<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;sms&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:42:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>California Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort Of</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years ago, California outlawed texting while driving.  On the whole, this is one of those things that certainly seems like a good idea.  I'm still amazed that anyone -- law or no law -- thinks that texting while driving is a reasonable thing to do.  It's a clear death wish.  That said, like many laws, there appear to be unintended consequences.  A few studies have suggested that states that put in place anti-texting while driving laws actually saw an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100929/00202911209/new-study-shows-texting-bans-may-make-roads-even-more-dangerous.shtml">increase</a> in accidents compared to nearby states that had no such ban.  How does that make sense?  Well, it's because the law doesn't seem to actually get everyone to stop texting while driving.  Instead, what it does is <i>make them hide what they're doing</i>, which generally means putting it down in their lap.  Before that, they could hold it up and still see the road, even if they weren't paying close enough attention to it.
<br /><br />
None of this is defending the ridiculously dangerous practice of texting while driving, but merely acknowledging that the law intended to make the roads safer could actually do the opposite.
<br /><br />
With all that said, it's interesting to see that California quietly <a href="http://www.siliconvalley.com/latest-headlines/ci_21073057/new-law-allows-hands-free-texting-while-driving" target="_blank">legalized some forms of texting while driving last week</a> with very little fanfare.  Basically, it allows totally hands-free texting -- such as dictating messages via a bluetooth headset or a car service like OnStar.  Of course, unsurprisingly when dealing with lawmakers and lawmaking, there's a lot of confusion over the new rules -- with some wondering if it meant that something like Siri was now legal while driving.  That resulted in the following amusing passage in the SJ Merc article about this, in which the staff of the sponsor of the bill is left to admit that no one there has an iPhone, so they didn't even really think about Siri:
<blockquote><i>
On Friday, after much head-scratching and acknowledging nobody in Miller's office owns a Siri-equipped iPhone 4S, the assemblyman's aides concluded it will still be illegal to use your actual phone to text behind the wheel -- even by speaking the message directly into Siri.
<br /><br />
The California Highway Patrol confirms that just the act of turning on the phone or selecting the phone's hands-free text app, like pushing the Siri button or Google apps on Android phones, is enough to warrant flashing lights in your rearview mirror and a $100-plus ticket. The same thing goes for using your phone to read texts.
<br /><br />
"The phone can't be in your hands," said CHP spokeswoman Jaime Coffee. "Hands-free is the key."
</i></blockquote>
Either way, this seems to suggest, once again, the difficulty in regulating any particular technology in a rapidly changing technology market.  I still don't understand why we don't just do the simple thing: make dangerous and distracted driving illegal, and just teach people the human consequences of doing something moronic like texting while driving.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>will-it-reduce-accidents?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120716/23515519720</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:30:38 PST</pubDate>
<title>Mobile Carriers Don't Want To Give Up SMS Without A Fight</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120302/10272517951/mobile-carriers-dont-want-to-give-up-sms-without-fight.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120302/10272517951/mobile-carriers-dont-want-to-give-up-sms-without-fight.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Apparently there was some tension at the Mobile World Congress&mdash;the world's largest mobile phone trade show&mdash;as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/01/sms-pinger-whatsapp-messaging-mwc" target="_blank">the growing battle over text messaging took center stage</a>. As you may know, SMS text-messaging is a rip-off, and a huge cash-cow for the mobile telecoms, who charge premium rates for a service that has an effective cost of zero (SMS messages are encoded into regular signals that cell towers have to send anyway). But they are losing a growing chunk of that income to data-based messaging services like BBM, iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and more. Naturally, they aren't happy, and they try to frame it as an unfair disruption of their business model:</p>
<blockquote><em>
Needless to say, mobile companies are not happy at the flood of free messaging services piggybacking on their networks. Telecom Italia chief executive Franco Bernabe told MWC that free messaging services are undercutting the ability of phone companies to invest in their networks. Paid texting, or SMS, has been a cash cow for phone companies which uses minimal network capacity.<br /><br />
The new players "have based their innovation in the mobile domain, without a deep understanding of the complex technical environment of our industry. This is increasingly creating significant problems to the overall service offered to the end user and driving additional investments for mobile operators," Bernabe said.</em></blockquote>
