Careful what you say, people round here seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
SMS Spam Fight
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Careful what you say, people round here seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion
There are many worthwhile subscription services, with many consumers wanting to use these. Cell C was definately at a disadvantage not offering premium subscription services until recently.
However, there are also many people that could benefit from blocking subscription services. The operator that offers and promotes this facility will attract these users.
Because these two factors work against each other, it is not possible to conclude anything from their subscription base.
Other Pineapple Smurf
Honorary Master
Careful what you say, people round here seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion
Well I have to be careful about what I divulge. I may only mention publicly available information here. All I can say is the industry is changing. It much better off now than 2yrs ago when I started and it will get better this year.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Careful what you say, people round here seem to have difficulty distinguishing fact from opinion
A fact is when someone makes a statement like: "I have proof that Vodacom refuse to do....." (like you originally said)
An opinion is when someone says something like: "It seems Vodacom is refusing..." (your new, updated statement
)But seems we've cleared it up that it was in fact only your opinion so lets get back to the topic.
Firstly; Vodacom never refused (or is refusing) to implement a black-list/opt-out system. (If only you asked, I could've told you so instead of having to try and find who or what gave you the false information.)
In fact we've been working on the structure of such a potential blacklist/blocking/opt-out system for quite some time. But as some have already pointed out, it's not a straight forward concept.
Some elements of this system are already in place, for example VC's own marketing messages now all flow through one single opt-out system (not a small achievement in its own right) and we have a fully functional Adult Content Management system in place for data. Not 100% sure, but I believe this is the only one among the networks. For example, it allows concerned parents to block access to chat sites such as MXiT or the Grid.
Another example: this forum generated a request a year or more ago to be able to opt-out from Please-Call-Me's. (your Point 4 above).
This was subsequently put in place and has been available for quite some time. You can even ask to just have the ads removed from any PCM's.
And this is actually a good example of how constructive collaboration (as opposed to wild claims) can work. Someone on this forum (can't remember who) asked for something. We all discussed it here and it triggered the development and deployment of the relevant system.
A network based opt-out system is extremely difficult to implement as many of the WASPs (and their clients) will have difficulty to connect, use and maintain such a system. Some of the people involved in the industry have already commented on the complexities of such a system.
It would also be pretty expensive to implement. As an analogy, the system that allows porting between the networks cost 8 zero's. How are the smaller WASP's and their clients going to afford contributing to such a system?
A network / WASP can't just willy-nilly block a number. The ECT Act of 2002 states one can send unsolicited communications (but you must provide an opt-out and honour it) and already there are people looking at using this to ensure they can send at least one unsolicited message. And (rightly or wrongly) the law is on their side. For now.
There are many others problems that make a network based blacklist system difficult. Simple example; recycling of SIMs. This will require any recycled SIM to be purged from this database, and although it seems simple from the outside it's not so easy.
What it all boils down to is that a process will have to be put in place to ensure only valid numbers are blacklisted. With 40 million potential recipients and (in theory) 40 million originating numbers, this is a crazy concept.
Then when a WASP wants to send a message, they will have to read this database in real-time for each send request. Again it can't work in this way.
So we are talking about a hugely expensive system that will be near impossible to maintain or use.
Rather we must look at the actual problems:
Work is being done on new regulations for this. For example, even if you did subscribe to premium rated services, you will automatically be unsubscribed after a few days (think it's 3).
Opt-out system in place for quite a while already. At least from Vodacom.
Legislation in place for a long time. ECT Act 2002. Problem is end-users are not using the law. (With one, commendable exception higher up).
Last edited:
Once again, I never said that.
Since I've given you numerous opportunities to come up with some sort of proof for the allegation you keep making against me, and you have thus far failed to come up with any proof to back up your allegations about what I said, I think it's about time for me to insist that either you come up with the proof that I've been asking for, or ask you to apologise for the lies you keep repeating about me.
Last edited:
ToxicBunny
Oi! Leave me out of this...
We've shown you were you made the implication Deenem, ducking and diving won't change the fact that you had proof. You have clarified your position and made yourself clear that you were expressing an opinion rather than a fact and we've moved on.
Why not deal with the actual meat of V3G's post regarding the steps they are trying to make.
Why not deal with the actual meat of V3G's post regarding the steps they are trying to make.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Click on these links to read your own posts
:Now, as TB suggested, shall we discuss the issue of mobile Spam management?
Click on these links to read your own posts
You posted the following direct quote:
"I have proof that Vodacom refuse to do....."
claiming that it was made by me.
Please link to my post where you took the above quote from, or apologise for lying about what I said.
Yes, we established that you managed to jump to some wild unjustified conclusion based, not what I said, but on your interpretation of what you thought I said.
This is different, vodacom3g has now taken to posting direct quotes:
"I have proof that Vodacom refuse to do....."
claiming that those quote were taken from one of my posts.
That it a lie. He is lying.
