodafone introduced the concept of 'Partner Networks', by signing Mobil of Denmark. The new concept involved the introduction of Vodafone international services to the local market, without the need of investment by Vodafone. The concept would be used to extend the Vodafone brand and services into markets where it does not have stakes in local operators. Vodafone services would be marketed under the dual-brand scheme, where the Vodafone brand is added at the end of the local brand.

(i.e., TDC Mobil-Vodafone etc.) In 2007, Vodafone entered into a title sponsorship deal with the Formula One team, which traded as 'Vodafone McLaren Mercedes' until the sponsorship ended at the end of the 2013 season. On 1 December 2011, it acquired the based Bluefish Communications Ltd, an consultancy company. The acquired operations formed the nucleus of a new Unified Communications and Collaboration practice within its subsidiary Vodafone Global Enterprise, which will focus on implementing strategies and solutions in, and strengthen its offering. In April 2012, Vodafone announced an agreement to acquire (CWW) for £1.04 billion. Vodafone was advised by, while and advised Cable & Wireless. The acquisition will give Vodafone access to CWW's for businesses, enabling it to take solutions to large enterprises in the UK and globally; and expand its enterprise service offerings in emerging markets. On 18 June 2012, Cable & Wireless' shareholders voted in favour of the Vodafone offer, exceeding the 75% of shares necessary for the deal to go ahead.

On 2 September 2013, Vodafone announced it would be selling its 45% stake in to for $US130 billion, in one of the biggest deals in corporate history. With the proceeds from the deal, it announced a £19 billion Project Spring initiative to improve network quality in Europe and emerging markets like India. In June 2017, the company took measures to prevent its advertising from appearing within outlets focused on creating and sharing hate speech and fake news. Adverts [ ] Since 2010, the adverts feature two bees named Jack and Mike. Other adverts feature character. Does voice over for adverts.

In 2015, the new slogan, 'Live Life on 4G', was launched. Operations [ ] Africa and the Middle East [ ] Networks in the Middle East and Africa Majority-owned Minority-owned Partner networks DR Congo 1 Egypt Kuwait Ghana Lesotho 1 Bahrain Mozambique 1 Qatar 2 Libya 1 South Africa 1 UAE 1Majority stakes held through majority-owned Vodacom Group 2Effective ownership is not majority, but full control exercised by the group.

Egypt [ ] In November 1998, the Vodafone Egypt network went live under the name. On 8 November 2006, the company announced a deal with, resulting in further co-operation in the Egyptian market and increasing its stake in. After the deal, Vodafone Egypt was 55% owned by the group, while the remaining 45% was owned by Telecom Egypt. Kuwait [ ] On 18 September 2002, Vodafone signed a Partner Network Agreement with MTC group of Kuwait. The agreement involved the rebranding of MTC to. On 29 December 2003, Vodafone signed another Partner Network Agreement with Kuwait's MTC group. The second agreement involved co-operation in Bahrain and the branding of the network as MTC-Vodafone.

South Africa (Vodacom) [ ] On 3 November 2004, the Company announced that its South African affiliate had agreed to introduce Vodafone's international services, such as and partner agreements, to its local market. In November 2005, Vodafone announced that it was in exclusive talks to buy a 15% stake of VenFin in Vodacom Group, reaching agreement the following day. Vodafone and then had a 50% stake each in. Vodafone now owns 57.5% of Vodacom after purchasing a 15% stake from Telkom. On 9 October 2008, the company offered to acquire an additional 15 per cent stake in Vodacom Group from Telkom. The finalised details of the agreement were announced on 6 November 2008. The agreement called for Telkom to sell 15 per cent of its 50 per cent stake in Vodacom to the group, and demerge the other 35 per cent to its shareholder.

Meanwhile, Vodafone has agreed to make Vodacom its exclusive sub-Saharan Africa investment vehicle, as well as continuing to maintain the visibility of the Vodacom brand. The transaction closed in May/June 2009. On 18 May 2009, Vodacom entered the stock exchange in South Africa after Vodafone increased its stake by 15% to 65% to take a majority holding, despite disputes by local trade unions. In April 2011, Vodacom rebranded with the Vodafone logo. Qatar [ ] In December 2007, a Vodafone Group-led consortium was awarded the second mobile phone licence in Qatar under the name 'Vodafone Qatar'. Vodafone Qatar is located at QSTP, the.

