AT&T Verizon to block text messaging
Hello, Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic. Thanks, Oren
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian. On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's?move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something? On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Probably came from the Flat Earth Society newsletter. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:03 AM Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I am pretty sure the reference is to the new message surcharges which vary based on the type of traffic by default, but you can also submit for approval of your traffic by DID to get even more "favorable" rates. These surcharges are being imposed by AT&T and Verizon at present, but I expect T-mobile to follow. They appear to be in response to an FCC decision about how messaging is regulated which allows the wireless carriers to impose some sort of cost recovery scheme for "protecting" their customers from unwanted messages. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
Probably came from the Flat Earth Society newsletter.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:03 AM Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Kent Adams Vice President of NextGen Network Operations and Development BCM One NextGen Communications Group
It's too serious to be reported by the failing lamestream media. It's what the Soros mind control Illuminati don't want you to know. On 3/4/21 12:02 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com <mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com>> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
> Hello, > > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's?move to > create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number > (and you obviously pay for that approval)? > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP > traffic. > > Thanks, > Oren > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops> >
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ <http://www.evaristesys.com/>, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ <http://www.csrpswitch.com/> _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops>
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
You forgot to include something about 5G causing COVID. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
It's too serious to be reported by the failing lamestream media. It's what the Soros mind control Illuminati don't want you to know.
On 3/4/21 12:02 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com <mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com>> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
> Hello, > > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to > create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number > (and you obviously pay for that approval)? > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP > traffic. > > Thanks, > Oren > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops> >
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ <http://www.evaristesys.com/>, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ <http://www.csrpswitch.com/> _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops>
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Carlos, I am not sure what your issue is. If this does not interest you you can move on. Did I do anything to offend you? On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:25 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
You forgot to include something about 5G causing COVID.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:05 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
It's too serious to be reported by the failing lamestream media. It's what the Soros mind control Illuminati don't want you to know.
On 3/4/21 12:02 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Is ther a reference on this? Or a news article or something?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 11:42 AM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com <mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com>> wrote:
Sounds pretty dark and dystopian.
On 3/4/21 11:29 AM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
> Hello, > > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to > create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number > (and you obviously pay for that approval)? > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP > traffic. > > Thanks, > Oren > > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops> >
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ <http://www.evaristesys.com/>, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ <http://www.csrpswitch.com/> _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops>
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I think the issue is that you opened your post with an overly broad and exaggerated claim, formulated -- wittingly or unwittingly -- to sound borderline conspiratorial, and did not point to the regulatory or policy change to which you were specifically referring. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
You may be right that my writing skills are not as good. But I am looking for people with more in-depth knowledge from the industry. The fact remains that AT&T will block messages from your customers if you do not register with them. This is not an exaggerated claim. Also, not everything alarming is a conspiracy theory. Thanks On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:33 PM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
I think the issue is that you opened your post with an overly broad and exaggerated claim, formulated -- wittingly or unwittingly -- to sound borderline conspiratorial, and did not point to the regulatory or policy change to which you were specifically referring.
-- Alex
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 3/4/21 12:37 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Also, not everything alarming is a conspiracy?theory.
That's true. I think this trailing thought lent it that air, from a rhetorical perspective: "Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic." -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC? <http://www.startelecom.ca> *Ivan Kovacevic* *www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>* On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details. https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find. Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden. If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it. Oren On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you). On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that. The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening? Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS). On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Yes. All 10DLC (a DID) will become a campaign. You would need to ask for an exemption and to prove that your users (consumers, person to person) do not need to e registered as a campaign. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:38 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that.
The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening?
Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
This Twilio link actually has a lot of details including fees and what they know and don't know at this time. https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC... They make pretty clear this will not impact small businesses, but is intended to recover costs of preventing spam by charging high volume business senders and ISV's *Brandon * On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:41 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. All 10DLC (a DID) will become a campaign. You would need to ask for an exemption and to prove that your users (consumers, person to person) do not need to e registered as a campaign.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:38 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that.
