Watershed year for SMS approaching

WASPA doesn't work. I've proved that. When a SPAMMER is made head of the Code of Conduct Committee then we know something is wrong.

We need to regulate the commercial SMS industry.

Having said that, the SMS is almost dead in the water with serious smartphone IM services taking over and far more cheaply as well. Let them try spamming iMessenger or Whatsapp!
 
Lounger said:
WASPA doesn't work. I've proved that. When a SPAMMER is made head of the Code of Conduct Committee then we know something is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm also against that - conveniently his company has gotten a significant reduction in a fine for spam sent to me - and when they started spamming me again months later, again they were let off the hook.
 
The great thing about having smart-phones is that you can filter out all spam by just filtering words like "unsubscribe" and "OPT" and you don't even know you getting it. Get "GO SMS Pro" (Free)
 
xrapidx said:
I'm also against that - conveniently his company has gotten a significant reduction in a fine for spam sent to me - and when they started spamming me again months later, again they were let off the hook.
Click to expand...
My own complaint with a spammer has not yet been resolved yet and it's over 1 year old (or more). They still refuse to inform me where they obtained my cell number.
 
.. but libertarians tell me business does not need regulation and can moderate itself :D
 
ghoti said:
.. but libertarians tell me business does not need regulation and can moderate itself :D
Click to expand...
In a civilised society. self-regulation is preferred. However, when this fails, the government usually steps in.
 
I use to be in the WASP industry till 4mths ago and these debates are much needed. The reality is the networks don't care as its revenue effecting.

What is nice however is that Vodacom has just made the WASP section available on their portal - now users can "opt-out" online too. (Would also like it ProSMS could confirm what the cost of the global opt-out SMS from Vodacom is).

We can continue to debate the whole opt-in/opt-out system and costs of the requests, but what is more important is we need all networks to offer us the facility to opt-out and access to the list of WASPs billing us.
 
cbrunsdonza said:
What is nice however is that Vodacom has just made the WASP section available on their portal - now users can "opt-out" online too. (Would also like it ProSMS could confirm what the cost of the global opt-out SMS from Vodacom is).
Click to expand...

Please send the url for this page. Is this for opting out of subscription billing or is this for opting out of sms direct marketing messages?
 
Lounger said:
In a civilised society. self-regulation is preferred. However, when this fails, the government usually steps in.
Click to expand...
You mean in a society where everyone plays nice. Such a society does not exist.
 
Lounger said:
WASPA doesn't work. I've proved that. When a SPAMMER is made head of the Code of Conduct Committee then we know something is wrong.

We need to regulate the commercial SMS industry.
Click to expand...

The head of the Code of Conduct Committee might have some influence over what is written in the code, but would have no influence whatsoever on the adjudication process. WASPA uses independent adjudicators, and they have to enforce what is written in the code.

Have a look at section 5 of the WASPA Code, and let me know if you have any problems with this. It currently works on an opt-in basis, however several WASPs would prefer it changed to an opt-out basis. If it does change to an opt-out basis, then you could rightly blame those WASPs that requested the change.

In terms of enforcement, WASPA is a much better option than the government. There has not been a single reported case against spam in terms of the ECT Act. I don't expect to see the National Consumer Commission acting on spam in terms of the new CPA either, as this act allows you to send spam under certain conditions.

I have helped several people with WASPA spam complaints, and have been successful in getting complaints upheld in 90% of all cases. If you need help in this regard, let me know.
 
Lounger said:
My own complaint with a spammer has not yet been resolved yet and it's over 1 year old (or more). They still refuse to inform me where they obtained my cell number.
Click to expand...

Have you insisted on a formal complaint?

The code has been tightened in the last 12 months, so the WASP has to get information from the sender on where the number was obtained:
5.1.11. Upon request of the recipient of a direct marketing message, the message originator must, within a reasonable period of time, identify the source from which the recipient's personal information was obtained, and provide proof that the organisation supplying the originator with the recipient's contact information has the recipient's explicit consent to do so.

If a WASP refuses to enforce this requirement, the complaint will be upheld.
 
ProSMS said:
Have you insisted on a formal complaint?

The code has been tightened in the last 12 months, so the WASP has to get information from the sender on where the number was obtained:
5.1.11. Upon request of the recipient of a direct marketing message, the message originator must, within a reasonable period of time, identify the source from which the recipient's personal information was obtained, and provide proof that the organisation supplying the originator with the recipient's contact information has the recipient's explicit consent to do so.

