Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aussie Regulator Comes Down On SMS Spam

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the tastes-like-long-pig dept.

Spam 76

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Communications and Media Authority has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against several local and international companies over allegedly unsolicited SMS spam. It's the first time the regulator has used its powers under the Spam Act to pursue an alleged SMS spammer through the Courts. Other companies have been fined or committed to an 'enforceable undertaking' to avoid this type of action (although these are not without issue). Another firm accused of SMS spam accused the regulator of being overzealous after it received a formal warning. The regulator appears to have instituted a crackdown on the premium mobile content industry in recent months, culminating in this latest action."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let's get this out of the way (-1, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433663)

A red header! My eyes! My eyes! - Typical slashdotter

Re:Let's get this out of the way (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26433765)

A red asshole! My ass! My ass! - Typical Ivan256

Re:Let's get this out of the way (-1, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433891)

A red header! My eyes! My eyes! - Typical slashdotter

A loud header! My ears! My ears! - Atypical Synestetic slashdotter.

Re:Let's get this out of the way (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26445841)

A nerf herder! A nerf herder! - Typical Alderaanian Princess

yeah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26433673)

piss first

Die Spammers!! (2, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433751)

Find them guilty and kill them with fire.

Now of course if these are run of the mill companies trying to promote their products by simply telling you about it on the phone, then they are telemarketers and technically not spammers, so they will likely walk away from this, unless justice exists?

Nah, it's too easy to doubt justice, with all the evidence that it does not exist. Of course these defendants will come up with a great defense and cost taxpayers more money than they will lose from the publicity generated by a big court case.

Re:Die Spammers!! (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433805)

Find them guilty and kill them with fire.

No one expects the Spammer Inquisition!

Re:Die Spammers!! (2, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433955)

No one expects the Spammer Inquisition!

Are you a spammer?

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434329)

No, just a Monty Python fan. ;)

Re:Die Spammers!! (0, Troll)

Smooth and Shiny (1097089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434371)

Monty Python? I thought Mel Brooks when you said that. ;) You know... History of the World: Part I.

Joke Explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26434395)

mfh joked by suggesting you might be a spammer, and in light of an inquisition -- anyone could easily point a finger at anyone else and suggest they are a spammer, and therefore they become a spammer in the public's eye, and are executed.

Re:Joke Explained (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436267)

ah. So whoosh then.

Re:Die Spammers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26439309)

Well, if you dont like spammers, Australia has spammers spammers dingos and spammers.

That hasn't got much spammers in it.

Re:Die Spammers!! (2, Informative)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433995)

It doesn't cost you money to answer (and hang up on) a telemarketer. And there's a no-call list in most states that works pretty well.

It costs me money every time someone spams me with a text message.

Can you imagine if every spam email that came into your account cost you 10 cents?

I hope they stop this before it becomes as bad as spam email.

Re:Die Spammers!! (4, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434153)

First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.

Still, I agree with the parent.

Can you imagine if every spam email that came into your account cost you 10 cents?

Since killing them with fire is not enough of a punishment for these spammers, according to mark72005, I propose we find some other cruel way to kill these spammers for their horrible act of racking up unwanted charges for text messages.

We could nail their fingers to a wall for one month per SMS they sent out? So for every 1mil messages... that's a finger, and with the time added, considering most of these guys spammed well over 9000 people... they are really gonna be in for a world of hurt, until they eventually die, hanging from their fingers.

AND THEN we burn them.

Re:Die Spammers!! (4, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434335)

First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.

No. No way.

I have a land-line with a bottom-basement plan that suits my needs just fine (with the occasional exception of missing call-waiting when trying to get through to my wife). We have a cell phone that we pay $15/month for (150 minutes - WAY more than we need). When we accept a text, it costs us $.05 (and usually isn't worth that). If I could find a cheaper plan, I'd take it - But no way am I signing up for a more expensive plan just so that I don't have to pay for people to send me crap I don't want without incurring additional expense.

Also, I'm on board with the fire thing, but nailing fingers is more time than I'm willing to dedicate to torture. Let's just stick to killing them with fire - Simple, cheap, clean, and effective.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434471)

Also, I'm on board with the fire thing, but nailing fingers is more time than I'm willing to dedicate to torture. Let's just stick to killing them with fire - Simple, cheap, clean, and effective.

Well if you insist. :)

Seriously though, some tougher penalties are needed for spammers, but we'd never find the guy to get the money. Also, for every spammer you kill, you create a vacuum for someone to take their place. Something needs to be done to shut these organizations down from within, and damage the skillset of the people employed there.