Commercial operations officially began on 1 March 2009. Ghana [ ] On 3 July 2008, Vodafone agreed to acquire a 70% stake in for $900 million. The acquisition was consummated on 17 August 2008. The same group-led consortium won the second fixed-line licence in Qatar on 15 September 2008.

On 15 April 2009, Ghana Telecom, along with its mobile subsidiary OneTouch, was rebranded as. [ ] On 28 January 2009, the group announced a partner network agreement with, the second-largest operator in the United Arab Emirates. The agreement involved co-operation on international clients, handset procurement, mobile broadband etc.

Libya [ ] On 24 February 2010, the group signed a partner network agreement with the second-largest operator in Libya, al Madar. Cameroon [ ] On 23 September 2016, Vodafone extended its activities to Cameroon by signing a partnership with Afrimax, a 4G-LTE telecommunications operator in Africa. Vodafone Cameroon Launched a 'Youth Program' in the Universities to support and encourage the Cameroonian students. The Americas [ ] Chile On 11 May 2008, Vodafone sealed a trade agreement with the Chilean Chile, in which Entel PCS has access to the equipment and international services of Vodafone, and Vodafone will be one of the trademarks of Entel for the wireless business.

This step will give the Vodafone brand access to a market of over 15 million people, currently divided among two companies:, and Entel PCS. Brazil In August 2013, Vodafone has started the MVNO operation in Brazil, as a corporative M2M operator. United States In the United States, Vodafone previously owned 45% of in a with, the country's largest mobile carrier.

Vodafone branding was not used, however, as the CDMA network was not compatible with the GSM 900/1800 MHz standard used by Vodafone's other networks and as Vodafone did not have management control over Verizon Wireless. On 2 September 2013 Vodafone announced the sale of its stake to Verizon Communications for around $130 billion.

In 2004 Vodafone made an unsuccessful bid for the entirety of, however, (Cingular Wireless) at the time a joint venture of SBC Communications and (both now part of ), ultimately outbid Vodafone and took control of AT&T Wireless (the combined wireless carrier is now ). In 2013, Vodafone was considered for acquisition by U.S. Ultimately, the deal did not move forward. In December 2014, Vodafone announced an agreement with to launch a (MVNO) service using its network, set to launch in 2015. Asia-Pacific [ ] Networks in Asia-Pacific Majority-owned Partner networks Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Fiji Malaysia Samoa Singapore Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vietnam.

The headquarters of Vodafone New Zealand in Auckland City New Zealand [ ] In July 1993, New Zealand's network went live. In November 1998, Vodafone purchased BellSouth New Zealand, which later became.

In August 2005, Vodafone launched 3G technology in New Zealand. On 9 October 2006, Vodafone New Zealand bought New Zealand's 3rd largest,.

In October 2013, Vodafone began its rollout of to provincial New Zealand, with the launch of the system in holiday hotspots around Coromandel. Australia [ ] In October 1993 's network went live. In December 2004, Vodafone Australia agreed to deploy high-speed backbone network built by using hardware. In October 2005, it began launching 3G technology in Australia. On 5 September 2008, Vodafone purchased Australia's largest bricks and mortar mobile phone retailer adding 115 retail stores to its local operations.

On 9 February 2009, Vodafone Australia announced a merger with 3/Hutchison via a joint venture company VHA Pty Ltd, which would offer products under the Vodafone brand. On 19 June 2009, Vodafone-Hutchison Australia (VHA) announced the end of its outsourcing of retail operations. VHA committed to buying back and managing its entire retail operation, including 208 Vodafone-branded retail outlets Australia-wide. This project was slated to be completed by 1 September 2009. On 31 August 2009, VHA enabled an extended 900 MHz 3G UMTS network which functions outside their 2,100 MHz 3G network, boosting Vodafone's 3G population coverage from around 8% to around 94% on dual-band 900/2,100 MHz 3G UMTS devices. Fiji [ ] In July 1994 Vodafone Fiji's network went live.