<p>None of that makes a lick of sense. Bernabe is basically saying that everyone else has a responsibility to not build data apps that compete with telecom services, but unfortunately for him that's not how free markets work. Rather than seeing the huge opportunity that is the growing demand for wireless data access, the telecoms have decided to focus on the one thing that has stopped SMS from being completely replaced already: the lack of a single standard alternative. GMSA, a mobile industry group, has built a new cross-platform messaging service that they hope to get pre-installed on all cellphones and have become the standard for all text, photo and video messaging&mdash;though they haven't announced how much they plan to charge for the service. They claim that nine out of ten major device makers have signed up, with all eyes falling on Apple as the probable holdout: Apple is on a crusade to kill SMS messaging, and they likely would have succeeded by now if they weren't committed to their own walled-garden approach that pushes everyone towards iOS.</p>
<p>Of course, the same conference was also attended by the companies that have the telecoms so frightened. Joe Stipher, co-founder of messaging service <a href="http://www.pinger.com/" target="_blank">Pinger</a>, had a wiser perspective on the direction things are headed:</p>
<blockquote><em>"Text messaging is free, and calling is going to be free," said Stipher, wearing jeans that contrasted with the dark suits favoured by thousands of mobile phone company executives attending the four-day 2012 Mobile World Congress that ended Thursday. "Data is going to be like electricity or water, not totally free, but do you worry about giving someone a glass of water at your home or letting them plug in? No."</em></blockquote>
<p>I actually think that could be slightly better worded: in the future, there will be no more distinctions like "text" and "voice". Everything is just data anyway. But Stipher is absolutely right that bandwidth is becoming a generic utility, and that's something the telecoms have to accept. For some reason, they are terrified of becoming "dumb pipes"&mdash;they want to be "smart pipes" that charge premiums for different "kinds" of data, even though that's basically an imaginary concept. It's an odd attitude, because being a dumb pipe for something that everybody wants is a pretty good position, and if you accept it then you stand to make <em>more</em> money by letting people build whatever they want on top of what you provide. Truly, this would be the <em>smart</em> thing for a pipe to do, and Stipher has some fun with this by co-opting the term for himself. The carriers play along, using their own definition, and what results is an amusing portrayal of the mental disconnect that exists:</p>
<blockquote><em>[Stipher] explained that "The carriers should be smart, reliable pipes" providing internet data access like utilities give reliable water and electricity, he said. "They need to focus on being good network operators."<br /><br />
[Rene] Obermann [chief executive of Germany's Deutsche Telekom] said carriers are at a crucial point at which they must "develop our own, innovative product suites" through cooperation with the smaller messaging companies. "The smart pipe will be one of the areas where (telecommunications companies) will show their innovation," he said.</em></blockquote>
<p>Of course, Obermann's own company has a venture capital division that invested $7.5-million in Pinger, so maybe on some level he knows which way the winds are turning.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120302/10272517951/mobile-carriers-dont-want-to-give-up-sms-without-fight.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120302/10272517951/mobile-carriers-dont-want-to-give-up-sms-without-fight.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120302/10272517951/mobile-carriers-dont-want-to-give-up-sms-without-fight.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-a-racket</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120302/10272517951</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:48:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Unexpected New Years SMS From Mobile Operator May Have Killed Would Be Suicide Bomber</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110127/16590212862/unexpected-new-years-sms-mobile-operator-may-have-killed-would-be-suicide-bomber.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110127/16590212862/unexpected-new-years-sms-mobile-operator-may-have-killed-would-be-suicide-bomber.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This is just classic.  We've heard plenty of stories about bombs that are designed to go off when an SMS text message is received... and we know all too well about annoying and unwanted text messages from your mobile operator.  But how about combining the two.  Apparently, a planned suicide bombing in Russia was "averted" when the bomb <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/sms-suicide-bomber/" target="_blank">went off early due to an unexpected "happy new years" SMS from the carrier</a>, blowing up the bomb and the would-be suicide bomber at a safe house, far away from Red Square (or anything else) that was the intended target.  As Wired notes:
<blockquote><i>