Re:Die Spammers!! (3, Funny)

icebrain (944107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435145)

Let's just stick to killing them with fire - Simple, cheap, clean, and effective

I prefer lobbing nukes from orbit. The fireworks are more impressive, and there's a greater chance of success.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26441473)

And it's the only way to be sure.

pay to receive calls? (5, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435231)

For the information of Merkins out there: here in Australia, we don't pay anything to receive calls or SMSs. This only happens when we're roaming internationally, where the cost of calls can be nearly doubled as the telco slugs both caller and callee. Vodafone is a particular case in point.

Re:pay to receive calls? (3, Informative)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438091)

Unless you receive a message from a premium SMS number. Then they charge you $6 a message and send multiple messages within a minute to slam high charges onto your bill.

They supposedly need consent, but many rely on phone numbers entered into websites and general deception as ways to get 'consent'.

Re:pay to receive calls? (1)

simmee (1180333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26441759)

In Australia, you can get your telco (yes, even Telstra will do this) to block all premium SMS being sent to your phone. I did this for myself (I'm with Optus) and a friend, who was getting premium SMS messages that he did not ask for every Sunday morning starting at 7am!

Re:pay to receive calls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26445331)

Provided the CSR isnt in india and doesn't just claim it premium SMS were blocked.

Re:pay to receive calls? (1)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26456467)

I tried to do this with Optus and they said they couldn't do it. They said they could block all SMS - but not selectively block premium SMS. How did you manage to get them to do it? Surprisingly Telstra can and will block just premium SMS but most don't.

Anyway, given the money Optus make out of premium SMS it is unsurprising that they refuse to selectively block it. technical problems my arse.

Re:pay to receive calls? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26441727)

A "merkin" is a patch of fake hair used by prostitutes to cover venereal diseases. It is not another term for someone from the USA. I'm not sure who your post is relevant to pussy-wigs.

Re:pay to receive calls? (2, Informative)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26444229)

Easy there, mate. You don't see us getting out of our pram when someone calls us 'Aussies'.

Re:pay to receive calls? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26466427)

A "merkin" is a patch of fake hair used by prostitutes to cover venereal diseases. It is not another term for someone from the USA. I'm not sure who your post is relevant to pussy-wigs.

Far be it from me to cast nasturtiums on the soi-disant "American sense of humour" (if one might forgive the oxymoron), but I thought that was a pretty obvious hook waiting for a bite.

But your definition could use a bit more poetry. I prefer Dr. Johnson's more succinct "counterfeit hair for women's privy parts".

You will find the word "pun" in any dictionary.

Re:pay to receive calls? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26444157)

Americans get shit service on everything.

I don't understand why people complain about phone service over here, at least we have service. Much of America is still on landlines and probably still using rotary telephones.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

Varun Soundararajan (744929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26440479)

I think the way should be this: Charge those who send sms rather than those who receive. That way, if the spammer is intending to send you spam, first he cant charge your bill and he pays double the charge (charge for sending and charge for you receiving it). So, things will get double costly for him. Second, if you dont like the spam you can delete it anyways. That way the game becomes much more level playing field. The whole notion that someone can send you sms and rake up your bill is something that I hate to accept.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434755)

<quote><p>First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.</p></quote>

Well, I don't want to pay $10 or $20 extra for that. and I shouldn't have to because spammers are going to send me text messages.

Text messaging is the biggest ripoff on the earth, what they charge you to transmit data per byte is just outrageous.

I don't think I should be forced to pay for it to accommodate advertising.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435347)

First, I recommend everyone get a plan with free SMS.

Hell no. I am not paying so that a bunch of lowlifes can drown a few important SMSes I may get in their crap for free.

As for the penalty, there is no redeeming value to spammer's life, none. 9mm cartridges are plentiful and cheap from military surplus (US $0.12 per round when purchased in large lots).

And that applies to email spammers as well. I will volunteer for the first few.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435851)

Burn them horribly. Any suitable body part will do.

This can be done several times, though generally it will only be required twice.

We can only kill them once, and they will not then testify to others of the error of their ways.

Though taking a finger off each time appeals to me.

Not really, but it does tittilate my sense of justice, as self-centered and absolute as it is...

Re:Die Spammers!! (4, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434241)

It doesn't cost you money to answer (and hang up on) a telemarketer. And there's a no-call list in most states that works pretty well.