In July 2014, Vodafone sold its 49% shareholding of Vodafone Fiji to The Fiji National Provident fund. Under the terms of the deal, Vodafone Fiji retained its branding under a Partner Market Agreement. Vodafone shop at Nadi Airport, Fiji Japan [ ] In 1999, J-Phone launched the J-sky mobile Internet service in response to 's service.

It the became Japan's third-largest mobile operator and had introduced camera phones first in Japan. Vodafone then went on to acquire In December 2002 J-Phone's network went live.

On 1 October 2003, J-Phone became 'Vodafone Japan', and J-Phone's mobile internet service J-Sky became. In March 2006, Vodafone sold Vodafone Japan to. In October 2006, SoftBank changed Vodafone Japan's name to '. On 17 March 2006, Vodafone announced an agreement to sell all its interest in Vodafone Japan to for £8.9 billion, of which £6.8 billion will be received in cash on closing of deal. Vodafone Japan later changed its name to.

In November 2010, Vodafone divested its remaining Softbank shares. India [ ] On 28 October 2005, the Company announced the acquisition of a 10 per cent stake in India's, which operates the largest mobile phone network in India under the brand name. Then on 11 February 2007, the Company agreed to acquire a controlling interest of 67% in for US$11.1 billion.

At the same time, it agreed to sell back 5.6% of its stake back to the Mittals. Vodafone would retain a 4.4% stake in. On 21 September 2007, Hutch was rebranded to in India. In May 2011, Vodafone Group Plc bought the remaining shares of from Essar Group Ltd for $5 billion.

In October 2013, it was reported by Reuters that Vodafone planned to invest as much as $2 billion (£1.2 billion) to buy out minority shareholders in Vodafone India. By late January 2017, Vodafone Group PLC's unit in India and Ltd were in preliminary talks to merge. And on 20 March 2017, Vodafone announced that it was merging its Indian business with Idea, India's third-largest network, to create the country's largest operator - with almost 400 million customers, accounting for 35% of the Indian cellphone service market. Vodafone would own 45.1 percent of the new operator and Idea's parent company, the Aditya Birla Group would own 26 percent. The deal valued Vodafone India at the equivalent of $12.6 billion and at the equivalent of $11.02 billion. The deal would enable Vodafone to move its Indian subsidiary off its balance sheet, cutting the British group’s net debt by the equivalent of almost $8.25 billion. On 3 November 2003, Singapore became a part of the community as was signed as partner network.

Then in April 2005, changed the name of its brand to ', after both companies signed a Partner Network Agreement. In January 2006, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka were added to the Vodafone footprint as Vodafone Group signed a partner network agreement with. On 6 February 2007, along with the partnership with Caribbean (see below), Samoa was added as a Partner Market. On 6 February 2007, Vodafone Group signed a three-year partnership agreement with Group. The agreement, which includes Digicel's sister operation in Samoa, will result to the offering of new roaming capabilities. The two groups will also become preferred roaming partners of each other. On 10 February 2008, Vodafone announced the launching of M-Paisa mobile on (Afghanistan's largest GSM operator) network: Afghanistan was added to the Vodafone footprint.

In Thailand is signed as a partner network of the Group on 25 March 2009. In Azerbaijan was signed as a partner network on 22 July 2009, while of Taiwan was signed on 12 November 2009. In February 2013, Vodafone together with participated in bidding for one of the two newly opened Myanmar Mobile licences. At the beginning of September 2014, signed a strategic co-operation agreement with Vodafone. Europe [ ] Networks in Europe Majority-owned Partner networks Austria Belgium Bulgaria Channel Islands Croatia Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland Faroe Islands Iceland Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Norway Russia Serbia Slovenia Sweden Switzerland Vodafone Hungary was formed as a subsidiary company in July 1999. The acquisition of Mannesmann AG, which completed on 12 April 2000 gave subsidiaries in Germany and Italy, and increased the Group’s indirect holding in SFR.

The Vodafone brand in Italy was introduced as Omnitel-Vodafone in 2001, made the primary brand as Vodafone-Omnitel in 2002; finally the current name Vodafone Italia was introduced in 2003, dropping 'Omnitel' altogether. Vodafone Italy introduced the new Speechmark Logo only on 10 June 2007.In 2001, the Company acquired, the largest wireless communications company in Ireland, from. Eircell was subsequently rebranded as. In February 2002, of Finland joined as a partner network and later changed its name to.