If true, the SMS might be the only time that a wireless carrier&rsquo;s SMS message has ever been useful.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110127/16590212862/unexpected-new-years-sms-mobile-operator-may-have-killed-would-be-suicide-bomber.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110127/16590212862/unexpected-new-years-sms-mobile-operator-may-have-killed-would-be-suicide-bomber.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110127/16590212862/unexpected-new-years-sms-mobile-operator-may-have-killed-would-be-suicide-bomber.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>happy-new-year!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110127/16590212862</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:37:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Egypt Trying To Shut Off All Internet Access, SMS</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's been this ongoing back and forth between people like Evgeny Morozov and Clay Shirky over the impact of the internet on political activism.  And while I think it's silly and misleading to suggest that these tools are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110115/21524712692/pointless-question-week-was-tunisia-twitter-wikileaks-revolution.shtml"><i>the</i> driving force</a> behind some of the political upheavals we've seen, I find it difficult to believe that they're not a useful tool as a part of the process.  And it appears that Egyptian officials agree.  Over the past few days, as protests have raged in Egypt, there have been various reports about Twitter and Facebook being blocked, with a new report saying that <a href="http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/1/28/urgent-egypt-has-shut-off-the-internet.html" target="_blank">internet access is being cut off entirely for many</a> and with additional reports suggesting that mobile operators have been <a href="http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/1/28/phones-disrupted-sms-and-blackberry.html" target="_blank">ordered to shut off SMS text messaging services</a>.  Who knows how effective this is, but it does certainly suggest that the Egyptian government is certainly afraid of how these communication tools are being used.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-the-internet-has-no-impact</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110127/16452112861</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:02:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Mobile phone service and things like texting are pretty popular in Iran, and we've seen how Iranian officials have struggled to deal with that in the past.  For example, one politician <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050621/1733238.shtml">threatened revenge</a> against anyone who sent negative text messages about him, and the government has also announced that it will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070430/022604.shtml">filter out</a> text messages it deems inappropriate or immoral.  But rather than just trying to block or condemn the technology, it looks like officials are now looking to use it to warn against dissent as well.  <a href="http://twitter.com/on_the_media/statuses/16163943892" target="_blank">On The Media</a> points us to the news that the government has been sending text messages to mobile phone subscribers it believes are planning to take part in protests, marking the one year anniversary of last June's election protests, <a href="http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&#038;view=article&#038;id=20714:iran-sends-sms-warning-to-protestors&#038;catid=4:iran-general&#038;Itemid=26" target="_blank">warning them not to take part</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The message, which has the Ministry's emergency phone number, 113, reads, "Dear citizen, according to received information, you have been influenced by the destabilising propaganda which the media affiliated with foreign countries have been disseminating. In case of any illegal action and contact with the foreign media, you will be charged as a criminal consistent with the Islamic Punishment Act and dealt with by the Judiciary".
</i></blockquote>
You may remember, last year, many people credited text messaging and services like Twitter for helping to get the news out about what was actually happening during the protests.  This bit of news is a reminder that two can play at that game, and governments can often use the same technology to try to stifle dissent.  This isn't a condemnation of the technology, of course, but just a reminder that the technology can be used for a variety of different purposes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>big-brother-is-txting-you</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100614/1905389816</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A bunch of folks have been submitting this story of a New Jersey middle school principal sending an email to all parents telling them to <a href="http://wcbstv.com/technology/facebook.social.networking.2.1662565.html" target="_blank">ban Facebook for their kids</a> and to spy on all of their text messaging habits.  Because, apparently, at Benjamin Franklin Middle School, "trust" is not something they want to teach.  We see this sort of overreaction to new things all of the time.  In the past, school administrators have needlessly freaked out about such things as comic books, dungeons and dragons, walkmen and mp3 players.  If the principal, Anthony Orsini, had just sent out a note saying "talk to your kids and pay attention to what they're doing online," it would have been fine.  But, instead, he went all out:
<blockquote><i>
It is time for every single member of the BF Community to take a stand! There is absolutely no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site!
<br><br>
Let me repeat that - there is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle school student to be a part of a social networking site! None....