The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening?
Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move > to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and > you obviously pay for that approval)? > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all > IP traffic. > > Thanks, > Oren > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Yes as Kent said "protecting" their customers or "preventing spam" as you put it. You can also say "filter out" as Twilio says it, or Block, which pertains to the same thing. Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality and raising their cost of doing business. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:45 PM Brandon Svec <bsvec at teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
This Twilio link actually has a lot of details including fees and what they know and don't know at this time.
https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC...
They make pretty clear this will not impact small businesses, but is intended to recover costs of preventing spam by charging high volume business senders and ISV's *Brandon *
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:41 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. All 10DLC (a DID) will become a campaign. You would need to ask for an exemption and to prove that your users (consumers, person to person) do not need to e registered as a campaign.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:38 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that.
The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening?
Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
> Are you referring to A2P 10DLC? > > > <http://www.startelecom.ca> > > *Ivan Kovacevic* > > *www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>* > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move >> to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside >> world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and >> you obviously pay for that approval)? >> Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all >> IP traffic. >> >> Thanks, >> Oren >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> > > NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the > sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original > message. > _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On 3/4/21 12:52 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality?and raising their cost of doing business.
That's your take... Or it's like Carlos and others believe (and me as well) that the spam generated, perhaps from your customers, is making SMS simply as useless as email. If this makes it so we get fewer unsolicited sms messages, great. Nothing I see impacts sms for individiual <-> individual or SMB <-> individual at low volume. In fact, it's specifically stated those do not need to register. Your language here is very "sky is falling" and one of two things need to happen... Either (a), you're legitimately sending large volumes of sms and need to register... or (b) you're not sending legitimate sms and should stop. The registration seems like not a big deal to be honest; as well as decent time provided. I like this model a lot better than stir/shaken. --fred
Thanks Fred. Rally amazing. You know nothing about me but you want to kill the messenger. I do not spam, my traffic is so low you wouldn't believe it. But you already know everything about me and found me guilty in your court of law. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:01 PM Fred Posner <fred at palner.com> wrote:
On 3/4/21 12:52 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality and raising their cost of doing business.
That's your take...
Or it's like Carlos and others believe (and me as well) that the spam generated, perhaps from your customers, is making SMS simply as useless as email. If this makes it so we get fewer unsolicited sms messages, great.
Nothing I see impacts sms for individiual <-> individual or SMB <-> individual at low volume. In fact, it's specifically stated those do not need to register.
Your language here is very "sky is falling" and one of two things need to happen...
Either (a), you're legitimately sending large volumes of sms and need to register... or (b) you're not sending legitimate sms and should stop.
The registration seems like not a big deal to be honest; as well as decent time provided.
I like this model a lot better than stir/shaken.
--fred _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021, Fred Posner wrote:
On 3/4/21 12:52 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality?and raising their cost of doing business.
Nothing I see impacts sms for individiual <-> individual or SMB <-> individual at low volume. In fact, it's specifically stated those do not need to register.