If a WASP refuses to enforce this requirement, the complaint will be upheld.
Click to expand...
What is a reasonable length of time and how do I get WASPA to do anything. Once they decide I should not have been spammed, the enforcement doesn't happen and they don't follow their own rules. They certainly don't even keep you informed.
 
If it were easy enough to determine who the offending marketer is, you could simply flood their communications right back. Receiving SMS' on a landline is a dreadfull experience which hanging up, doesn't end. Sure it may cost a recharge voucher or two, but it's worth it in entertainment value :D
 
Lounger said:
What is a reasonable length of time and how do I get WASPA to do anything. Once they decide I should not have been spammed, the enforcement doesn't happen and they don't follow their own rules. They certainly don't even keep you informed.
Click to expand...

If you lodge a spam complaint with WASPA, they will only ask the WASP to block further messages from the same sender.

If you want WASPA to do anything more, you have to insist on a formal complaint. This does not happen automatically. WASPA handles 150000 unsubscribe requests per month of which only a few get escalated to a formal.

Make sure to list specific clauses that were contravened (use section 5 for spam). An independent adjudicator will then investigate the complaint and make a ruling. This could take anything from 3 to 12 months.

Looking at the last upheld spam complaint, this was lodged in mid September 2011:
http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/14849.pdf
Note the R50000 fine.
 
ghoti said:
.. but libertarians tell me business does not need regulation and can moderate itself :D
Click to expand...

& unfortunately there is a very active libertarian sitting on the portfolio committee which is busy rewriting the POPI Bill
 
dominic said:
& unfortunately there is a very active libertarian sitting on the portfolio committee which is busy rewriting the POPI Bill
Click to expand...

for example, since they were unable to remove the "consent" requirement for direct marketing, they are now trying to change the definition of "consent":
One member suggested the following wording for the definition of consent: “And includes the failure on the side of the data subject to object to or opt out when given a reasonable opportunity to do so.”

The word consent is used 34 times in the bill.
 
ProSMS said:
If you lodge a spam complaint with WASPA, they will only ask the WASP to block further messages from the same sender.

If you want WASPA to do anything more, you have to insist on a formal complaint. This does not happen automatically. WASPA handles 150000 unsubscribe requests per month of which only a few get escalated to a formal.

Make sure to list specific clauses that were contravened (use section 5 for spam). An independent adjudicator will then investigate the complaint and make a ruling. This could take anything from 3 to 12 months.

Looking at the last upheld spam complaint, this was lodged in mid September 2011:
http://www.waspa.org.za/code/download/14849.pdf
Note the R50000 fine.
Click to expand...
It was similar, particularly this clause:

5.1.10. Upon request of the recipient of a direct marketing message, the message
originator must, within a reasonable period of time, identify the source from which the
recipient’s personal information was obtained, and provide proof that the organisation
supplying the originator with the recipient's contact information has the recipient's explicit
consent to do so.

Depite the ruling against them they never did reveal the source.
 
Yes! Yes! All commercial SMS is evil, block it all... Oh wait, what happened to my GMail calendar SMS updates? Um... and why didn't I get my site downtime SMS alert? Ooh and the local pub that always SMSs me their specials that I really enjoy - didn't get those, either. And what happened to the late notification reminder SMS from the video store? Oops. All blocked.. but not because they're spam, but because they're "grey" - a.k.a. not revenue producing for the local [-]organised crime rings[/-] networks. It's okay, though, MTN, Vodacom, etc - if you relentlessly indiscriminately block A2P SMSs and those originated from overseas services, they will eventually find other ways and you will lose out big in the long run... Most of your [-]sheeple[/-] customers have completely forgotten that SMS was originally free, because it basically costs you FA, until you realised how much you could price gouge and add to your already obscene profits.
 
garp said:
All blocked.. but not because they're spam, but because they're "grey" - a.k.a. not revenue producing for the local networks.
Click to expand...

In defense of WASPA, it has never discriminated based on the route a message followed. It simply applied the code, and the test was whether there was consent or not. Several WASPs used grey routes as well, and some are represented at the top level at WASPA.

WASPA membership is open to all messaging companies, regardless of location and regardless of the messaging routes used. Some may argue that no "law" requires membership, however even ICASA forwards spam complaints to WASPA.

Some WASPs listed their "grey" originating numbers with WASPA years ago already, and spam was treated no differently.

Perhaps if all messaging companies did the same, the networks would not have been able to use the "spam" argument to justify the blocking of cross-network A2P messaging (which we all know was really done for commercial reasons). But no, some companies deliberately chose to bypass WASPA, to be able to send spam. This played in the hands of the local network operators, as eventually the spam percentage via grey routes was significantly higher.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X