</i></blockquote>
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why a middle school kid might be a part of a social networking site: it's called communicating with their peers.  That doesn't mean parents should let their kids use them entirely freely, but a blanket ban is clear overkill by someone who apparently doesn't understand how these things work.
<blockquote><i>
Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still) and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social networking site. Today! 
<br><br>
Let them know that you will at some point every week be checking their text messages online! You have the ability to do this through your cell phone provider. 
<br><br>
Let them know that you will be installing Parental Control Software so you can tell every place they have visited online, and everything they have instant messaged or written to a friend. Don't install it behind their back, but install it!
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to then urge parents to contact the police any time their child gets a message they don't like:
<blockquote><i>
If your son or daughter is attacked through one of these sites or through texting - immediately go to the police! Insist that they investigate every situation. Also, contact the site and report the attack to the site - they have an obligation to suspend accounts or they are liable for what is written. 
</i></blockquote>
That last line, saying that the sites are liable is simply not correct, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
<br><br>
Orsini then goes on to explain that he's absolutely positive that social networks will be found in studies to be damaging to kids:
<blockquote><i>
It is not hyperbole for me to write that the pain caused by social networking sites is beyond significant - it is psychologically detrimental and we will find out it will have significant long term effects, as well as all the horrible social effects it already creates. 
</i></blockquote>
Of course, similar things have been written about every "new" thing that the older generation in society doesn't get -- including <A href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1530595217.shtml">the waltz</a> ("we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion"), movies, videos games... and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1613445386.shtml">chess</a> ("chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body").  I assume, we can add Orsini's quote to the other quotes about those other things soon.
<br><br>
Basically, it looks like Orsini has fallen prey to yet another moral panic.  He claims that it doesn't make sense to teach "responsible" computing, because middle school kids can't handle it.  It appears that many kids in his school disagree, and are quoted in the article saying so.  Clearly, many kids will abuse social networks and the will bully others.  But doing a blanket ban certainly won't work, and is just someone overreacting because he was unable to handle some kids acting poorly.  It's an attempt to prevent kids from doing stuff, just so that the administrators might get a little "security" from kids being kids.
<br><br>
Perhaps the principal of the Benjamin Franklin Middle School, should pay attention to Ben Franklin's words:
<blockquote><i>
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1100509240.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nanny-state</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100429/1100509240</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Thin Skin: SMS Political Jokes In Pakistan Can Get You 14 Years In Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It would appear that the typical late-night TV comedian in the US would face serious jailtime in Pakistan, were he based there.  MK alerts us that President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan is so annoyed by people passing around jokes about him via SMS that the gov't has started <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/sms_joke_on_zardari_may_land_you_in_pak_jail.php" target="_new">threatening to charge people for passing around such jokes</a>, as "slandering the political leadership of the country" under a vaguely worded Cyber Crimes law, that could lead to 14 years in jail.  It seems that should only lead to <i>more</i> jokes.  How does one get to be a political leader with such a thin skin?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090721/1115195611.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-take-a-joke?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090721/1115195611</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 May 2009 16:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Random Facts: Why SMS Is Only 160 Characters</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0109194728.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0109194728.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The LA Times has tracked down the reasoning for <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-text-messaging.html" target="_new">why SMS text messaging is limited to 160 characters</a>.  Basically, one guy working on the project figured that was plenty after typing a bunch of sentences out and noticing that most were less than 160 characters.  There was no serious additional research done on it.  It just sorta stuck once implemented.  In an age where so many things are user-tested to death, it's kind of nice to know this was almost an accident of history, based on the reasoning of one guy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0109194728.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0109194728.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090504/0109194728.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-a-bit-refreshing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090504/0109194728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Customer Discovers T-Mobile's 'Unlimited' SMS Plan Not So Unlimited Thanks To $26,000 Bill</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0239194664.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0239194664.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's getting rather ridiculous to keep seeing companies offer "unlimited" services, only to later find out that they're not unlimited at all.  Yakko Warner points out that this just happened to one guy in Pennsylvania, who along with a friend, tried to beat the world record for most text messages in a month (182,000) by messaging each other back and forth.  They figured they were fine, because they each had unlimited text messaging plans, but after one of them sent 140,000 messages, he <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91179-Men-Chase-Texting-Record-Get-Record-Bill" target="_new">received a bill for $26,000</a> and learned that, for T-Mobile, "unlimited" actually means 100,000, and those additional 40,000 messages cost quite a pretty penny.  To T-Mobile's credit, the company has agreed to let the charge slide, but it makes you wonder why it has that cap in the first place if it's advertising the service as unlimited (and then ignoring the cap when people pass it).  Why not actually remove the limit?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0239194664.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0239194664.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090427/0239194664.