Well, kind of. I value my time at home and when I'm doing something that I don't enjoy, I expect to be compensated (pay check, home improvement, if-I-don't-clean-this-shit-up-my-wife-will-leave-me, etc.) Just because I don't see a new number on my phone bill doesn't mean I'm not sacrificing something of value.

Since the don't-call-list, I've received only a handful of telemarketing calls but still get political, charity, and survey calls. My typical response is to ask the caller whether they're volunteering their time to call me. If they are, I'll give them a couple of minutes to make their pitch (if it's a political call and the person is motivated and well-informed, I may talk for a while if I have nothing going on - charities I prefer to research myself rather than take the word of a random caller). If they're being paid (typically the case for surveys and mixed results for charity/political), I ask why they expect me to spend time on the call for free when they won't. Ends the call pretty effectively.

Re:Die Spammers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26434691)

It costs me money every time someone spams me with a text message.

Not the case in Australia (no carriers here charge for receiving either calls or SMS).

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435171)

20 cents, for me. It was just raised from 15.

My solution was to completely disable text messaging (and picture, and email) for my account. Currently, SPAM wasn't the problem... Friends were. No matter how many times I told them it costs me money, they still thought it was worth spending my money to text message me something they could have told me for free by voice or in person. Or by email.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

fugue (4373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436411)

It doesn't cost you money to answer (and hang up on) a telemarketer. And there's a no-call list in most states that works pretty well.

Don't be absurd. "Time is money" (of course time is really much more valuable than money), and being bothered costs mental energy (also more valuable than money). Just because no corporation is billing you for answering your phone doesn't mean that the effort of doing so is without cost.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

cellurl (906920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434223)

Hi, my name is Jim (age 51).
Is there any way to block SMS based on sender?
Like a caller-id block??

I want to buy a phone that quizzes the sender somehow. Fail=no-SMS.

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434439)

I want to buy a phone that quizzes the sender somehow. Fail=no-SMS.

That's probably the fastest way to stop SMS, all SMS. Imagine every time your friend wants to SMS you, your phone will ask something like 1+2=?.

And this method might actually cost the recipient (more)money. Usually receiving SMS is free, but if you want to quiz, you're sending something out and that's going to cost something.

I think the best option so far is to get an unlimited SMS plan, so we leave the "cost" part to the provider.

Then go find a filter app, which moves all not-in-the-contact SMSs to a designated folder.

Any better suggestions?

Re:Die Spammers!! (3, Insightful)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434593)

that itself is only a better suggestion if you know where I can get an unlimited SMS plan that doesn't cost more. (or at least an unlimited received SMS plan).

If I'm paying more, it is not leaving the cost to the provider. I'm picking up the tab for the cost, and providing the provider with a profit margin that they have incentive to maximize without passing me any of the benefit.

The providers absolutely love your suggestion. An extra $5 per month on every contract they have would do wonders for their bottom line. I'd rather do something else with that $60/year, thanks. No good.

Re:Die Spammers!! (2, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434485)

We've got a plan from Net10 [net10.com] (not for everybody - It's $.10/minute at a minimum average of $15/month or so). When we accept a SMS message, it costs $.05 but we do get to see who sent it before committing to reading it - Declining to read it saves your nickel. Not exactly what you're asking for, but it does allow us to reject the trash without paying for messages or signing up for unlimited SMS.

Re:Die Spammers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26434631)

getting close to what I want, thanks for that...

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

mancunian_nick (986362) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434985)

Yes I agree with you mfh and I understand that those advertising agencies or companies or even individuals perhaps can get away with it providing they can show (prove?) that whatever product or service they are sending you to can be genuinely shown or designed to be of interest to the particular indivual(s) being sent to.

What disturbs me more is this use of "allegedly". In a court or tribunal etc, nothing would happen punishment, fine or sanctions-wise unless or until proved spam or malicious intent etc etc. It's too easy sometimes to cast aspirtions or make allegations against someone but does that "make it so" as Captain Jean Luc Picard would say or make it true as most others would? Probably not so maybe the thin end of the wedge steamroller being used to crack the poor walnut?!

I get FAR more problem with spam being sent via my email and those at work compared to what I receive on my mobile. If only something could be done about that! and so say all of us do I hear you say?! :)

Re:Die Spammers!! (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26442641)

Find them guilty and kill them with fire

Or better yet, fire them out of a cannon, we still have cannon here in Australia. Followed by a volley of grapeshot, then a volley of salt. After that we should send someone in to make sure they are fully dead (a mostly dead spammer is still partly alive, which is unacceptable).

Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (2, Informative)

acon1modm (1009947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433775)

standard. I've received spam texts from about 3 sources, several per day from each, since the first day I got my phone/number.

I think its possible to call verizon (fun), and have them blacklisted for me but from what I've heard its not even free to do so (even if it is, the customer services call probably takes 30 mins).

If I didn't have an unlimited text plan, every spam msg would cost me. For those without such aplan, the ability block a source *from the phone* is necessary.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433903)

If I didn't have an unlimited text plan

Unlimited text plans usually aren't. My stepdaughter's boyfriend has 'unlimited text' through Verizon, and he ended up paying per message one month. Unlimited usually means 1,000 text messages or so a month.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436011)

Won't trading standards have something to say about this blatant lie then?

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436043)

I will have to say you're incorrect sir since I have sent/received almost 1,500 text messages last month on my unlimited text/pix/flix plan. I have received no extra charge other then the standard rate.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436531)

Right. That's Verizon's 'premium' unlimited plan, which is like $10 extra. They also have an 'unlimited' plan that's $5 extra. That plan is anything but unlimited. As always, you have to read the fine print.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (2, Informative)

ad0n (1171681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26433951)

i've been told i could text the words "stop" to any sender and it would block.

I am with Fido, here in Canada (Ontario).

Of course, the "stop" message costs against my texting quota (i'm not on an unlimited package). I haven't been overrun with rogue SMS so I can't comment on whether this is an effective deterrent.

a>

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (4, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435495)

"stop" may block them, but texting "stop. hammer time" actually destroys their soul in the process.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (0, Redundant)

ad0n (1171681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435893)

unfortunately i have already posted in the discussion, otherwise I would have used all my mod points to +5 funny you.

Break it down
(Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh oh-oh) (x4)
Stop Hammer time

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435377)

I use T-Mobile. All the 'spam' so far has come from my friends, except for maybe 3 messages in about 3 years.

Still, it's $.20 per message, so I decided to cut it out.

I spent about 20 minutes figuring out -how- to disable it via their website, and another 5 setting it.

Verizon may have something similar.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (1)

ChrisStrickler (1157941) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437347)

I was on Verizon for years as all of my family and majority of friends were also on it (the in-network calling was nice). It took me about 10 minutes on the phone with them to block all SMS. I still got one or two a month at cost from Verizon themselves; their official line was that they were allowed to bill me for their advertising. After 3 years of this and timed conveniently with my wife's phone going out of contract, we dumped them.

With T-Mobile, when I was setting up service with them the blackberry support group asked if I wanted SMS blocking. I agreed. An hour after the phone was setup, we got a text message on my wife's phone from some pizza place in NY advertising a deal. I called T-Mobile, and they halved my first months bill because of it ($40 off for one message). Since then, no text messaging at all, not even advertisements from T-Mobile.

I was honestly surprised they went to that extent as we had ordered the phones through Amazon, and got two phones for free + a $50 Visa pre-paid card.

Re:Some basic filtering/blacklisting should be... (2, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26442717)

If I didn't have an unlimited text plan, every spam msg would cost me

In Australia its the other way around, sender pays, with telephones sender always pays. I don't understand why you yanks have the receiver pays system, it seems backwards and an invite for abuse.

Admittedly in AU, the only spam I get is from my telco, whom I have called and said in no uncertain terms "stop". They still test my patience every now and then but its down from 1 per week to 1 per quarter. Spammers likely get mobile numbers from those free "services" they advertise on TV where you only have to enter your mobile number (or send SMS to) to get content. TV studios themselves do this a lot, well they did before I stopped watching TV and Reality TV would be a big culprit (American/Australian/Crap Idol and Big Brother). It's really all because people are stupid enough to hand out their mobile numbers, it costs too much to cold call mobiles in AU.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26433801)

I was seriously considering those Luxury vRolexes and with /iagra at $0.87 per dose how could I possibly go wrong!

goa^7 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26433959)

Re:goa^7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26445385)

Nice wedding snaps.

This is what you get when you let gays marry.

The only solution: (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434337)

Painful death to the people doing the actual spamming, and complete dissolution of any company caught using spam for advertising.

Re:The only solution: (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435831)

If you can't catch them or they're outside your jurisdiction, then your "solution" can't be implemented. So, what's your plan b?

Re:The only solution: (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436119)

Vigilantes have no limits on jurisdiction.Also, if you don't follow common laws, you can find anyone.

Sure its extreme, but its needed.

Fp SPOnGE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26434575)

aentibacterial soap.

Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (3, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26434963)

Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? about being forced to pay for in coming texts? Has any one taking that to court?

