Break A2P SMS monopoly: BulkSMS MD
Dr Pieter Streicher calls on ICASA to regulate the A2P SMS messaging space
Dr Pieter Streicher calls on ICASA to regulate the A2P SMS messaging space
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
Break A2P SMS monopoly, says Pieter Streicher
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
magneto
Senior Member
nice article 
1+
but sms should be for free any way. since is part of the control channel.
bloody sharks wanting to make extra bucks.
1+but sms should be for free any way. since is part of the control channel.
bloody sharks wanting to make extra bucks.
Last edited:
ICASA is a very busy entity, with it's limited resources. To date, ICASA's pace is too slow for the industry it has to regulate - just look at the comments regarding LLU and WiMAX/LTE Spectrum.
If ICASA were to be called upon to regulate pricing for every service it will take forever for ICASA to deliver on it's key objectives. Tomorrow we may have people calling for the interconnect price of MMS, video calls, etc. to be regulated.
This market needs some level of self-regulation/co-regulation where each operator has a equal say, not one where the operators with the most lawyers dominate the market. The Regulator should obviously oversee the self-regulation process and when self-regulation does not work then the regulator should follow it's regulation process. This may address some of the pain faced by the industry.
Self-Regulation has been looked at in other markets (see links below).
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/about_oftel/self0600.htm
http://www.havyatt.com.au/docs/wps/Self_Regulation.pdf
http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Section.2088.html
WireFree
If ICASA were to be called upon to regulate pricing for every service it will take forever for ICASA to deliver on it's key objectives. Tomorrow we may have people calling for the interconnect price of MMS, video calls, etc. to be regulated.
This market needs some level of self-regulation/co-regulation where each operator has a equal say, not one where the operators with the most lawyers dominate the market. The Regulator should obviously oversee the self-regulation process and when self-regulation does not work then the regulator should follow it's regulation process. This may address some of the pain faced by the industry.
Self-Regulation has been looked at in other markets (see links below).
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/about_oftel/self0600.htm
http://www.havyatt.com.au/docs/wps/Self_Regulation.pdf
http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/en/Section.2088.html
WireFree
TelkomUseless
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 16,570
- Reaction score
- 11,208
In fact, introducing interworking fees are likely to result in the opposite happening. Once everyone, including ICASA, knows that the cost to a network of delivering a message is only 5c (my estimate), it would be difficult to justify charging consumers 50-80c per SMS
I loled. Vodacom/MTN rip the consumers on everything.
I loled. Vodacom/MTN rip the consumers on everything.
jmak
Well-Known Member
nice article
but sms should be for free any way. since is part of the control channel.
bloody sharks wanting to make extra bucks.
Good point, I am sure those SDCCH control channels are only there for the fun and sending SMSses and has absolutely nothing to do with making calls.
magneto
Senior Member
actually it does
Even if you are not talking on your cell phone, your phone is constantly sending and receiving information. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The reason for this chatter is so that the cell phone system knows which cell your phone is in, and so that your phone can change cells as you move around. Every so often, your phone and the tower will exchange a packet of data that lets both of them know that everything is OK.
Your phone also uses the control channel for call setup. When someone tries to call you, the tower sends your phone a message over the control channel that tells your phone to play its ringtone. The tower also gives your phone a pair of voice channel frequencies(traffic channel) to use for the call.
It also provides information about the traffic channels such as availability. Have you ever tried to initiate a mobile call and received a “network busy” signal or notification? That’s where there is no available room on the traffic channels for a particular tower. Traffic channels have significantly more bandwidth than do the control channels
Bern
Expert Member
Hell yes so we can start dealing with SPAM properly, the whole "sms no to opt out" is such an easy way to make money - just make it a premium sms. I would prefer to be able to log on to the mobile operator website, log in and then opt out via a control panel there. This would also massively assist mobile operators identify SPAMMERS and deal with them.