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that-clears-that-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090427/0239194664</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:59:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Senators Want To Ban SMS Spam</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1106454418.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1106454418.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While there have been lots of attempts to ban spam email (some <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090330/1309174310.shtml">less effective</a> than others), text-message spam sent to mobile phones has largely escaped legislative scrutiny. The CAN SPAM Act bans sending spam emails to phones, but it doesn't specifically address SMS. An Arizona court ruled earlier legislation covering autodialed telemarking calls also <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20051019/1139235.shtml">banned</a> SMS spam, but that decision didn't seem particularly solid. Other countries, like India, have <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml">extended</a> their Do Not Call lists to cover SMS spam, and now a couple of US senators have introduced legislation <a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Seek-DoNotText-List-to-Curb-SMS-Spam-584282/?kc=rss">that would do the same here</a>. SMS spam hasn't become a huge problem in the US for a number of reasons, mainly because it costs spammers more than email spam, while it's also generally easier to track down those who sent it than with email. Still, it's nice to see a law seeking to get out ahead of something so annoying, rather than waiting until the cat's out of the bag and it's an uncontrollable situation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1106454418.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1106454418.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1106454418.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thx-4-the-gd-idea</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090407/1106454418</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Twitter Finds Now It Has The Leverage On Mobile Operators</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/0956214275.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/0956214275.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One issue that's constantly popping up these days is friction between distributors and content or service providers. Companies on either side of the equation often overvalue their contribution, whether it's movie studios thinking they have the <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090324/0015484222.shtml">leverage</a> over Netflix, or ISPs thinking they've got the upper hand over the likes of Google when it comes to net neutrality because they "control" the pipe. The content or services are worthless without the distribution; without the content, the distribution is worthless. It's not the case where one side always has the power, and often over time, the balance of power shifts. Such is the case with the news that Vodafone UK has <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/03/full-sms-service-for-vodafone-uk.html">enabled Twitter SMS services for its customers</a>. Twitter irritated some of its international users last year when it <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2008/08/changes-for-some-sms-usersgood-and-bad.html">stopped</a> sending them SMS updates because of the costs. It's a pretty typical story in mobile: if you have a service you want to offer to users via SMS, you've got to be prepared to pony up the cash to mobile operators to reach "their" customers. When Twitter was a nascent service used by web dorks and media types, somebody like Vodafone wouldn't care about it. But as the service has gone mainstream, suddenly it behooves Vodafone to strike a deal with Twitter, make the costs workable, and be able to offer the service to its customers. The mobile industry has long engaged in these stupid battles over who "owns" the customer. Typically, the operator's take has been that they own the pipe, so they own the customer. But maybe they're finally figuring out that without any compelling services to travel through it, the pipe's not such a big deal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/0956214275.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/0956214275.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/0956214275.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-so-now-you-want-to-be-my-friend</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090327/0956214275</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:10:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>India's Do Not Call List Now Covers SMS Spam, Too</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The problem of spam text messages sent to mobile phones has been a significant one in many countries, though it hasn't reached epidemic proportions (yet) in the US. Operators have done a pretty good job of stopping the messages from getting delivered, while the cost and difficulty of sending them has also been a useful obstacle. Some, however, still manage to get through. Over in India, the government has extended its do not call list <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/35791.php?source=rss">to cover commercial text messages as well</a>, and has mandated that operators must add some tracking information to the messages so regulators can track down their senders. In the US, it's illegal for telemarketers to call cell phones, while the not-particularly-effective CAN-SPAM act makes it illegal to send spam email <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20050207/208207.shtml">to phones</a>. At least one court has ruled that SMS spam <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20051019/1139235.shtml">is covered</a> by the law banning telemarketing calls to mobiles, but it would be nice to see cell phones get some extra protection from spam -- especially since it often brings some <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080131/172655145.shtml">financial pain</a> as well as annoyance.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090203/1731173635.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>would-you-like-to-extend-your-size-to-160-characters?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090203/1731173635</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:15:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>AT&#038;T Text Spams Customers Promoting American Idol; Insists It's Not Spam</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0723413404.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0723413404.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For the most part, mobile operators have been good about trying to prevent SMS text spam, but it appears that AT&#038;T has gone in the other direction.  It's actually spamming people.  Apparently it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/technology/14idol.html?_r=1&#038;partner=rss&#038;emc=rss" target="_new">sent a text message promoting the TV show American Idol</a> to anyone who had voted in past American Idol contests <i>or</i> anyone that AT&#038;T considered to be a "heavy texter."  I can <i>almost</i> (but not quite) understand contacting former voters.  But randomly targeting other "heavy texters" is simply pure spam.