Later that year, the company rebranded Japan's J-sky mobile internet service as, and in December 2002 the Vodafone brand was introduced in the Estonian market following the signing of a Partner Network Agreement with Radiolinja (Eesti), which later changed its name to Elisa. In January 2003, the company signed a group-wide partner agreement with and as a result, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia were added to the community. In April 2003, was introduced in the Icelandic market, and in May 2003, (Omnitel Pronto-Italia) was rebranded. On 21 July 2003, Lithuania was added to the community, with the signing of a Partner Network Agreement with Bitė. In February 2004, Vodafone signed a Partner Network Agreement with Luxembourg's, and a Partner Network Agreement with of Cyprus. Cyta agreed to rename its mobile phone operations to Cytamobile-Vodafone.

In April 2004, the Company purchased a British airtime provider, Singlepoint, for £405m from John Caudwell's, adding approximately 1.5 million customers and sites in Stoke-on-Trent to existing sites in Newbury (HQ), Birmingham, Warrington and Banbury. In November 2004, Vodafone introduced services into Europe. In June 2005, the Company bought the Czech mobile operator Oskar. On 1 July 2005, Oskar of the Czech Republic was rebranded as Oskar-Vodafone.

On 28 October 2005, in Romania was rebranded as Connex-Vodafone, and on 31 October 2005, the company reached an agreement to sell Vodafone Sweden to for approximately €1 billion. After the sale, Vodafone Sweden became a partner network. In December 2005, Vodafone won an auction to buy Turkey's second-largest mobile phone company,, for US$4.5 billion. In 2006, the Company rebranded its Stoke-on-Trent site as Stoke Premier Centre, a centre of expertise for the company dealing with customer care for its higher value customers, technical support, sales and credit control. On 22 February 2006, the Company announced that it was extending its footprint to Bulgaria with the signing of Partner Network Agreement with, which is part of the group. The headquarters of in Dublin In April 2006, the Company announced that it had signed an extension to its Partner Network Agreement with BITE Group, enabling its Latvian subsidiary 'BITE Latvija' to become the latest member of Vodafone's global partner community. On 30 May 2006, Vodafone announced the then-biggest loss in British corporate history (£14.9 billion), and plans to cut 400 jobs; it reported one-off costs of £23.5 billion due to the revaluation of its subsidiary.

On 24 July 2006, the respected head of Vodafone Europe,, quit unexpectedly, and on 25 August 2006, the Company announced the sale of its 25% stake in Belgium's for €2 billion. After the deal, Proximus was still part of the community as a Partner Network. On 5 October 2006, Vodafone announced the first single brand partnership with which would operate under the name, and on 19 December 2006, the Company announced the sale of its 25% stake in Switzerland's for CHF4.25 billion (£1.8 billion). After the deal, Swisscom would still be part of the community as a Partner Network. Finally in December 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of Aspective, an enterprise applications systems integrator in the UK, signalling Vodafone's intent to grow a significant presence and revenues in the (ICT) marketplace.

A map showing the countries where Vodafone Global Enterprise has operations (coloured in red) Vodafone Global Enterprise is the business services division, and a wholly owned of Vodafone Group. It was established in April 2007 to provide and services to large corporations. The division offers integrated communication solutions in, and. Its services include domestic and international voice and data, machine-to-machine services, mobile email, mobile broadband, managed services, mobile payment and mobile recording.

In December 2011, it acquired the -based Bluefish Communications Ltd, an consultancy company. The acquired operations formed the nucleus of a new Unified Communications and Collaboration practice within VGE, working on cloud computing and.

Vodafone Global Enterprise operates in over 65 countries, with 'Northern Europe' (based in London, United Kingdom), 'Central Europe', 'Southern Europe and Africa', 'Asia Pacific & Sub-Saharan Africa' (based in Singapore) and 'Americas' geographical divisions. VGE's major customers include,,, and. Products and services [ ]. A Vodafone shop selling a range of products in, England In October 2009, it launched Vodafone 360, a new internet service for the mobile, PC and Mac. This was discontinued in December 2011 after disappointing hardware sales.