@ Wirefree - what would be the problem with regulating MMS and video calls? They are currently heavily overpriced as it is:wtf: What will be interesting is how they manage sms from foreign networks in this regard.
system32
Executive Member
SMS is the most expensive form of communicating
SMS is the most expensive method of communicating.
SMS is old school and expensive.
Gtalk/BBM/WhatsApp/iMessage/Mixit/etc have largely replaced SMS.
SMS typically cost 75c for 160 bytes of data.
Data at OOB rate is R2/MB.
That makes SMS 2,457x more expensive than OOB data.
160 bytes SMS should cost 0.03c (R0.0003).
Even at 5c/9c/17c for SMS it's a rip-off.
To put the cost in perspective:
An 8megapixel 4S/GS2 jpeg photo is about 2.5Mbytes in size.
To send the jpeg via SMS would require 16,384 SMS's (160 bytes) at 75c = R12,288.00
To send same jpeg using OOB data would cost R5.00
SMS is the most expensive method of communicating.
SMS is old school and expensive.
Gtalk/BBM/WhatsApp/iMessage/Mixit/etc have largely replaced SMS.
SMS typically cost 75c for 160 bytes of data.
Data at OOB rate is R2/MB.
That makes SMS 2,457x more expensive than OOB data.
160 bytes SMS should cost 0.03c (R0.0003).
Even at 5c/9c/17c for SMS it's a rip-off.
To put the cost in perspective:
An 8megapixel 4S/GS2 jpeg photo is about 2.5Mbytes in size.
To send the jpeg via SMS would require 16,384 SMS's (160 bytes) at 75c = R12,288.00
To send same jpeg using OOB data would cost R5.00
Last edited:
r00igev@@r
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 15,646
- Reaction score
- 14,160
- Location
- Draadloos Bantha poo doo in 4ways
It seems to me that the rules the incumbent mobile operators attempt to impose on others they do comply to themselves.
How does the WASP that provides application based messaging connect, if not as an application itself?
How does the WASP that provides application based messaging connect, if not as an application itself?
eltherza
Expert Member
Sometimes I wish the cell reps on this forum would comment about this...
jmak
Well-Known Member
I am no cell rep, but in 2G SMS is not data and is never following the same paths. MMS on the other hand is managed in part over the data network as far as I know.
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
To take this to it's logical conclusion, won't you describe the difference in the underlying networks delivering SMS and data and show the cost calculation for each?
You do know you're comparing apples with pears?
BTW, how do you send photos with SMS? Did not realise this is even possible. Did you develop an app for this?
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
MMS is half/half, using both SMS and data channels.
system32
Executive Member
For a vodacom rep, seems you don't know much about your own technology.
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS for some info on SMS technology.
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_instant_messaging on IM.
And I though there were intelligent people on this forum who added value to discussions.
What do you mean comparing apples with pears?
Do you mean the SMS has less functionality and costs 2,457x more than data?
Trivial to write perl application that will mime encode/uuencode data into PDU format and send it as SMS's.
See http://search.cpan.org/~johanvdb/GSM-SMS-0.163/
Just face the facts SMS is very expensive, and in reality costs the the network virtually zero to process.
I did not say that MMS and video calls should not be regulated. My point is that calling on ICASA to regulate every service - today SMS and tomorrow MMS and video calls - will not produce any results soon. Look at how long the smaller operators have been waiting for the LLU Regulations. How long do you want to wait for the SMS interconnect regulations - 5 to 10 years?
It may be faster to have some level of self-regulation or co-regulation. With the DoC looking to amend the ECA, it may be an opportunity also include self-regulation or co-regulation
WireFree
r00igev@@r
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 15,646
- Reaction score
- 14,160
- Location
- Draadloos Bantha poo doo in 4ways
nice article
but sms should be for free any way. since is part of the control channel.
bloody sharks wanting to make extra bucks.