A2P: Application-to-Person. Business to Individual. P2P: Person-to-Person. Conversational SMS between two Individuals. A2P: "50% Off at The Cloud Store This weekend" sent to 100,000 people P2P: "Nah, I'm gonna stay home and watch The Expanse tonight" sent from one person to one very special person If you have a good relationship with your vendor(s), and you follow and enforce CTIA Guidelines on acceptable volumes of P2P traffic, you can get your traffic treated as P2P and avoid A2P tarriffs. If you're sending business stuff, even 10-20 of the same or very similar message to multiple people, it's A2P, and you'll pay the fee or lose your P2P designation. P2P isn't going away, you just have to earn it by keeping watch over your SMS traffic. Is it a significant change from "send anything you want to anyone without consequence or cost?" Sure... though Verizon did this LAST YEAR, so I'm not sure why AT&T doing it now is a sky-is-falling event. T-Mobile WILL do it too, so plan now. If your business model breaks because of the tarriffs for A2P SMS traffic, bummer for you. Time to "pivot" or go bankrupt. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The views being espoused by many here seem to be myopic and rely on the assumed existence some sort of corporate conscience which will be regulated by free market principles. My position on these surcharges is that the intentions behind them are good, and their current advertised use comes from a place of positive motivation to serve the customers of AT&T and Verizon. However, the implementation leads us to a place we have seen many times, a place where free market principles are stifled and a corporate oligarchy chooses winners and losers in moral or ethical arguments rather than being impartial arbiters seeking to eliminate some common enemy of the people. Allow me to posit some hypotheticals which are possible under the current implementation before you pass judgement against naysayers of the aims of this surcharge scheme. Imagine a service such as Spotify where a subscriber base pays a monthly fee for access to media content which is varied. The producers of this content come straight to Spotify and in-turn their content is made available to the Spotify base. Spotify's subscribers, in this scenario, get some content they desire, but some content they don't. So they complain about the content they don't want forced into their ears, and Spotify decides rather than blocking this content completely, they shall force providers of that content to pay a surcharge to continue forced delivery of their content to it's subscriber base. The customers are initially pleased with the drop in unwanted content, but some providers choose to pay up and continue to deliver the content. Over time, Spotify, in analyzing the content that is paying the surcharge realizes there is a genuine business opportunity. They acquire one of the providers of this content category, exempt that provider's content from the surcharge, and thus make the playing field unlevel in a way that benefits themselves. Alongside this, they also find content which supports ideals important to it's corporate aims and exempt that content from surcharges, but increase the surcharge on content which is contrary to their corporate ideals, and no consideration is provided in this matter concerning the ideals of their subscriber base. Are you still in support of Spotify's surcharge scheme? Under my hypothetical what starts out as a win for the business and a win for the subscribers becomes something that would strike many as unethical and counter to free market principles and principles of free speech. For an example of how a telecom company can utilize its influence and internal data over it's base and become at odds with free market principles I assert that we need look no further than the events leading to CPNI. For an example of how a company can move its content management in a way that is at odds with the principles of free speech I assert that we need look no further than the current polarization of social media platforms. The lack of transparency around these surcharges, particularly who is subject to them and why, and the lack of an appeal process which is open, makes attempts at being impartial, and has a specific set of guidelines for the types of content that are being targeted, and the assurance that subsidiaries and strategic partners will not be given favorable status gives me great pause over whether the actions under discussion in this thread are a net positive or are the start of something that will be a net negative. For these reasons, I support the skepticism and would encourage this group not to wound our own at the expense of defending a self-serving action of large cellular network providers. Thanks, Kent On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:40 PM Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021, Fred Posner wrote:
On 3/4/21 12:52 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality and raising their cost of doing business.
Nothing I see impacts sms for individiual <-> individual or SMB <-> individual at low volume. In fact, it's specifically stated those do not need to register.
A2P: Application-to-Person. Business to Individual.
P2P: Person-to-Person. Conversational SMS between two Individuals.
A2P: "50% Off at The Cloud Store This weekend" sent to 100,000 people
P2P: "Nah, I'm gonna stay home and watch The Expanse tonight" sent from one person to one very special person
If you have a good relationship with your vendor(s), and you follow and enforce CTIA Guidelines on acceptable volumes of P2P traffic, you can get your traffic treated as P2P and avoid A2P tarriffs.
If you're sending business stuff, even 10-20 of the same or very similar message to multiple people, it's A2P, and you'll pay the fee or lose your P2P designation.
P2P isn't going away, you just have to earn it by keeping watch over your SMS traffic.
Is it a significant change from "send anything you want to anyone without consequence or cost?" Sure... though Verizon did this LAST YEAR, so I'm not sure why AT&T doing it now is a sky-is-falling event. T-Mobile WILL do it too, so plan now.
