Alpha Sender ID Costs - The Australian Government to Require SMS/MMS Sender ID Registraion

Discussion of why legitimate businesses don't use branded SMS sender IDs—whether due to cost, difficulty of verification, or the limitation that alphanumeric sender IDs don't allow replies.

While some users suspect that businesses avoid branded SMS sender IDs due to higher gateway costs, others argue that the real hurdle is the difficulty of verifying alphanumeric codes compared to standard phone numbers. A primary frustration shared by many is the functional limitation of these IDs, which prevent recipients from replying to messages or easily opting out of marketing via "STOP" commands. Although there is strong support for stricter registration requirements to curb phishing, participants emphasize that the current system needs an overhaul to ensure that branded messages remain both trustworthy and interactive.

View on HN · Topics

I rely on the ability to set the outbound caller ID but I would happily register it if required.

View on HN · Topics

As an Australian, I'm happy to hear this, but also annoyed that a lot of legitimate SMS from companies don't use branded sender ID. I'm not sure why, but my guess is that SMS gateways charge more for it and businesses don't want to pay the extra cent or two.

View on HN · Topics

Alpha codes don't allow replies. As such if you need to reply it has to be from a number

View on HN · Topics

No it costs the same, the reason they do it is that it’s slightly more difficult to spoof a real number sender ID because most gateways will verify ownership by sending you a text on that number before letting you send outbound from it, where as they have no way of doing the same for an alphanumeric sender ID

View on HN · Topics

It is crazy that wasn't something already required. Here local sms-gateways always required paperwork to prove word you want to use as sender name is a brand you own.

View on HN · Topics

Interesting change. If it helps cut down on spam and phishing texts while keeping branded messages trustworthy, it sounds like a step in the right direction.

View on HN · Topics

I welcome this move, enforcing that SMS messages come from who they say they'll come from is important.

Personally I think the whole system of replacing the point of origin with a name needs to be overhauled. Allowing a name as well is fine, but the practice of delivering messages that can't be replied to is pretty poor.

Rather than have to futz around with a different number or website to go to, I should be able to just reply "STOP" if (for example) Dominos keep spamming me with Pizza offers I don't want.