SPAM from SIM farms
I agree, a network can not willy-nilly block a number from receiving messages, but it should consider blocking individual SIMs from which spam originates.
A large percentage of commercial messages are sent from SIM farms. These are typically using MTN SIMs as prices are the lowest. Companies running SIM farms are not under the jurisdiction of WASPA (unless they join voluntarily). Spam complaints from these numbers are seldom resolved, and many people have to permanently accept receiving these spam messages.
To make matters worse, as there is no interconnect charges for these messages, the home network (eg Vodacom) that has to deal with the complaint, earns nothing from the traffic in the first place.
Vodacom should strongly consider at least blocking specific SIM's from which spam originates.
I agree, a network can not willy-nilly block a number from receiving messages, but it should consider blocking individual SIMs from which spam originates.
A large percentage of commercial messages are sent from SIM farms. These are typically using MTN SIMs as prices are the lowest. Companies running SIM farms are not under the jurisdiction of WASPA (unless they join voluntarily). Spam complaints from these numbers are seldom resolved, and many people have to permanently accept receiving these spam messages.
To make matters worse, as there is no interconnect charges for these messages, the home network (eg Vodacom) that has to deal with the complaint, earns nothing from the traffic in the first place.
Vodacom should strongly consider at least blocking specific SIM's from which spam originates.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
This is really getting very silly but I'll humour you.
Firstly "I have proof that Vodacom refuse to do....." is not a direct quote but a summary of what you said. Direct quotes get linked for reference or will include something like ("Your exact words"). Summaries are when you take a couple of posts and condense them without changing the original meaning or intent. Read my post again and it should hopefully make sense.
There are two components to the above sentence you're disputing. I'm not sure if you're disputing one or the other, or both?
1) You have proof:
See above 3 links where you repeatedly made this statement. I assume you're not disputing your own posts? You did say you have proof. Repeatedly.
2) Your proof specifically includes and refers to Vodacom:
Note this response your wrote to myself:
In other words, you said that You (Deenem) have proof that Vodacom refuse to implement such a system.
Here's another direct quote (notice how I link to it?)
Last time I checked Vodacom is a 'cellphone company' and as you made an all-inclusive (hope we're now not going to debate the definition of the word "all-inclusive") statement, it by definition, includes Vodacom.
Not trying to sound condecending, but maybe Enlish is not your first language and you just got your sentence structure a bit wrong? Happens to me a lot. And if someone corrects me (trust this forum to do it!), I've learned something new, which is cool.
Can we now give it a rest and actually discuss the points you raised? To which I already wrote you an answer.
My points.
- The ECT Act may allow for unsolicited messages, but your contract with your provider can quite easily override that. My Webafrica ISP contract says that my account will be suspended if I start sending spam, ECT Act or not. No reason why my contract with my cellphone company can't say the same thing.
- The providers had no problem at all implementing a billing system for premium content, why is a blocking system any more difficult. If fact if they have a billing system in place, they already have a blocking system in place. You cannot recieve any premium content if you have a zero balance on your account. How difficult would it be to change the system so that you couldn't receive premuium content if your had a zero balance OR your number had been flagged. Doesn't seem like a difficult thing to do.
- I'm glad to hear that there is a blocking system, for 'Please call me's'. I didn't know that there was, maybe it needs to be publicised a bit more.
- The ECT Act may allow for unsolicited messages, but your contract with your provider can quite easily override that. My Webafrica ISP contract says that my account will be suspended if I start sending spam, ECT Act or not. No reason why my contract with my cellphone company can't say the same thing.
- The providers had no problem at all implementing a billing system for premium content, why is a blocking system any more difficult. If fact if they have a billing system in place, they already have a blocking system in place. You cannot recieve any premium content if you have a zero balance on your account. How difficult would it be to change the system so that you couldn't receive premuium content if your had a zero balance OR your number had been flagged. Doesn't seem like a difficult thing to do.
- I'm glad to hear that there is a blocking system, for 'Please call me's'. I didn't know that there was, maybe it needs to be publicised a bit more.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
And we already do. But it's not a user-accessible system which is the general concept discussed here.
Spammers don't even need to use SIM farms as Vodacom graciously gave them 20 free SMS's / day / SIM via Vodacom4me! Thus the intention to put CAPTCHA on there. (So when you guys start complaining about CAPTCHA when wanting to use the free SMS function on 4me, remember this.)
So complaints of individual Spam will be investigated and the relevant SIM blocked.
But it's a bit like farting against thunder, as you know. As soon as you block the one SIM, they just jump to another (low cost) SIM. And again you sit with the problem that SIM no1 will be recycled at some point (and it will still be blocked).
No, when put it between quotation marks it is a direct quote.
Either link to my post where you claim to have taken the above quote from or apologise for lying about what I said.
