The ban on spam text messages has hit telecom service providers (TSPs) hard. It also hurts spammers, of course. However, from the subscribers’ point of view, it was long overdue. Given the conflicting interests of consumers, spammers and TSPs, it is worth taking a look at the situation. The measures taken can be improved upon.
Mobile telephony is an essential service. Texting is integral. Subscribers cannot switch off phones on a normal working day. So spam SMS (short message service) has a captive audience, unlike TV or FM radio, where the option to switch off exists.
Text conveys information succinctly and ensures communication when a phone call cannot be accepted. Automated services like mobile banking, passenger name record or PNR, flight/train timings, gas cylinder bookings, etc are text-delivered. If networks are overloaded, as during terrorist attacks, text may be the only working channel.
Spam SMSes clog inboxes and reduce texting utility. Before the ban, I received 80-odd spam texts a day. Mixed in were urgent legitimate messages, which went unattended, because of the inbox logjam. I’m sure it was worse for many people.
It isn’t convenient to blacklist or whitelist contacts to control text receipts. A whitelist that receives texts (and calls) only from listed numbers (or alphanumeric IDs) risks shutting out friends and colleagues who have changed numbers.
Blacklists to block specific IDs can be created using several android apps (assuming you’re on android). But there is the tedium of updating. I experimented with blanket wild-card blacklists shutting down all bulk SMSes from specific TSPs. (The first two letters of a spammer’s ID are often the TSP. For example, “LMxxxx” is from Loop Mumbai.) The problem is, legitimate agencies like my bank and gas agency use the same TSPs. Some spam always gets through, anyhow.
There is a huge opportunity cost to receiving spam. The recipient wastes a few seconds each time to delete and/or blacklist . For me, it was around two to three minutes a day. Multiply by 500 million to 700 million recipients. That’s many lifetimes sacrificed each day on the altar of spam.
The equation works for a spammer since he’s not paying the opportunity cost. If there is one positive response for every lakh of spam texts, the payoff may be positive. It also works for TSPs. It costs zero in variable costs for a TSP to carry texts, so any text revenue is worthwhile.
The current “100 messages a day” limit is ham-fisted. It penalises legitimate bulk text users, who are not spammers. A friend who lost his father recently reached the 100 messages a day limit and had to request friends to pass on news about the bereavement.
Creating exemptions to the limit results in spammers getting back into action. They already have if my inbox is any indicator. Most spammers don’t scrub to exempt numbers from the DND (do not disturb)-registered database. Presumably, the penalties for violations are not enough, or they are not enforced.
I have a modest proposal that could lead to satisfaction for all concerned. Do away with the 100 messages per day limit and, instead, cut recipients in on the proceeds. I hate spam SMSes but I would hold my nose and receive them if you offered me something in exchange. Most subscribers would.
Let’s say, the TSP charges the spammer 5 paise/SMS for bulk and passes on 1 paisa to the recipient? It need not be a cash transfer. It could be paid as free talktime, gift coupons, discounts on the recipients’ phone bills, lunch with Rakhi Sawant, whatever.
Of course, you’d need the subscribers’ permission. But the concept is not radically new or tough to implement. The media and Internet industries are built around offering highly subsidised or free content in return for receiving ads. The principle is simple: if you seek to monetise the subscribers’ time and attention-span, pass on some of the loot.
