Access your online account from any web browser.
Two-way SMS functionality that integrates with multiple platforms.
Manage your SMS communications from your desktop.
Send bulk SMS text messages using our iOS mobile app.
Receive incoming messages directly from your customers.
Get your own 5 digit shortcode.
Find out more about the SMS solutions we offer here.
Integrate using our API and send SMSes automatically.
Take a read through our APIs and see what suits you.
Featuring our infographics, how to’s and industry specific use cases.
A useful resource for those with questions. FAQ’s and video tutorials.
A look into how our customers are innovating with our products.
Practice safe sending. Check out the regional regulations for your country.
Highlighting the current trends and hottest news in the messaging industry.
Log into your BulkSMS.com online account here.
Log into the BulkSMS Integration Gateway here.
By Dr Pieter Streicher, MD of BulkSMS.com. Uploaded on: 01 April 2010.
The introduction of a small interconnect fee for SMS messaging is essential in an environment where both businesses and consumers rely on SMS messaging for communication purposes. Currently, there is no SMS interconnect fee agreed between the three local network operators. On an international level, there are still several network operators that are not paying any SMS interconnect fees for terminating messages on local networks.
Individual subscribers can send SMS messages to subscribers on all other local
and international networks. These subscribers can also receive SMS messages
from phones anywhere in the world. This type of person to person (P2P) traffic
is largely symmetrical, and operators are likely to send as many outbound
messages as they receive inbound messages. The lack of SMS interconnect fees is
not a problem here, and for this reason, when GSM networks started out,
networks did not charge each other interconnect fees on SMS at all.
However, SMS messaging as a communications tool for businesses has exploded in
recent years. The problem is that business messaging is not symmetrical, and
all business messages could potentially originate from a single network. Since
networks charge their own Wireless Application Service Providers (WASPs) for
messaging, the routing of messages via outside networks (which do not pay a
cent) creates the potential for significant revenue loss.
Many businesses have found very innovative and beneficial uses for SMS
communication such as transaction notifications, appointment reminders,
disaster notifications and progress updates. However, the availability of
application to person (A2P) messaging interfaces introduces a significant risk
for spam and scams, as message sending can be automated. Subscribers expect
their home network to prevent SMS spam and scams. Dealing with spam complaints
is a significant cost for operators, and for messages that originate from
outside their network, it is more difficult and costly to deal with.
In this environment, the lack of interconnect fees is a double edged sword as
it reduces the revenue for a network operator from business messaging and at
the same time increases the cost of dealing with abuse.
In South Africa, instead of introducing local SMS interconnect fees, the
networks agreed not to compete on A2P business. They essentially allow cross
network SMS for their subscribers, but they do not allow cross network SMS for
their WASPs. Local WASPs therefore have to contract with all three network
operators, Vodacom, MTN and Cell C, to be able to deliver messages to all
three, and each network has a monopoly on A2P messaging to their own
On one level, this benefits WASPs as they are the only entities that can offer
cross network messaging via a single interface. However the lack of competition
between operators results in uncompetitive pricing and poor service levels. The
agreement also leaves loopholes wide open. Businesses could bypass home routing
by making their messaging appear to be person-to-person messaging by sending
from GSM modems.
By introducing a small interconnect charge (50% of bulk charge) for local SMS
messaging and by introducing competition between local operators on A2P
business, service levels to WASPs will improve, and pricing offered by
operators to WASPs will be more competitive. Provided the SMS interconnect fee
is significantly lower compared to what consumers pay for messaging (10% of
consumer charge), P2P message pricing will remain unaffected, as this traffic
is largely symmetrical.
The four UK network operators introduced SMS interconnect fees amongst each
other in 2003, and are competing on A2P SMS traffic. It is interesting to note
that some UK operators are selling bulk A2P SMS at prices lower than the SMS
interconnect rate. In essence, they are subsidising cross network A2P traffic,
and making a profit mainly on their on-net A2P traffic.
There are a number of international messaging providers connected to multiple
network operators. These providers route messages via the lowest cost routes,
which will often be to network operators that pay no interconnect fees.
The only way to prevent revenue loss is for the home network operator to
introduce appropriate interconnect fees on SMS with all other international
network operators. An international interconnect fee for SMS should be similar
than the local bulk charge for A2P messaging.
This will ensure that home routing is the most cost effective, and
international messaging providers will have an incentive to be connected to all
network operators, or at least one operator in each country. Control over
messaging abuse will then be much easier, as the home network will be able to
trace all problematic messages via the WASP involved, back to the original
sender. In SA, the WASPs involved will have to comply with the WASPA code which
governs business messaging, and no messages will be able to bypass the
jurisdiction of WASPA.
As there are so many international operators, with some having inadequate
control over their infrastructure, the fraudulent use of SMS is also a
possibility. Fraudsters with SS7 network access can spoof originating numbers
and fake other details in such a way that millions of messages can be sent and
then billed to the mobile of a third party. This activity poses a huge
financial risk for operators, and requires advanced technical solutions to
Vodacom has been very pro-active in this regard and has consistently introduced
interconnect fees on SMS with operators that are known to terminate SMS
messages to its network. Vodacom has also introduced technical measures to
block messages where sender -IDs have clearly been manipulated or spoofed. As a
result, there has been significantly less (internationally routed) SMS spam on
the Vodacom network over the past two years.
There are still large numbers of A2P messages originating internationally,
terminating on MTN and Cell C phones locally. In addition, local MTN and Cell C
numbers are being spoofed as originating numbers to mask the originating
network of messages. This is a major problem for banks, where the spoofing of
their SMS originating numbers could be a security risk.