<br /><br />
But that's not the way AT&#038;T sees it.  In a statement that entirely redefines spam, a spokesperson said that it wasn't spam because they didn't charge people to receive the message.  He also claimed it was no problem because people could opt-out of future messages.  This shows an incredible (but all too typical for AT&#038;T) tone deafness to the issue.  Email spam is already quite annoying.  But text messaging spam takes it to an entirely more ridiculous level by proactively interrupting what a person is doing, no matter where they are.  At least email spam can be compartmentalized to when you're actually checking your email (and, these days, can be pretty effectively filtered).  Text messaging is a lot more intrusive, and for AT&#038;T to claim that this is somehow "okay" because the TV show is "built on texting," is simply ridiculous.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0723413404.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0723413404.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0723413404.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>redefining-spam</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090114/0723413404</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:19:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>People Finally Realizing That SMS Isn't Good For Emergency Alerts</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0218462303.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0218462303.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Only two years or so after we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061204/013017.shtml">questioned</a> why anyone would seriously consider the notoriously unreliable SMS text messaging system for <i>emergency</i> alerts, the mobile trade group 3G Americas <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/33684.php?source=rss" target="_new">has released a research report stating the same thing</a>.  Basically, the system isn't reliable or efficient, and in an emergency is likely to get overloaded quickly.  It's not clear why it took anyone until now to notice this, but hopefully no one was seriously considering using SMS for emergency alerts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0218462303.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0218462303.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080918/0218462303.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080918/0218462303</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Doctor Claims That Sending Too Many Text Messages Is A Sign Of Mental Problems</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/013423682.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/013423682.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember the doctor pushing to add <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/002547566.shtml">internet addiction</a> as an official mental disorder?  In a recent journal article, he's now saying that one sign of such a disorder would be <a href="http://www.cellular-news.com/story/30137.php?source=rss" target="_new">people who send lots of text messages</a>.  Of course, as <a href="http://mobhappy.com/blog1/2008/03/27/if-you-send-lots-of-sms-you-might-be-a-nutjob/">MobHappy</a> puts it: "maybe they just like to chat to their friends?"  Remember kids, too much communication = mental illness.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/013423682.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/013423682.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080328/013423682.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080328/013423682</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:20:47 PST</pubDate>
<title>The True Cost Of SMS Won't Matter Much As Mobile Devices Advance</title>
<dc:creator>Tom Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/102107109.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/102107109.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, <a href="http://slashdot.org">Slashdot</a> linked to an <a href="http://gthing.net/the-true-cost-of-sms-messages/">entertaining analysis</a> of the cost of SMS messages.  Noting that many carriers are raising their SMS prices despite increasing demand for the service â€&rdquo; demand which should be spurring competition â€&rdquo; the author of the post figures out the number of bits in a text message and concludes that transmitting data by SMS is about 15 million times more expensive than doing so over a commodity internet connection.

<p>
But of course this isn't really a fair comparison.  A commodity internet connection doesn't afford the ubiquity that a cellular network does.  Comparing the data rate and price of voice traffic is probably more instructive (although the two types of messages are admittedly not transmitted in the same manner across the network).  Taking AT&#038;T's overage charge of $0.45 cents/minute and 13kbps as a plausible bitrate for a GSM call, my calculator says that SMS data is a mere 316% more expensive than voice traffic.
