Slashdot Mirror


US Cell Phone Users Discover SMS Spam

The Llama King writes "It's a bigger problem in Europe and Japan/Asia, but as SMS text messaging or "texting" becomes more popular in the United States, its users are discovering that spammers like it too, according to this Houston Chronicle story. Cell phone companies are trying to stem the spam flood before it starts, worried that users will turn off their phones, thus denying providers revenue."

8 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. only two things are certain in life.... by sweeney37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Unlike Internet spam, wireless phone spam comes with an annoying beep on your phone and a direct price tag," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst with the Consumers Union in Austin. "Consumers aren't just getting an annoying message they didn't want, they are paying 10 cents for it."

    Perhaps because this will directly affect people's pocketbooks we'll see faster legislation. Not unlike taxes, when people start losing money, the louder they become.

    Mike

  2. simple solution by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    charge the sender of all SMS's 5 cents
    give recipients a penny credit on their bill

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  3. SMS spam it isn't a problem in Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since it has been outlawed many years ago. I haven't received a single spam during the time I had a cell phone (4.5 years).

  4. Re:only two things are certain in life... by smokin_juan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the big question is: why the hell do SMSs cost 5-10 cents? for god sakes, i condense my conversation and take a fraction of the bandwith of a voice call so these rat-bastards can charge extra for it. it just ain't right unless you're talking about spam-deterrent, and spam-deterrent it ain't. it's just another case of companies charging money where they can, not where they ought to. i'll be more than happy to pay for the blades AND the razor but for fuck sakes charge the right price for 'em. and you may wonder why the economy is tanking - because, as i've outlined above, it's ficticious bullshit and wether or not people realize it, they're sick of it.

  5. Pricing for receive: a North American problem? by chathamhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having recently moved to Australia from Canada, I was:

    (1) Surprised to see that all inbound calls, text, and airtime were free on my mobile plan.
    (2) My outbound costs were ~6x greater than before (au$0.60/min vs cnd$0.10/min)
    (3) My text sending costs were lowered.
    (4) There was no charge for flagfall. But now fsck'ing Vodafone plans to change that. (Australia is one of the few countries where the cost of telecom seems to rise. Yech)

    From a quick look into the situation, you pay nothing to receive SMS everywhere but North America.

    But, you certainly pay to send SMS, which is a sure deterrent to Spam.

    Hence, switch to a sender-pays model. Problem solved if the cost to send exceeds expected revenue from spamming. If current e-mail response rates (1%) hold, it'll be a non-issue.

    I'd love to hear of countries outside Canada/US where there are charges to receive SMS though. That would blow this theory out of the water.

  6. hunting down spammers is a waste of time... by shams42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when you can just go after the companies that hire them.

    Now I know this might not work for international stuff like the Nigerian scam, but it should work for domestic spam. And though I don't yet recieve SMS spam, the vast majority of my e-mail spam seems to originate from domestic companies.

    I mean, in order to sell a product or a service, you have to provide your vict^h^h^h^h, customers with valid contact information so that they can purchase the product. Jon Q. Fucktard can't purchase herbal viagra or a "real university degree" without knowing where to send the check.

    Removing the financial incentive to hire spammers will be far more effective than trying to control it through technological means.

  7. Agree - now to implement "sender pays" email by Quizo69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have to say that the way it works here in Oz is great for the most part - the sender pays for the SMS message, not the receiver.

    The only change to this is if you SMS someone who is overseas and who is using AutoRoam (GSM rest-of-world-only, sorry USA). Then I can SMS that person and only pay for a local SMS, the overseas portion is billed to the person overseas at the time.

    I've never had any SMS spam (other than one or two SMSs from my phone provider which were borderline spam advertising new services but not overly disturbing).

    Now imagine if the sender pays system were implemented in email in some fashion.... we'd kill spam virtually overnight!

    The big issue with email is that, like P2P music trading, it's been free for so long that people don't want to go back to a paying system. So a solution to spam would need to involve return credits of some sort, so if I email my friend it costs me 1c but he can negate that automatically, so only those spammers whose emails aren't wanted don't get their money back. The devil's in the details though, but food for thought!

    Quizo69

  8. Re:Huh? You have to pay *extra* for SMS? by womby · · Score: 5, Informative

    ok well try this

    I pay nothing monthly (orange.co.uk or virgin.co.uk)
    I pay nothing for incoming calls
    I pay nothing to receve SMS messages
    I pay 5p (aprox 7c per minute) for the first 2 minutes of calls made each day
    I pay 2p (aprox 3c per minute) for all other minutes

    to spend $42 per month I would have to use the phone every day and make over 1440 minutes of calls

    just because you were too stupid to find a call plan that was sensible in europe doesnt mean nobody else can

    --
    **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs