California bans SMS spam to cell phones

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958789.html">http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958789.html</a><br /><br />I don't pay much attention to what goes on in the legislature in the People's Republic of California much because, quite frankly, it scares me, but this is great news and one instance in where I hope the rest of the country follows suit. "On Thursday, Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill that would prohibit companies from spamming mobile phones and pagers with unwanted text messages. The law, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, goes into effect in January."<br /><br />It remains to be seen how effecitve the law is. Anti-spam laws seem next to worthless because so few are sucessfully prosecuted. I love the messaging feature on my phone and here in Tennessee we don't have phone spam yet, but I am sure it is coming. We aren't a big target market as I think there are only three of us that know how to use the messaging, but ho-boy do we know how to download "Dixie" ringtones. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif" />

[Timothy Rapson]

150 years ago the Post Office delivered mail without postage on it. The person receiving the letter paid the postman for it. There was no junk mail, as no one would pay for it when it arrived and the letter was thrown away so the person sending it lost the paper and printing costs.

We may have to go to something like this to stop all of this. Charge senders 10 cents per and if the reciever refuses the mail charge the sender another 10 cents. Wait, make that charge the sender 20 cents and give him back the 10 cents if the mail is not refused. That would make people stop sending this ridiculous amount of worthless porn and spam.

But, we'll see.

[heov]

"We aren't a big target market as I think there are only three of us that know how to use the messaging, but ho-boy do we know how to download "Dixie" ringtones."

I think you mean "oh-boy". You can delete this post once you catch the error as it serves no other purpose :)

EDIT: My mistake! Mods, you can still delete this post...

[Janak Parekh]

I think you mean "oh-boy". You can delete this post once you catch the error as it serves no other purpose :)
It's not a typo, it's Southern-ish slang (admittedly, it's used a lot more than just southern US...http://www.google.com/search?q=ho-boy)

This is a good thing, IMHO. Mobile SMS is not big here in the US, but I have been seeing the gradual adoption of it. Intercarrier SMS, while buggy, has helped a lot. It's only a matter of time that this would have been an issue.

Timothy - the problem with the model you state is that verifiable payment transactions across the Internet, across various channels, is still a developing technology.

--bdj

[DrtyBlvd]

150 years ago the Post Office delivered mail without postage on it. The person receiving the letter paid the postman for it. There was no junk mail, as no one would pay for it when it arrived and the letter was thrown away so the person sending it lost the paper and printing costs.

We may have to go to something like this to stop all of this. Charge senders 10 cents per and if the reciever refuses the mail charge the sender another 10 cents. Wait, make that charge the sender 20 cents and give him back the 10 cents if the mail is not refused. That would make people stop sending this ridiculous amount of worthless porn and spam.

But, we'll see.

Now that's an interesting notion - and not without merit - but the problem would be the registration aspect wouldn't it? I mean, sending block spam SMS from PC is dead easy with the correct software (anonymously too - I bothered my friends to death for a while :twisted: ) - but for the idea to go further would require gateways to be more, shall we say, 'judicious' in their management? And doesn't that very thing fail to stop eSpam?

Sure, then make the 'hoster' responsible for the chrges I guess...but that isn't likely is it? :?:

PS Who's Dixie then? :grinning devil:

[Terry]

Perhaps it's not a coincidence that out state flag has a red star (from the Russian settlers who came to California) and the obvious words on the bottom. Both, however, were signs of state defiance toward a federal government especially when coupled with a fierce bear...hardly a "people's" perspective...and we have a darn strong militia (National Guard)...

[Pony99CA]

I don't pay much attention to what goes on in the legislature in the People's Republic of California much because, quite frankly, it scares me, but this is great news and one instance in where I hope the rest of the country follows suit. "On Thursday, Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill that would prohibit companies from spamming mobile phones and pagers with unwanted text messages. The law, sponsored by Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, goes into effect in January."

It remains to be seen how effecitve the law is. Anti-spam laws seem next to worthless because so few are sucessfully prosecuted.
Even though I live in California, I don't know how this law will be handled. One way they could put more teeth in the law would be to prevent users from being charged for Spam texting.

My carrier, Verizon, charges something like $0.02 for each message received (or you can buy a plan). If they made it so that users could call the carrier and say they weren't paying for that spam, the carrier might be able to do something (like close the sender's account or bill them for the message). I assume that tracking the sender of an SMS message is much easier than tracking an E-mail (thanks to the need for billing).

I realize this could be abused by claiming a message from a friend was spam to avoid paying for it, but that could end up hurting your friend if you did that.

Also, getting the carrier involved will make it much more likely that spammers will get prosecuted. How many people will know how to complain to the correct law enforcement agency? I doubt you just call the police and say "I got spam on my cell phone." But if users call the carrier, the carrier will know who to contact.

If the user doesn't have any recourse through the carrier, I suspect the law will be much more difficult to enforce.

Steve

[krisbrown]

In my experience in the UK, where SMS is very widely used, your biggest problem will be your own service provider.
02 has started bombarding me with offers, holidays, quizzes, stupid celebrity voicemails and dating numbers.
Of course they're just desperately trying to get back the 15 billion dollars they wasted on those 3G licences!

[rlobrecht]

I assume that tracking the sender of an SMS message is much easier than tracking an E-mail (thanks to the need for billing).

Tracking SMS that was sent as SMS would be easier than email, but what about email to SMS or IM to SMS. Those would be difficult to track.

I also have Verizon, and messages aren't itemized, even on my itemized bill. I wonder how you would dispute the message?

[Paul Brindze]

I am a california Cingular user, and I eefectively don't have SMS :( .

I say this becuase Cingular refuses to do anything to block email to SMS (Spam or otherwise) and now I recieve 20-40 messages per day though this ... all from no one I know. The net result is that I delete them in bulk and do not use SMS for any communication that I really want. It is either that or change my phone number (which is part of the Cingular email to SMS "feature".

[Pony99CA]

Tracking SMS that was sent as SMS would be easier than email, but what about email to SMS or IM to SMS. Those would be difficult to track.

I also have Verizon, and messages aren't itemized, even on my itemized bill. I wonder how you would dispute the message?
I was assuming that you'd have to dispute them when you got them, kind of like dialling a wrong number.

As I don't use SMS, I don't know what you see when you get a text message. Do they show the sender's name or phone number when they arrive?

Steve