This was after the Director of Internet Services resigned in September 2010 tweeting '5 days before I leave Vodafone. Freedom beckons.' In February 2010, Vodafone launched the world's cheapest mobile phone known as Vodafone 150, intended to sell for below $15 (£10) in the developing world. It was initially launched in India, Turkey and eight African countries including Lesotho, Kenya and Ghana. Mobile money transfer services [ ] In March 2007,, which is part owned by Vodafone and the leading mobile communication provider in Kenya, launched a mobile payment solution developed by Vodafone. By February 2008, the money transfer system in Kenya had gained 1.6 million customers.

By 2011 there were fourteen million M-Pesa accounts by which held 40 percent of the country's savings. Following M-PESA's success in Kenya, Vodafone announced that it was to extend the service to Afghanistan. The service here was launched on the Roshan network under the brand M-Paisa with a different focus to the Kenyan service.

M-Paisa was targeted as a vehicle for institutions' (MFI) loan disbursements and repayments, alongside business-to-business applications such as salary disbursement. The Afghanistan launch was followed in April 2008 by the announcement of further a further launch of M-PESA in Tanzania, South Africa and India. In February 2012, Vodafone announced a worldwide partnership with Visa. MHealth services [ ] In November 2009, Vodafone announced the creation of a new business unit focused on the emerging market (the application of mobile communications and network technologies to healthcare).

One of its early success stories is with the -led 'SMS for Life' project in Tanzania, for which Vodafone developed and deployed a text-message based system that enables all of the country's 4,600 public health facilities to report their levels of so that stock level data can be viewed centrally in real-time, enabling timely re-supply of stock. During the SMS for Life pilot, which covered 129 health facilities over six months, stock-outs dropped from 26% to 0.8%, saving thousands of lives. Vodafone Foundation [ ] The Vodafone Foundation is a recognised charity which supports and initiates projects which use mobile technology to benefit the vulnerable, using the slogan 'Connecting for Good'. They often work in collaboration with other charitable groups. Part of the Vodafone campus in,; Vodafone's registered address and UK headquarters, and its world headquarters until 2009 Senior management [ ], at that time an Executive with Racal Electronics plc, was responsible for the bid for a UK Cellular Network licence.

The Mobile Telecoms division was de-merged, and was floated on the in October 1988 and Sir Gerald became Chief Executive of Racal Telecom plc. Over the next few years the company grew to become the UK's Market Leader, changing its name to Vodafone Group plc in the process. Took over as Chief Executive in January 1997, after Sir Gerald's retirement. Gent was responsible for transforming Vodafone from a small UK operator into the global operator, through the merger with the American AirTouch and the takeover of Germany's Mannesmann.

Was the driving force behind the Company's move into emerging markets such as Asia and Africa, through the purchases such as that of Turkish operator Telsim, and a majority stake in Hutchison Essar in India. The fourth CEO,, stepped up from Deputy Chief Executive in July 2008. Chief Executive Tenure October 1988 – December 1996 January 1997 – July 2003 July 2003 – July 2008 Since July 2008 Financial results [ ] Vodafone reports its results in accordance with (IFRS). Protestors outside a Vodafone shop in. Tax avoidance [ ] In September 2010, an investigation by magazine revealed certain details of Vodafone's tax avoidance activities.

It was reported that Vodafone routed the acquisition of through a Luxembourg subsidiary, set up to avoid paying tax on the deal, and continued to place its profits in Luxembourg. Following a long legal struggle with (during which a senior HMRC official, John Connors, switched sides to become head of tax at Vodafone), it was eventually agreed that Vodafone would pay £1.25 billion related to the acquisition. Based on Vodafone's accounts, experts have estimated the potential tax bill written off as a result of the negotiations was over £6 billion. The news of this legal sparked angry protests, beginning in October 2010 and ongoing as of April 2011, outside Vodafone shops across the UK, organised under the banner of. The first protests caused the simultaneous closure of over a dozen stores, including the flagship Oxford Street branch. In 2011, Private Eye magazine and The alleged that Vodafone's Swiss branches were run by a single part-time bookkeeper. The report claimed hardly any business was done from there, indicating that the main purpose of the Zug office was tax avoidance.