In a way you are correct but it is a shared resource and needs to be demand managed to prevent blocking and this can only be done with price. However, the current prices at the retail level are exhorbitant considering that the incumbent operators clear messages between themselves at no cost.
Oftel’s view (see first link) is that formal regulation is most appropriate where:
- there are players with market power who control facilities that others need to use to compete fairly; and
there is a need for investigation into, and possible action against, anti-competitive practice by players with market power.
The article failed to mention that Vodacom and MTN have recently (Nov/Dec 2011) blocked all A2P SMS messaging from new operators such as Telfree (+2787 numbers) and Neotel (+2711 numbers), thereby ensuring their monopoly on A2P SMS messaging to their own subscribers. At the same time, they are still selling 3G modem cards bundled with SMS software which are used for cross network A2P SMS messaging.
Ironically, the excuse used was the risk of spam. But for spam we do have a self regulatory body, called WASPA, that is perfectly able to deal with spam. All that was needed was for WASPAs jurisdiction to be extended to all new operators.
Last edited:
ProSMS, you are absolutely correct with the above comments. However, Oftel/Ofcom is much more efficient and proactive relative to ICASA. Unlike the UK, the big operators in SA are fearless of the regulator. Ofcom also conducts raids of the UK operators for anti-competitive behaviour - have you ever heard of this in SA.
Furthermore, you also need to consider that the ability to send free SMS messages across networks is an opportunity for abuse. The need for a SMS interconnect fee is also a valid requirement and this is where something like self-regulation can play a role. There is no reason why Vodacom, MTN and all other interested operators can not discuss the matter openly (in the presence of the Regulator) and come up with a solution that works for all. Obviously, if the operators are not able to settle on a solution that is acceptable to all and is not deemed to be anti-competitive by the Regulator (or Competition Commission) then the regulatory process should take it's course.
By calling on ICASA to regulate SMS across the interconnect (and not getting the players in this industry to openly discuss the matter) how long do you expect the process to take?
Confidential one-on-one agreements (until ICASA releases regulations) between a big operator and smaller operators will definitely not help to create the market that is more competitive in the interim and will most likely have the smaller operator settle on terms that are in favour of the big operator.
Will an open discussion between licensed operators not be quicker to arrange (until ICASA gets going)?
This matter relates to SMS across the interconnect and not SMS from the service provider. For example, if a service provider sends SPAM through Vodacom then WASPA deals with the service provider. Likewise, if the service provider sends SPAM via a smaller operator then WASPA should deal with the service provider concerned and not the smaller operator. Extending WASPAs jurisdiction to smaller operators (rather than the service provider generating the SPAM) seems like an approach that would be used by the big operators to stifle the smaller operators from using SMS and maintain their SMS monopoly.
WireFree
Last edited:
Your proposal is fine for the process of introducing and determining the value of the SMS interworking fee. When it comes to the decision whether there should be competition between operators on A2P SMS messaging, this should be considered by the regulator (most likely the Competition Commission).
That is correct. WASPA governs the service providers/WASPs, but it needs the commitment of each operator to cut off a specific service provider/WASP should a service provider/WASP be expelled by WASPA. Currently only the incumbent operators have given this commitment.
In that case, you could lodge a complaint with the Competition Commission and ICASA, stating that the A2P SMS market is not competitive as each operator has a monopoly on A2P SMS messages to it's own customers. However, it is unlikely your complaint will be successful as the incumbents would argue that a SMS interconnect fee does not exist, the risk of SPAM to customers from another network, etc. In essence, a SMS interconnect fee needs to be in place before competition in the A2P SMS market can is realised. Nevertheless, following this process is not going to be in the favour of the consumer any time soon. The Telkom case at the Competition Commission has taken many years and the fines for the bread price fixing scandal has not benefited the end consumer with lower prices.
Expediting the process to establish a fair SMS interconnect fee, so that competition in the market takes place sooner rather than later, is necessary.
WireFree