Stop Spam now

[rpm]

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=2271

 

[arf9999]

...for only R1 per SMS...

I don't see why a third party needs to offer this service on a paid basis. As good corporate citizens with obscene profits, the networks should offer this service for free... or at least subsidise the cost.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't see why a third party needs to offer this service on a paid basis. As good corporate citizens with obscene profits, the networks should offer this service for free... or at least subsidise the cost.

How can you expect an outside party to pay for a service that benefits only YOU? Considering the timely and costly practice involved in putting a spammer out of business it must cost them a lot to do this. After deducting the network cost of sending an SMS (between 25 and 75 cents) they don't get a lot out of the deal. I think they are already subsidising it a lot.

Is this 32335 number for all networks?

 

[w1z4rd]

You have to pay to stop spam? imagine if ISP`s charged R1 a message to stop spam. lol

 

[noxibox]

How can you expect an outside party to pay for a service that benefits only YOU?

Not an outside party, the cellular networks. They provide the spamming scum with the means to bombard us with garbage so they should be held responsible for stopping it.

The law should be simple - spam scum must get written, signed consent from consumers stating they wish to receive advertising. No product should be allowed to be advertised without providing full contact details of the advertiser.

 

[pimal3]

Just imagine, if a spammer would have to pay R1 per spam message sent. No more spam!

 

[supersunbird]

How can you expect an outside party to pay for a service that benefits only YOU? Considering the timely and costly practice involved in putting a spammer out of business it must cost them a lot to do this. After deducting the network cost of sending an SMS (between 25 and 75 cents) they don't get a lot out of the deal. I think they are already subsidising it a lot.

Is this 32335 number for all networks?

I think its time for you to download the newest reading comprehension skills

 

[Prometheus]

Not an outside party, the cellular networks.

I think its time for you to download the newest reading comprehension skills

The cellular networks are not providing the service Mira Networks is!

Cellphone users fed up with receiving unsolicited commercial SMS messages, or spam, can now SMS the number that has been spamming them to 32335 and Mira Networks will contact the spammer to demand that spamming cease.

 

[Prometheus]

If the cellular networks were providing the service then I would agree with you!!!

 

[ettubrute]

Isn't it possible to block SMS's from certain numbers? Like we do with email?

 

[Prometheus]

Isn't it possible to block SMS's from certain numbers? Like we do with email?

The cell operators can block SMS's from certain numbers

 

[ettubrute]

You asking for a guarantee?

 

[supersunbird]

The cellular networks are not providing the service Mira Networks is!

Man, why are you being so dense?

Arf9999 was saying the network providers should have this feature, FOR FREE! There shouldn't even be a 3rd party (Mira Network) involved.

Then you came and asked:

How can you expect an outside party to pay for a service that benefits only YOU?

Which is something he didn't say, nor expected, something which you either misread, didn't comprehend or just conjured up in your mind.

And anycase, just like with spam e-mails, its benefits everyone but the spammer, cause there is less network congestion.

Do you finally have a clue why your comprehension is flawed and you must download comprehension skill updates or do I have to draw you a picture in paint?

And if you want to cry unfair cause you think I insulted you with the download comment, I'm just treating you like I TREATmyself.

 

[arf9999]

How can you expect an outside party to pay for a service that benefits only YOU? Considering the timely and costly practice involved in putting a spammer out of business it must cost them a lot to do this.

Not to repeat what has ben said by supersunbird, wiz4rd and ic, I think you misunderstood my statement. I am not opposed to any third party spotting a gap in the market. Good luck to them.

However, I feel that the networks do bear responsibility for spam on the networks, mainly because they are the biggest beneficiaries - these messages are not transmitted free of charge (or near to it, like email spam) - there is a definite cost of transmission paid to the networks.

This kind of anti-spam solution should be implemented by the networks themselves and should be free of charge to their customers.
After deducting the network cost of sending an SMS (between 25 and 75 cents) they don't get a lot out of the deal. I think they are already subsidising it a lot.

What are you smoking? SMS messages cost the network next to nothing. Since they are not time sensitive in terms of delivery, they can be transmitted on whatever bandwidth is available, when it is available. The actual data size is tiny, so the real costs are only recovery of the specific routing equipment required. At just 25c profit per SMS, I don't think that it will take long to cover those costs, and the average actual profit is much higher than that.

 

[Prometheus]

Ooops... my apologies arf. I was confused over which networks you were talking about.
As for:

This kind of anti-spam solution should be implemented by the networks themselves and should be free of charge to their customers

I'm not exactly sure where that came from, but I searched the posts and can't find it in any of mine.
And:

What are you smoking? SMS messages cost the network next to nothing. Since they are not time sensitive in terms of delivery, they can be transmitted on whatever bandwidth is available, when it is available. The actual data size is tiny, so the real costs are only recovery of the specific routing equipment required. At just 25c profit per SMS, I don't think that it will take long to cover those costs, and the average actual profit is much higher than that.

Does this refer to the preceding quote?