The report claimed the money was borrowed from the Swiss branch of the Luxembourg company, allowing it to take advantage of Luxembourg's laws, which exempts foreign branches of companies from tax, and Swiss laws, which almost completely exempt local branches of foreign companies. According to the expose, this would have otherwise generated a British tax bill on a little over £2 billion. It said Vodafone publishes a single, combined set of accounts for its Luxembourg subsidiaries and their Swiss branches. For the one company, profits worth £1.6 billion were taxed at less than 1% in 2011, and the profits are likely to have been attributed to Switzerland.

In its response to these allegations, Vodafone has said the Swiss branch has not been involved in Vodafone's global financing for a number of years. It is, therefore, irrelevant in respect to global financing arrangements. Vodafone was also assessed a US$2.5 billion tax over its acquisition of 's Indian assets in 2007, a demand that it contests. In January 2012, the highest Indian court ruled that Vodafone is not liable for taxes and penalties of up to £2.8 billion. However, in February 2016 India's tax department sent Vodafone a renewed tax notice of £1.4bn. Following the siding of the Indian court with Vodafone in 2012, the government changed the law to allow firms to be retrospectively taxed. Communications blackout during the Arab Spring [ ] Vodafone was implicated in the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests in.

On 27 January, Vodafone, responsible for much of Egypt's telecommunication infrastructure, shut off all voice and data services for Egyptian citizens and businesses at the request of the Egyptian Government under. On 28 January 2011, Vodafone complied with Egyptian government instructions to suspend Internet service 'in selected areas' during a period of. The company issued a statement that 'Under Egyptian legislation, the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply with it.' Vodafone also received public and media criticism for allowing the authorities to send mass pro-government messages via SMS over their network during the protests.

One such message requested that 'honest and loyal men' should 'confront the traitors and criminals'. Vodafone later issued a statement asserting that they had no choice but to allow the messages to be broadcast, and that they had complained to the Egyptian authorities about the practice.

The Daily Telegraph of the UK reported, 'The Egyptian government's action is unprecedented in the history of the internet.' US-based Internet intelligence firm Renesys stated, 'in an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet.'

Vodafone Group CEO Vittorio Colao said the company was obliged by law to comply with the instructions of the Egyptian government. At the company's annual general meeting, on 26 June, the campaign groups Access and asked Vodafone to endorse a plan to prevent the company facing similar demands in the future. Poor customer service [ ] In Australia, particularly towards the end of 2010, Vodafone have been heavily criticised due to allegations of poor customer service and severe technical inadequacies, which earned them their nickname 'Vodafail' – a website of the same name still exists. In response, they have developed a 'new' network, and now provide a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. Unlimited roaming costs on stolen phones [ ] Vodafone UK, in common with other operators, has been criticised for holding customers on regular monthly billed contracts liable for almost unlimited costs when their phones are stolen abroad, despite being seemingly able to limit costs of pay-as-you-go contracts. Breaches of consumer protection rules [ ] In October 2016, Vodafone was fined a record £4.6m by for 'serious' breaches of consumer protection rules.

In April 2017, Vodafone continued to have major issues with customer service, with the CEO Nick Jeffery inviting customers with unresolved complaints to email him directly. Surveillance infrastructure [ ] In June 2014, Vodafone revealed information about theirs and other telecommunication operators' 'direct access systems', content data and metadata interception programmes globally.

References [ ]. Vodafone Group Plc. Retrieved 1 April 2017.

24 June 2009. Retrieved 10 January 2011. • GSMA Intelligence (19 September 2014).. Retrieved 9 June 2016. [.] Vodafone is ranked second by connections and fifth by revenue [.].

Vodafone Group plc. Retrieved 11 January 2016.

Vodafone Group plc. Retrieved 11 January 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2012. Vodafone Group.

Archived from on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 13 July 2012.

Retrieved 13 July 2012. Retrieved 13 July 2012. • Richard Wilson (19 February 2009).. Retrieved 29 June 2010. • Hultens, Staffan and Molleryd, Bengt (28 June 2000), 'Entrepreneurs, Innovations and Market Processes in the Evolution of the Swedish Mobile Telecommunications Industry'. Retrieved 9 September 2013 •.