If your business model breaks because of the tarriffs for A2P SMS traffic, bummer for you. Time to "pivot" or go bankrupt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Kent Adams Vice President of NextGen Network Operations and Development BCM One NextGen Communications Group
Spotify is a terrible example. People listen to one song at a time, and choose the songs they listen to. Unwanted A2P SMS is more akin to unwanted commercial mail. The receiver is required to put in effort and a few brain cycles to handle the unwanted material, making a decision to dispose of it and placing the mail in the trash/recycling. The trash company has to pay to dispose of it, and the receiver has to pay the trash company. The cost of the commercial mail is borne by the receiver. The A2P fees are a tax as a dis-incentive to the behavior, as well as the increased costs by carriers of enforcing acceptable behavior and stopping it outside of the rules. I can see the argument that there is now an additional fee for businesses to reach their customers. Yep. Mostly because enough bad actors took advantage of the lack of regulation. The market will find new and different ways that are less expensive to reach their customers as a result. Beckman On Fri, 5 Mar 2021, Kent Adams wrote:
The views being espoused by many here seem to be myopic and rely on the assumed existence some sort of corporate conscience which will be regulated by free market principles. My position on these surcharges is that the intentions behind them are good, and their current advertised use comes from a place of positive motivation to serve the customers of AT&T and Verizon. However, the implementation leads us to a place we have seen many times, a place where free market principles are stifled and a corporate oligarchy chooses winners and losers in moral or ethical arguments rather than being impartial arbiters seeking to eliminate some common enemy of the people. Allow me to posit some hypotheticals which are possible under the current implementation before you pass judgement against naysayers of the aims of this surcharge scheme.
Imagine a service such as Spotify where a subscriber base pays a monthly fee for access to media content which is varied. The producers of this content come straight to Spotify and in-turn their content is made available to the Spotify base. Spotify's subscribers, in this scenario, get some content they desire, but some content they don't. So they complain about the content they don't want forced into their ears, and Spotify decides rather than blocking this content completely, they shall force providers of that content to pay a surcharge to continue forced delivery of their content to it's subscriber base. The customers are initially pleased with the drop in unwanted content, but some providers choose to pay up and continue to deliver the content. Over time, Spotify, in analyzing the content that is paying the surcharge realizes there is a genuine business opportunity. They acquire one of the providers of this content category, exempt that provider's content from the surcharge, and thus make the playing field unlevel in a way that benefits themselves. Alongside this, they also find content which supports ideals important to it's corporate aims and exempt that content from surcharges, but increase the surcharge on content which is contrary to their corporate ideals, and no consideration is provided in this matter concerning the ideals of their subscriber base. Are you still in support of Spotify's surcharge scheme?
Under my hypothetical what starts out as a win for the business and a win for the subscribers becomes something that would strike many as unethical and counter to free market principles and principles of free speech. For an example of how a telecom company can utilize its influence and internal data over it's base and become at odds with free market principles I assert that we need look no further than the events leading to CPNI. For an example of how a company can move its content management in a way that is at odds with the principles of free speech I assert that we need look no further than the current polarization of social media platforms. The lack of transparency around these surcharges, particularly who is subject to them and why, and the lack of an appeal process which is open, makes attempts at being impartial, and has a specific set of guidelines for the types of content that are being targeted, and the assurance that subsidiaries and strategic partners will not be given favorable status gives me great pause over whether the actions under discussion in this thread are a net positive or are the start of something that will be a net negative. For these reasons, I support the skepticism and would encourage this group not to wound our own at the expense of defending a self-serving action of large cellular network providers.
Thanks,
Kent
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:40 PM Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021, Fred Posner wrote:
On 3/4/21 12:52 PM, Oren Yehezkely wrote:
Overall it is a move by a giant to hurt small carriers and customers of other companies by reducing functionality and raising their cost of doing business.
Nothing I see impacts sms for individiual <-> individual or SMB <-> individual at low volume. In fact, it's specifically stated those do not need to register.
A2P: Application-to-Person. Business to Individual.
