Weather | Traffic | Surf | Maps | Webcam


   
 
Home Today's Paper Sports Entertainment sdjobs sdhomes sdwheels Classifieds Shopping Visitors Guide Forums
 Saturday
 »Next Story»
 News
 Local News
 Opinion
 Business
 Sports
 Family
 Wheels
 Front Page (PDF)
 The Last Week
 Sunday
 Monday
 Tuesday
 Wednesday
 Thursday
 Friday
 Saturday
 Weekly Sections
 Books |  UT-Books
 Family
 Food
 Health
 Home
 Homescape
 Dialog
 InStyle
 Night & Day
 Sunday Arts
 Travel
 Quest
 Wheels
Subscribe to the UT
 Sponsored Links








The San Diego Union-Tribune

 
Cell phone spam's victims fighting mad, fighting back

Messages reviled because of their invasiveness, cost

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

May 10, 2008

If you thought spam on your computer was a bother, brace yourself: Spammers want to find you on your cell phone.

Cell phones have become consumers' most personal technological devices. Some industry executives, along with consumer groups and security experts, are concerned that unwanted text messages on phones will be an even greater headache than unwanted computer messages.


CHRISTOPHER CAPOZZIELLO / The New York Times
"I was at work, and I got so annoyed," Taber Lightfoot, an assistant director at the Yale School of Management in New Haven, Conn., said of the initial burst of cell phone spam messages she received.
Cell phone spam is particularly annoying to its recipients because it is more invasive – announcing itself with a beep – and can be costly.

Taber Lightfoot, an assistant director for new media at the Yale School of Management, is among those who have paid for the privilege of receiving cell phone spam.

“I was at work, and I got so annoyed,” Lightfoot said of the first burst of three messages she received. She got another burst two days later.

“That is when I called Verizon and demanded they reimburse me $1.60 for eight text messages,” she said. “It wasn't a lot of money, but it was my money.”

U.S. consumers are expected to receive an estimated 1.5 billion unsolicited text messages in 2008, according to Ferris Research, based in San Francisco, which tracks mobile messaging trends. That is nearly double what they received in 2006.

Of course, that is a small percentage of the overall number of messages: An industry survey showed that consumers in the United States sent and received about 48 billion text messages in December alone. But for many people who are charged as much as 20 cents for an incoming message or are interrupted in the middle of dinner, even one is too many.

“The reason this really burns people up is because they have to pay for messages they don't want, and they shouldn't have to,” said Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union, a nonprofit group.

Now some consumers, like Lightfoot, are monitoring their cell phones more aggressively for unwanted messages and in some cases demanding refunds. Computer security companies have developed products to help fight mobile spam. AT&T, Verizon and others are making it easier for customers to block unsolicited messages and keep spammers at bay.

The fees that customers pay to receive messages are a source of profit for the phone companies. It is hard to estimate how much they make. Many consumers pay for a monthly plan that allows them to send and receive large numbers of messages. But for those without a plan, getting as few as 10 unsolicited text messages a month at 20 cents each would cost an extra $24 a year.

Communications companies say they are not interested in spam as a profit center. They want to one day exploit the power of customized advertising on mobile phones, and tawdry spam pitches threaten to make their customers hostile toward all commercial messages. The companies are trying to head off the problem before consumers revolt.

The carriers regularly adjust spam filters to block offending messages. At Sprint, more than 65 percent of all text messages sent over its network are identified and blocked as spam before they reach customers.

The companies use legal weapons, as well. Verizon said it had filed eight lawsuits against spammers since 2004.

“Even if Verizon or AT&T are not the ones sending text messages to customers, there is the perception that the operator is to blame,” said Seamus McAteer, a senior analyst at M:Metrics, which tracks mobile phone advertising. “It is not in the companies' best interest to have customers calling and complaining about their bills all the time.”

Ralph de la Vega, chief executive of AT&T's wireless unit, said wireless companies recently agreed to quickly share information about the sources of spam to fight it more effectively.

Most phone spam is actually e-mail that comes through gateways linking the Internet and cell phone networks, industry executives said.

Most wireless phones have a dedicated e-mail address. At AT&T, for example, it is a customer's cell phone number followed by @text.att.net. Using computers, spammers create millions of possible number combinations, then send messages to those addresses.

One day in March, Anthony Melone, chief technology officer of Verizon Wireless, began getting complaints from customers in the Northeast and Midwest about a wave of unsolicited text messages flooding the network. Melone said Verizon technicians tracked down the source and found the messages were coming from someone using e-mail accounts at Microsoft's Internet portal, msn.com.

It took a day to quell the assault because the spammers kept changing their e-mail addresses and the Web sites they were promoting. By then, nearly 5 million messages had made it past the network's anti-spam filters, resulting in grumbling and demands for refunds from customers such as Lightfoot.

“Even when you find them, spammers know how to keep it below the radar,” Melone said.

 »Next Story»


 Sponsored Links


Advertisements from the print edition








© Copyright 2008 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site