16 December 1982. Retrieved 10 September 2013. Electronics & Power April 1984. Retrieved 9 September 2013.

4 February 2000. Retrieved 27 May 2010. Retrieved 2 April 2007. • Eadie, Alison (30 December 1986).

'Racal pays £110 million to own Vodafone'. Times Newspapers. access-date= requires url= () • 'Shares in Racal Telecom'. The Guardian. Guardian Newspapers. 27 October 1988. access-date= requires url= () •. Retrieved 13 July 2012.

• Wise, Deborah (16 September 1991). 'Vodafone's solo debut could boost share price'. The Guardian.

Guardian Newspapers. access-date= requires url= () • Cane, Alan (10 July 1996). 'Companies and Finance: UK: Vodafone acquires Talkland in Pounds 60m deal'. Financial Times.

P. 22. access-date= requires url= () • Reguly, Eric (20 November 1996). 'Vodafone pockets Peoples Phone'. Times Newspapers. access-date= requires url= () • 'News Digest: Vodafone snaps up Astec'. Investors Chronicle.

7 February 1997. P. 55. access-date= requires url= () •. Famous logos. Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Hasell, Nick (30 June 1999).

'Scramble for Vodafone as blue chips retreat'. Times Newspapers. access-date= requires url= () • Krause, Reinhardt (8 June 1999)..

Investor's Business Daily. Archived from on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 4 April 2007.

Wall Street Journal. 11 November 1999. Retrieved 14 April 2017. • 'Making airwaves'. Financial Times. Economics Of Attention Pdf Merge. 22 September 1999. access-date= requires url= () •. 16 June 2000.

Retrieved January 10, 2014. 14 November 1999.

Retrieved 6 April 2007. 3 February 2000. Retrieved 6 April 2007. 11 February 2000. Retrieved 26 December 2008. Cellular News.

2 September 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Reuters, 17 December 2001 • BBC, 14 December 2005 • Collantine, Keith (14 March 2013).. Retrieved 12 January 2014.

1 December 2011. Retrieved 9 June 2012. • ^ Browning, Jonathan; Campbell, Matthew (23 April 2012).. Retrieved 9 June 2012. Retrieved 11 December 2012. • Browning, Jonathan (18 June 2012).. Bloomberg L.P.

Retrieved 11 December 2012. • Peston, Robert (2 September 2013)..

Retrieved 3 September 2013. Retrieved 2017-08-06. • Leila Abboud and Paul Sandle (2013-09-02).. Retrieved 2017-08-06.

• Anmar Frangoul (2017-06-07).. Retrieved 2017-08-05. Retrieved 14 April 2017. The Middle East. 31 December 2000.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. 8 November 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 29 December 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 3 November 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

• Reuters, 19 May 2009 •. My Broadband. 6 November 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Mail and Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Biz Community. 4 April 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 31 July 2012. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 25 July 2017.

Retrieved 25 July 2017. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Modern Ghana. 16 April 2009.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. 28 January 2009.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Daily News Egypt. 21 August 2011.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Newsdesk, Concord..

Cameroon Concord. Retrieved 2016-12-22. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 6 August 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 2 September 2013.

Retrieved 2 September 2013. 9 February 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Thomas, Daniel (3 December 2013)..

Telecoms Correspondent.. Retrieved 11 March 2017. (Subscription required ( help)). • Bienenstock, Robin (3 September 2013)... Retrieved 11 March 2017. • Thomson, Amy (27 January 2014)..

Technology Dept. Retrieved 11 March 2017. Fierce Wireless. 12 December 2014. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

30 June 2000. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Telecom Paper. 15 April 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Computer World. 9 October 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Scoop.co.nz (24 October 2013). Retrieved on 8 December 2013. 2 December 2004. Retrieved 8 July 2008. • Guan, Lilia (6 September 2008).. Retrieved 8 July 2011. Frost and Sullivan.

16 February 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Telecom Paper. 22 June 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography. 1 September 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Retrieved 2017-07-23. • BBC, 16 September 2001 •. Euro technology. Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Sonne, Paul (10 November 2010)... Retrieved 4 August 2013. The Guardian.

29 October 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 26 September 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

• Smith, George. (1 July 2011).

Retrieved 8 July 2011. Uk.reuters.com (7 October 2013).