P2P: Person-to-Person. Conversational SMS between two Individuals.
A2P: "50% Off at The Cloud Store This weekend" sent to 100,000 people
P2P: "Nah, I'm gonna stay home and watch The Expanse tonight" sent from one person to one very special person
If you have a good relationship with your vendor(s), and you follow and enforce CTIA Guidelines on acceptable volumes of P2P traffic, you can get your traffic treated as P2P and avoid A2P tarriffs.
If you're sending business stuff, even 10-20 of the same or very similar message to multiple people, it's A2P, and you'll pay the fee or lose your P2P designation.
P2P isn't going away, you just have to earn it by keeping watch over your SMS traffic.
Is it a significant change from "send anything you want to anyone without consequence or cost?" Sure... though Verizon did this LAST YEAR, so I'm not sure why AT&T doing it now is a sky-is-falling event. T-Mobile WILL do it too, so plan now.
If your business model breaks because of the tarriffs for A2P SMS traffic, bummer for you. Time to "pivot" or go bankrupt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Kent Adams Vice President of NextGen Network Operations and Development BCM One NextGen Communications Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <alpine.BSF.2.20.2103051141560.46257 at nog2.angryox.com> you write:
Spotify is a terrible example. People listen to one song at a time, and choose the songs they listen to.
Unwanted A2P SMS is more akin to unwanted commercial mail.
It is also, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, completely illegal. I expect my opinion is not unusual that if the only way to get rid of illegal unwanted A2P is to get rid of A2P altogether, that would be fine with me. R's, John
There are lots of extremely legitimate applications for A2P, such as appointment reminders, notifications that laundry is done, our network outage monitoring system. If that went away, it would just move to some other table over the top platform. ? Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors.
On Mar 6, 2021, at 11:26 AM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
?In article <alpine.BSF.2.20.2103051141560.46257 at nog2.angryox.com> you write:
Spotify is a terrible example. People listen to one song at a time, and choose the songs they listen to.
Unwanted A2P SMS is more akin to unwanted commercial mail.
It is also, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, completely illegal.
I expect my opinion is not unusual that if the only way to get rid of illegal unwanted A2P is to get rid of A2P altogether, that would be fine with me.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
In article <A7C07E01-9DDE-4C09-95E0-DD97EB9A7149 at evaristesys.com> you write:
There are lots of extremely legitimate applications for A2P, such as appointment reminders, notifications that laundry is done, our network outage monitoring system. If that went away, it would just move to some other table over the top platform.
Yes, I know. If they move to something else, that is swell since I probably won't have it installed on my phone. R's, John
Probably splitting hairs here but how is a2p and p2p differentiated? Some of our small businesses clients use a text 2 email gateway so they can communicate with customers? Its not an automated system that is responding but a person. Can we assume that any text enabled TN that does not terminate on a cell carrier will be considered a2p? -------- Original message -------- From: John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> Date: 3/6/21 11:26 AM (GMT-05:00) To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] AT&T Verizon to block text messaging EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email originated from outside of the organization. In article <alpine.BSF.2.20.2103051141560.46257 at nog2.angryox.com> you write:
Spotify is a terrible example. People listen to one song at a time, and choose the songs they listen to.
Unwanted A2P SMS is more akin to unwanted commercial mail.
It is also, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, completely illegal. I expect my opinion is not unusual that if the only way to get rid of illegal unwanted A2P is to get rid of A2P altogether, that would be fine with me. R's, John _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Alexander Lopez wrote:
Probably splitting hairs here but how is a2p and p2p differentiated?
Consumer (Person-to-Person (P2P)) Non-Consumer (Application-to-Person (A2P)) If you are a business sending SMS messages to people who pay you or might someday pay you, the traffic is A2P. Even "your package has arrived" is A2P. Even if you're typing each one, if it is business related and not conversational, it's A2P. If you are chatting with a friend or even work colleague about things, then it is P2P. Conversational Traffic is generally P2P.
Some of our small businesses clients use a text 2 email gateway so they can communicate with customers?