</p>
<p>
That's still not great, though.  And there's no question that SMS prices are going up even farther â€&rdquo; in the past year or so the Consumerist blog has been <a href="http://consumerist.com/consumer/cingular/break-your-cingular-contract-without-fee-thanks-2-txt-msg--raise-222993.php">full</a> of <a href="http://consumerist.com/consumer/readers/script-for-escaping-verizon-contracts-without-fee-based-on-text-message-rate-raises-234164.php">posts</a> encouraging various carriers' users to escape their contracts thanks to those contracts' newly-increased SMS fees.  It's an unfortunate situation: very few consumers select a carrier on the basis of its SMS offerings, and few will leave their carrier over them, either, blunting the consumer response to price increases.  Plus, as the technology has gained popularity the mobile operators have lost the need to encourage its adoption through cheap rates.  It's not very surprising to see them conclude that the most profitable price point for SMS is higher than the one they had been offering.
</p>
<p>
Fortunately for the rest of us, this state of affairs doesn't seem likely to last much longer.  Although there's little reason to have faith in the mobile market's ability to bend the carriers to consumers' will, new technologies are going to inevitably dry up the SMS bonanza.  We're on the verge of the iPhone SDK's release, and Google's Android seems likely to find its way into many cheaper handsets.  These and other technologies mean that the average customer will have access to bulk data services on their handset soon if they don't already.  And once bulk data can be consumed, so many options for short message communication become available that SMS's specialized role will disappear almost immediately.  Between web interfaces, widgets, IM clients and email apps, there are a vast number of ways to send short strings of text. Services like Twitter that offer a variety of input modalities will no doubt help to stitch together this looming surplus of communication options.
</p>
<p>
Given how few bits are required to transmit those messages (and the generic nature of those bits), there'll be no way for the carriers to keep short message transmission as expensive as it currently is â€&rdquo; not without without pricing web browsing, email and other mobile data services into oblivion. I wouldn't expect SMS to disappear, but it seems safe to assume it'll start getting cheaper soon.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/102107109.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/102107109.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080129/102107109.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-will-work-itself-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080129/102107109</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:09:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>131 Companies Sued Over Global Text Messaging Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The anonymous Patent Troll Tracker <a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-do-white-case-lawyer-gift-card.html">points</a> us to a new patent case that appears to involve <a href="http://www.marylandiplaw.com/2007/11/articles/ip-news-and-trends/maryland-ip-litigation-cases-for-the-week-of-nov-5-2007/">an astounding 131 defendants</a>, including T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&#038;T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, all concerning patents related to sending <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PALL&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=RE39,870.PN.&#038;OS=PN/RE39,870&#038;RS=PN/RE39,870">text messages</a> internationally, using the internet for part of the trip.  Not surprisingly, the patent in question is a continuation patent, which even the USPTO is trying to <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071031/192815.shtml">cut back</a> on, after seeing them abused too often.  The patent was just granted last month.  Shouldn't it make someone scratch their head to wonder how 131 different companies could all be infringing on a patent just issued?  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the idea is fairly obvious and never should have received a patent.  Now, obviously, you can go back to 1996, when the original patent was filed, but again, the concept seems like the natural progression of the space, which is perhaps why so many companies use it in some way or another.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>couldn't-find-anyone-else?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071112/024207</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Aug 2007 23:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Suddenly, Mobile Phone Operators Are Big Supporters Of Smoking Bans...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/020844.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/020844.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you suddenly start hearing stories about mobile phone operators being big supporters of bans on smoking, perhaps a new report is the reason why.  Apparently, telcos in the UK are noticing a recent surge in text messaging, which they attribute to <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=473740&#038;in_page_id=1770&#038;ito=1490">a new ban on smoking in confined spaces</a>.  The working theory is that smokers need something to do with their hands to keep them busy, and that texting is taking up that free time, now that they can't smoke.  It's as good a theory as any, but it seems unlikely to have a very longterm impact.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/020844.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/020844.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070808/020844.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>smexting?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070808/020844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>