This is like a COD that they say it hear YOU PAY NOW! You don't want it WE SHIPPED to you so YOU PAY.

If UPS, FEDEX, or the USPS tried the same thing the courts likely kill that off fast and what if your only choice was pay for all in coming and what you send even if you send very little or no shipping at all and the only way is to pay for a package deal that costs much more then you need to pay and comes with way more then you use per month.

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26435553)

Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? about being forced to pay for in coming texts? Has any one taking that to court?

This is like a COD that they say it hear YOU PAY NOW! You don't want it WE SHIPPED to you so YOU PAY.

Nobody's forced to have a cellphone, though.

(Having said that, nobody's forced to have a postal address to which Fedex may deliver, but anyone trying to use that as an excuse would be considered to be nuts).

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437565)

"... but anyone trying to use that as an excuse would be considered to be nuts."

In this day and age, I think that this is equally applicable to both cases.

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26441809)

Semantically, it's no different from being sent unsolicited faxes and burning up paper and toner/ink.

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26445029)

Incoming SMS's are free in Australia. We only pay to send them.

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26445397)

You will find that you can still be charged for "premium" SMS, and this is the crux of TFA

Re:Do unsolicited gifts laws apply in the us? (2, Informative)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26443231)

I think the US is the only place where you pay for *incoming* communications. I've been in several European and Asian countries; all of them had free SMS and free incoming calls.

Providers will eventually solve this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26435285)

Not yet, because at the minute it's not a huge inconvenience to most people. It's not impacting the providers bottom line, in fact, I assume that SMS Spam is currently profitable for the providers.

Once the spam ratio increases, and people start canceling SMS and blocking all SMS's, the providers will solve the problem because it will impact a very profitable part of their business.

Unlike e-mail spam, the network is well controlled and so there will be technical solutions, but not until people stop using SMS.

SMS needs to die (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26436005)

Replace it with Jabber. No wait, Jabber with OpenPGP on top. Not signed by an identity I can WoT to: bit bucket. Signed by an identity I can WoT to: reputation lookup, then display or bit bucket.

$.05 is already highway robbery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26436487)

Of course, none of this would really be an issue if cell companies priced texts according to what it costs to carry them: nothing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=2

Long Pig is Soylent Green (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438353)

Posted by timothy ...
from the tastes-like-long-pig dept.

TMI, Timothy.

Correction... (1)

justinkz (995532) | more than 5 years ago | (#26441261)

Aussie Regulator *Shakes* Down SMS Spam. The spam won't stop, and the government gets a payday. It's just a shake-down.

accused of being over zalous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26441677)

So what?

A government agency would be hard pressed to find a more popular cause, If regulators are stringing spammers up by their short and curlies the general public will be more likely to hold a parade than anything else.

In the internet age most of us hate spam so much we'll cheerfully tell you it should be a capital offence, no government is ever going to get negative press for beating on the spammers.

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26441925)

I filed a complaint with the ACMA about unsolicited SMS spam, and they wasted no time in coming down hard on the perpetrators. The scourge of email and SMS spam isn't going away anytime soon, but I think they're doing a great job of enforcing what they can, and teaching business about what's appropriate.

(Again) pay to receive calls? (1)

zijus (754409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26463439)

Hi. FYI, in Europe we don't pay to receive SMS within a state. So from my point of view, this "SMS spam problem" is a non-problem. Have people sending SMS pay. End of story, move on.

Yet to be honest, this is still a reap off. SMSing in Switzerland costs 0.10euro/SMS. Head of Swiss mobile phone operators society said on radio RSR the cost for providers is actually 0.02Euro/SMS. No one is naive here: if that is the publicly acknowledged cost, that means - rough un-sourced estimate - real cost may well be 0.002Euro/SMS. So that is still a vast reap off. To the extent that European instances recently forced operators to lower their unjustified high prices. Ha! See, let the market be totally free, and feel the citizen be totally fucked. Funny how I can't help thinking of nowadays western economic crash. Let the market do whatever, noooooo worries folks : citizens will anyway pay.

Sidewise, I would accept to have to pay a tinny fee per e-mail I send: like 0.00001Euro. Poof, e-mail spam is dead. End of story, move on. Yes that would mean if I use mailing-list, I would pay for every single recipient: exactly what's required. I mean, I'd have to wonder am I really making sense enough to justify the cost ? Ach nein ! I'd have to admit that vast amount of what I send is rubbish. And... poof: less shite on the net. Exactly what's required. ( And... poof - domino's cascade - every one would dam care not to have zombified PC. )

Z.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?