Last edited:
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
It actually does and is how we are blocking numbers of spammers at the moment. And should stay effective against the less-serious spammers. But there's been threats from the bigger spammers that they'll challenge this. ISPA gave an example of this at one of the recent SPAM workshops.
It's a bit of a legal grey area. For example can I override a law by posting my regulations?
Billing (especially for contract) is done 'after the fact' while blocking will have to be done in real-time. So it will have to be a completely separate system with it's own challenges as already described higher up.
Vodacom has a cr@pload of products and features on the network and it's impossible to do constant PR on all of them. But it should be in a knowledge-base or on a web-site or, at least, 111 / 155 should know. The vast majority of people are better at asking than searching, so they'll rather call the call desks.
It is a pain for SIM farm providers to monitor which SIMs are blocked to a particular network, and to constantly replace these. Blocking will be effective.
The three network operators have a gentleman's agreement that all commercial SMS traffic go via the home network. This agreement was made, as the interconnect cost for SMS locally is ZERO. For this reason WASPs have to connect via SMPP to all three network operators. Therefore, any SIM sending more than 10 000 messages per month to another network, should be regarded as one used for commercial SMS traffic, and this should be blocked. It will not affect telemetry devices, as their traffic is only on-net.
Vodacom has already blocked traffic from many international SMSCs where no interconnect is being paid. This has largely solved the problem of spam via international gateways.
Another alternative is to simply introduce a reasonable interconnect charge for SMS between local networks, as this would make delivery via the home network the most cost effective.
Not sure, will have to ask a lawyer, but ISP certainly don't seem to have a problem blocking spam sending accounts on their network.
The difference is obviously the financial motivation. Email spam costs the ISP's money in network charges; SMS spam generates revenue for the cell phone companies.
ISP' have a far stronger motivation to do something about the problem. I'm sure if the SMS spammers found some way of sending out free SMS's the cell companies would have a solution implemeted tomorrow.
I think we've identified kids phones as the main problem here, and most of them would be on pre-paid, but lets wait for the system which you say is on the way to see if it meets our needs.
Is there anything on your website about this? honestly the first time I've ever heard about it.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
The have found ways to do it free before, the b@stards.
I still believe handset-based blocking works the best for all parties, except the Spammer.
But not always. When we launch a new product or capability serious effort is put in to make it available across the user-base. You'll be surprised at the amount of flack we get when a capability is only available to some. (real-time billing on PPDB but not CDB, for example.)
While bits and pieces of the system is becoming available, I don't have an ETA of a full-blown, customer-driven Opt-Out system. Again, handset-level control might be an easier and quicker answer.
Under Call-Me on vodacom.co.za it shows how to manage your Call-Me's. Note Option 2 on the main menu.
With email, where sending is almost free, spam is such a big problem, that people will tolerate the blocking of some legitimate messages. With SMS, most people will be upset if legitimate messages are blocked by mistake.
With SMS, the sender pays, which limits spamming to a certain extent. Sending 100 000 SMS messages will cost a business R 26 000+. Normal advertising costs are often less.
As pointed out with most of the problematic sources of SPAM (see original article) eg. messaging via international networks or from SIM cards on other local networks, the home network makes ZERO. There is a major economic incentive for Vodacom to block these messages, and I hope they are aware of this.
All traffic via WASPs are traceable, and WASPs have to act on spam complaints to avoid being fined by WASPA. In the long run, the sustainability of businesses that specialise in SMS messaging, require suitable regulations and good enforcement. For this reason WASPA is supported well by WASPs as well as the network operators.
The problem that needs to be solved (as pointed out in the original article) are those messages that are difficult to trace, and that bypass the WASPA regulations.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
We basically are discussing two concepts here:
1) Blocking of unsolicited SMS's. - This is the more complex one as apparent from the above posts. And where I believe handset-based blocking provides the best solution.
2) Blocking the ability to subscribe to certain services. - I'm beginning to wonder if one can't deem this "adult content" (note, I did not directly quote anyone) and thus handle it under the ACM system? I need to think a bit about this.
To get back to hand-set blocking and why I like it.
It allows the end-user granular control over what he receives and (this is the nice bit), the spammer will never know his message was not seen, but he will still pay someone for sending it. (not necessarily Vodacom, BTW.)
So effectively the spammer is penalised financially without ever reaching his target audience. It just feels morally right!
1) Blocking of unsolicited SMS's. - This is the more complex one as apparent from the above posts. And where I believe handset-based blocking provides the best solution.
2) Blocking the ability to subscribe to certain services. - I'm beginning to wonder if one can't deem this "adult content" (note, I did not directly quote anyone
) and thus handle it under the ACM system? I need to think a bit about this.To get back to hand-set blocking and why I like it.
It allows the end-user granular control over what he receives and (this is the nice bit
), the spammer will never know his message was not seen, but he will still pay someone for sending it. (not necessarily Vodacom, BTW.)So effectively the spammer is penalised financially without ever reaching his target audience. It just feels morally right!