GoLive! Mobile Blog

Verizon has just launched OIOO — a system similar to AT&T’s impending OPPC which aims to give the carrier more visibility and control over premium SMS transactions. Short code operators are required to migrate to this platform by the end of the month. Clients will be happy to know that we have successfully passed OIOO certification with Verizon for all of short codes in our network — OIOO is now integrated into our product lines and abstracted from client view.

We’ve blogged quite a bit about AT&T’s OPPC, and OIOO is essentially a similar version except it’s more light-weight and still leaves control over the messaging flow to the content provider. The bottom line with OIOO is that we used to simply be able to bill Verizon subscribers in real-time with one transaction, however now we must send an automated notification to Verizon and wait for them to respond with a unique Session ID prior to billing the end-user. Essentially this Session ID gives Verizon a tracking mechanism for all their premium SMS subscriptions. When opting out end-users, we must also send an opt-out notification to Verizon. So now Verizon will be able to keep detailed, local records of premium SMS subscription histories.

Comparing OIOO and OPPC

The major differences between Verizon’s OIOO and AT&T’s OPPC are as follows:

1) OIOO is only for premium SMS subscriptions, while OPPC is for all premium transactions.

2) OIOO still allows us to control all messages sent to the end-user, while in the case of OPPC the carrier is directly sending the “advice of charge” message with  no ability for the content provider to customize this message on the fly.

3) OIOO does not have any end-user refund management system as OPPC does.

As we all know, the carriers pretty much do what they want with regard to short codes. There is no regulation of short codes currently, so the carriers do what any business should do and treat short codes just like any other product or service they offer. Short codes are accepted and provisioned based on each individual carrier’s own terms, and often short codes are rejected by carriers because the service seems threatening or competitive in some way.

After some high profile short code rejections by the carriers, including PayPal and RebTel amongst others,  a group of consumer groups have taken note of the status quo and are petitioning the FCC to change it.

Realizing that they can’t go after the carriers themselves, the consumer groups are taking aim at the FCC to help stop this practice. A good example is the Rebtel case, in which Verizon rejected the short code since it would have been used for an international call-back scheme that would cut Verizon out of international voice revenues. Can anybody blame Verizon for this? If I was a Verizon shareholder and found out that Verizon approved this short code I would be pretty pissed.  Thus, it’s definitely wise for these consumer groups to pursue the FCC rather than the carriers directly.

Frankly though, the benefits of regulatory oversight into the short code industry are vastly outweighed by the pitfalls. Most of the folks at GoLive! Mobile come from a telecom background with extensive experience in dealing with regulators. Anybody who doesn’t have similar experience should realize the golden rule of the FCC — give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. If the FCC were to establish some sort of oversight into short code approval policies of the carriers, the next steps will be establishing further standards and penalties around the process.  These will only serve to deter the carriers from supporting and expanding upon their current short code offerings, and also raise prices for provisioning and aggregator messaging rates.