Consumers, Operators See Mobile Spam Self-Regulation as Key
Mobile network operators (MNOs) are aware of the threat spam poses to customer satisfaction and their corporate image, but appear uncertain how to control it, an industry-academic consortium said last week. Its study, Insights into Mobile Spam, analysed differences in how consumers and MNOs perceive mobile spam issues and how well they think the problem is being managed. Both sectors say industry self-regulation is the key to stopping unsolicited mobile messages.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The study looked at 1,659 completed consumer surveys and 154 corporate surveys to gauge perceptions about mobile spam in Central Europe, N. America and Southeast Asia. Key findings included: (1) Central Europe and Southeast Asia are the regions in they survey most active in messaging and most troubled by mobile spam. Most respondents said the spam annoys them and negatively affects their MNOs’ brands.
(2) Only a small percentage of consumers complain to their operators about mobile spam, opting to switch MNOs rather than getting new phone numbers if the spam reaches unacceptable levels. (3) Both consumers and professionals think mobile spam will grow as a problem. (3) Consumers and businesses see operator self-regulations as the most important action against spam. (4) MNOs are well aware of the effect spam is having on their businesses, but are in a “trial-and-error phase, applying reactive measures and testing various technological alternatives for avoiding spam.”
Actions MNOs take to combat mobile spam include cancelling roaming agreements, setting up customer complaint hotlines, and installing filters. However, the study found that while 1/3 of responding MNOs use message filtering solutions, they're unhappy with the maintenance required.
Govts. are taking regulatory steps to curb mobile spam. Japan, the first country to be significantly affected by mobile spam, enacted a law in 2002 which requires unsolicited messages to randomly generated addresses to be flagged. Spam, online and mobile, is covered by the European Union’s 2002 directive on privacy and e-communications, which provides for opt-in marketing. Australia’s antispam law took effect in April 2004, and Singapore is drafting spam-control legislation. The U.S.’s CAN-SPAM Act requires MNOs to submit domain names associated with commercial wireless subscriber messaging services to a publicly available list.
Meanwhile, industry is testing several antispam measures, the study said. Japan’s NTT DoCoMo has a system that blocks e-mails sent to unknown addresses. Mobile users can list as many as 10 domains from which they want to receive e-mail and block e-mail from others. Vodafone U.K. has a telephone number to which consumers can forward spam messages. The operator then blocks all calls to any premium rate number listed in the spam message. Orange, the mobile arm of France Telecom, may be blocking all text messages from entire countries, such as Switzerland and S. Africa, that it finds to be the source of a lot of spam. Verizon is suing individual SMS spammers.
Spam is a problem for MNOs for several reasons, researchers found. Many (83%) see it as a threat to customer relations, and smaller percentages said they worry about transmission of mobile viruses, negative impacts on business opportunities or network congestion. However, the study said, while MNOs see mobile spam as a critical issue, they “seem not to be preparing"for it. A slight majority only “somewhat” agreed they have a well- defined strategy for dealing with it, a sharp contrast to participants’ agreement with the statement that a spam- free network and a documented policy for handling spam can be used for competitive advantage.
Researchers recommended MNOs replace their “reactive” approach to mobile spam with more sophisticated processes to avoid it, such as more transnational cooperation and better filtering solutions to the core network. Operators could offer both a premium filter service and a less expensive no-filtered solution to their customers, the study said.
Consumers view mobile spam as more intrusive than spam e-mails, said Ewan Sutherland, exec. dir. of the International Telecom Users Group (INTUG). It’s easy to send mobile users messages that appear to be personal -- “Ewan, call me at this number” -- and cost premium rates to return, Sutherland said. That marketers can get hold of a mobile number makes consumers nervous itself, he said. Privacy expectations may have been lowered on the Internet, but mobile telephony isn’t there yet, Sutherland told us.
Users think the solution falls on the operators, Sutherland said. MNOs should learn from Japan’s experience with “pernicious and unpleasant” mobile spam, and from what has happened on the fixed Internet, he said. There’s a relatively small number of mobile operators, he said. “If they get this wrong, they have so much to lose.” Sutherland also warned operators “not to be greedy” when setting prices for antispam services.
Mobile spam will be very much on the minds of participants at this week’s 3GSM Cannes conference. In addition, an Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development spam task force meets March 9 to continue its work on fighting spam. The mobile spam study was conducted by the U. of St. Gallen in Switzerland, BMD Wireless, the ITU and others.