Retrieved on 8 December 2013. • Purnell, Newley; Woo, Stu (January 30, 2017),, New York City: Wall Street Journal, retrieved January 31, 2017 •.Retrieved: 20 March 2017 •.Retrieved: 20 March 2017 •.

4 November 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 27 April 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Telecom Paper. 6 February 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 28 February 2008.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper.

26 March 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper.

23 July 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Tele Geography. 12 November 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 5 April 2013. Retrieved 5 April 2013. 2 September 2014. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

From the original on 8 August 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2017. • The Telegraph, 22 December 2000 •.

Telecom Paper. 14 February 2002. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper. 3 December 2002. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography.

7 January 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper. 17 April 2003.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper. 21 July 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Telecom Paper. 16 February 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Tele Geography. 23 February 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 30 April 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2017. The Guardian. 10 November 2004.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Marketing and Media. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

30 November 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 31 October 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 31 December 2005. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 27 September 2005.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography. 23 February 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Telecom Paper.

11 April 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. 24 July 2006. Retrieved 9 November 2007.

25 August 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 5 October 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 19 December 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017. The Register.

22 November 2006. Retrieved 14 April 2017. 30 March 2007. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Retrieved 8 July 2011. Retrieved 27 March 2016. Telecom Paper. 13 August 2007.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Retrieved 8 July 2011. Telecom Paper. 17 April 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2017. Tele Geography.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. 30 October 2008. Retrieved 9 November 2008. Efytimes.com (23 March 2009). Retrieved 8 July 2011.

• Tom Bawden.. The Guardian. Retrieved 21 March 2015. Archived from on 12 January 2015.

Retrieved 21 March 2015. 24 June 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2013. • Kate Holton and Robert Hetz (10 February 2014)..

•, (16 October 2015) • Avery, Greg; Harden, Mark (December 31, 2016).. Denver Business Journal. Retrieved February 24, 2017. Retrieved 9 June 2012. 18 March 2009. Retrieved 9 June 2012. Retrieved 9 June 2012.

Vodafone Global Enterprise. Retrieved 31 July 2012. 1 December 2011.

Retrieved 9 June 2012. 1 December 2011. Retrieved 9 June 2012. Retrieved 9 June 2012. Computer Weekly. 12 March 2010. Retrieved 2 August 2012.

Computer Weekly. 11 October 2011. Retrieved 2 August 2012. Computer Weekly. 14 December 2010. Retrieved 2 August 2012. This is Staffordshire.

18 July 2012. Archived from on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 2 August 2012. • Ray, Bill (18 October 2011).. The Register. Retrieved 28 September 2012.

• Ray, Bill.. The Register.

Retrieved 28 September 2012. Retrieved 1 October 2005. • • • Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything.

Perseus Books/Vanguard Press. P. 202; 304.. 1 September 2010.

Banking and Payments Asia. 1 December 2011. Archived from on 10 January 2012. • Sarah, Clark (27 February 2012).. Retrieved 28 September 2012.

• Mobihealthnews, 1 December 2009 • (PDF). Archived from (PDF) on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 11 December 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2016. 19 December 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2016.

• Cowe, Roger (29 May 2002).. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2017. The Telegraph.

20 February 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2017.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. • Wearden, Graeme (27 May 2008).. The Guardian.

Retrieved 14 April 2017. Archived from on 27 October 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2012. 20 January 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2012.

22 October 2010. Retrieved 31 March 2011. Retrieved 27 March 2016.

27 January 2011. • Webster, Stephen C. (28 January 2011). Retrieved 8 July 2011. The Wall Street Journal. 28 January 2011.

The Washington Post. [ ] • Williams, Christopher (28 January 2011).. The Daily Telegraph.

Retrieved 8 July 2011. The Wall Street Journal.

28 January 2011. • Financial Times, 25 July 2011, Andrew Parker, • Riley, Tess (28 July 2011).. New Statesman. Retrieved 18 January 2017. • Moses, Asher.. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 11 December 2012.

Retrieved 11 December 2012. • Miles Brignall.. The Guardian. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

26 October 2016. Retrieved 18 January 2017. 26 April 2017. • Garside, Juliette (6 June 2014).. Retrieved 6 June 2014. External links [ ] Wikimedia Commons has media related to.