At low volume they can likely do so as long as their provider doesn't mind and the traffic doesn't look "spammy."
Its not an automated system that is responding but a person.
If it is another person, it's probably fine. Until it isn't.
Can we assume that any text enabled TN that does not terminate on a cell carrier will be considered a2p?
By default, yes. We had to "certify" that our traffic was P2P, "demonstrate" that it was P2P, and "confirm" that we had implemented the CTIA Best Practices [1] in code to minimize the possibility of misuse of our platform for A2P purposes. Page 10: Typical Consumer Operation (P2P) - 15-60 messages per minute - 1,000 messages per day - 10-100 distinct recipients - Roughly 1:1 ratio incoming to outgoing SMS volume - fewer than 25 repeated messages If the traffic doesn't meet that criteria, it's likely A2P. Download and read the CTIA PDF if you want to know more. Beckman [1] https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/industry-commitments/messaging-in...
-------- Original message -------- From: John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> Date: 3/6/21 11:26 AM (GMT-05:00) To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] AT&T Verizon to block text messaging
EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email originated from outside of the organization.
In article <alpine.BSF.2.20.2103051141560.46257 at nog2.angryox.com> you write:
Spotify is a terrible example. People listen to one song at a time, and choose the songs they listen to.
Unwanted A2P SMS is more akin to unwanted commercial mail.
It is also, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, completely illegal.
I expect my opinion is not unusual that if the only way to get rid of illegal unwanted A2P is to get rid of A2P altogether, that would be fine with me.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am surprised that less than 10 distinct recipients per day is considered atypical! It's certainly not on my phone. Then agian, I only really txt my wife :)
On 8/03/2021, at 9:30 AM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> wrote:
Page 10: Typical Consumer Operation (P2P) - 15-60 messages per minute - 1,000 messages per day - 10-100 distinct recipients - Roughly 1:1 ratio incoming to outgoing SMS volume - fewer than 25 repeated messages
If the traffic doesn't meet that criteria, it's likely A2P.
On 3/4/21 12:44 PM, Brandon Svec via VoiceOps wrote:
This Twilio link actually has a lot of details including?fees and what they know and don't know at this time. https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC... <https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC...>
Thank you. That actually is very substantive and hyperbole-free. Significant takeaway: all Twilio SMS traffic is considered A2P. One can presume the same applies to other service providers. That's important. That means either Twilio needs to register the DID with whichever carriers, or the end-user must register the DID, but either way, it's gotta get done. That's irritating, but hardly a "walled garden" one step away from disconnecting the mobile operator's network from the rest of the world in respect of IP, email... -- Alex -- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Twilio customers may be a bit different than customers of people on this list. But actually, this proves the point that you will need to register your individual customers and DIDs. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:50 PM Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:
On 3/4/21 12:44 PM, Brandon Svec via VoiceOps wrote:
This Twilio link actually has a lot of details including fees and what they know and don't know at this time.
https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC...
< https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC...
Thank you. That actually is very substantive and hyperbole-free.
Significant takeaway: all Twilio SMS traffic is considered A2P. One can presume the same applies to other service providers.
That's important. That means either Twilio needs to register the DID with whichever carriers, or the end-user must register the DID, but either way, it's gotta get done.
That's irritating, but hardly a "walled garden" one step away from disconnecting the mobile operator's network from the rest of the world in respect of IP, email...
-- Alex
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
By user to user I mean one human sending one or a few messages to another human. I think all the evidence says this will not be affected at all in any way. It also clearly talks about very high volume senders, so even an automated "your appointment reminder" for a small business seems unaffected. I see zero evidence to support the idea that all numbers/messaging will become "a campaign." A2P is specifically not user to user. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:40 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. All 10DLC (a DID) will become a campaign. You would need to ask for an exemption and to prove that your users (consumers, person to person) do not need to e registered as a campaign.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:38 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that.
The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening?
Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, > > Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move > to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside > world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and > you obviously pay for that approval)? > Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all > IP traffic. > > Thanks, > Oren > _______________________________________________ > VoiceOps mailing list > VoiceOps at voiceops.org > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
Carlos, I have asked this specific question. Basically, the industry does not see P2P any longer. You would need to ask for an exemption, and proof that your customers do not need to register. In any case, it will cost you money. I suggest that you contact your underlying carrier/s and get first-hand information. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:52 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
By user to user I mean one human sending one or a few messages to another human. I think all the evidence says this will not be affected at all in any way. It also clearly talks about very high volume senders, so even an automated "your appointment reminder" for a small business seems unaffected. I see zero evidence to support the idea that all numbers/messaging will become "a campaign."
A2P is specifically not user to user.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:40 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. All 10DLC (a DID) will become a campaign. You would need to ask for an exemption and to prove that your users (consumers, person to person) do not need to e registered as a campaign.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:38 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
So you're saying that user to user messaging will be limited? I haven't seen evidence of that.
The Bandwidth page says it's just for mass messaging: What's happening?
Certain mobile carrier(s) are now adjusting the throughput caps they've historically enforced on local messaging for business senders, also known as A2P programs, while imposing new registration requirements and paying additional fees. The throughput limits will vary, but wanted messages in registered campaigns should receive better throughput than the traditional 1 message per second (MPS).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
> Are you referring to A2P 10DLC? > > > <http://www.startelecom.ca> > > *Ivan Kovacevic* > > *www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>* > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move >> to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside >> world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and >> you obviously pay for that approval)? >> Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all >> IP traffic. >> >> Thanks, >> Oren >> _______________________________________________ >> VoiceOps mailing list >> VoiceOps at voiceops.org >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops >> > > NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the > sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original > message. > _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
I don't think at&t and Verizon are outright blocking text messaging.. The FCC (and consumers and businesses) would like to stop spam and scams. Similar to STIR/SHAKEN, no? There will be some fee involved just like there is a cost to implement and manage STIR/SHAKEN that will get passed down to business and consumers. Do you have an example of how it could impact you or an example financially? Twilio has this to say about it: https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/1260800720410-What-is-A2P-10DLC... *Brandon* On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:33 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
I would agree if this was the case. But it is not the case. That is the reason I suggest we learn more about it and fight it (if it matters to you).
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:30 PM Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, this is only about the trash mass-send messaging, and not user to user. Right? Anything that reduces business abuse of SMS is good in my opinion.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:24 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, it is what they call 10DLC. Here is what Bandwidth has put together for some more details.
https://support.bandwidth.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500002422242-10DLC-Overview... I will gather more information and post what I can find.
Kent described it correctly and it is probably a result of the FCC not regulating the market, which will now become the wild west. What Kent may be missing is that it is not only extra fees (as is the case with Verizon) but a whole registration requirement and actually blocking of messages from unregistered DIDs, as AT&T is about to implement their walled garden.
If you offer SMS text messaging to your customers, you should be very worried, and join forces to fight it.
Oren
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 12:15 PM Ivan Kovacevic < ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote:
Are you referring to A2P 10DLC?
*Ivan Kovacevic*
*www.startelecom.ca <http://www.startelecom.ca>*
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:30 AM Oren Yehezkely <orenyny at gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone have some deep knowledge about AT&T and Verizon's move to create their own walled gardens and prevent messages from the outside world from coming in, unless they approve each and every phone number (and you obviously pay for that approval)? Next thing they will block emails from other networks, or maybe all IP traffic.
Thanks, Oren _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
NOTE: This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
participants (12)
-
abalashov＠evaristesys.com -
alex.lopez＠opsys.com -
beckman＠angryox.com -
bsvec＠teamonesolutions.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
fred＠palner.com -
ivan.kovacevic＠startelecom.ca -
johnl＠taugh.com -
kent＠sip.us -
orenyny＠gmail.com -
pete＠mac.geek.nz -
ross＠tajvar.io