Hubbry Logo
SMSSMSMain
Open search
SMS
Community hub
SMS
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
SMS
SMS
from Wikipedia
An SMS message written on a Motorola Razr V3

Short Message Service (SMS) is a text messaging service component of most telephone, Internet and mobile device systems. It uses standardized communication protocols that let mobile phones exchange short text messages, typically transmitted over cellular networks.

Developed as part of the GSM standards, and based on the SS7 signalling protocol, SMS rolled out on digital cellular networks starting in 1993[1] and was originally intended for customers to receive alerts from their carrier/operator.[2] The service allows users to send and receive text messages of up to 160 characters,[a] originally to and from GSM phones and later also CDMA and Digital AMPS; it has since been defined and supported on newer networks,[3] including present-day 5G ones. Using SMS gateways, messages can be transmitted over the Internet through an SMSC, allowing communication to computers, fixed landlines, and satellite.[4] MMS was later introduced as an upgrade to SMS with "picture messaging" capabilities.

In addition to recreational texting between people, SMS is also used for mobile marketing (a type of direct marketing),[5] two-factor authentication logging-in,[6] televoting,[7] mobile banking (see SMS banking), and for other commercial content.[8] The SMS standard has been hugely popular worldwide as a method of text communication: by the end of 2010, it was the most widely used data application with an estimated 3.5 billion active users, or about 80% of all mobile phone subscribers.[9] More recently, SMS has become increasingly challenged by newer proprietary instant messaging services;[10] RCS has been designated as the potential open standard successor to SMS.[11]

Developmental history

[edit]

SMS technology originated from radio telegraphy in radio memo pagers that used standardized phone protocols. These were defined in 1986 as part of the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) series of standards.[12] The first SMS message was sent on 3 December 1992, when Neil Papworth, a test engineer for Sema Group, sent "Merry Christmas" to the Orbitel 901 phone of colleague Richard Jarvis.[13][14][15]

Initial concept

[edit]
E.161, a common mobile keypad alphabet layout

Adding text messaging functionality to mobile devices began in the early 1980s. The first action plan of the CEPT Group GSM was approved in December 1982, requesting that "The services and facilities offered in the public switched telephone networks and public data networks ... should be available in the mobile system."[16] This plan included the exchange of text messages either directly between mobile stations, or transmitted via message handling systems in use at that time.[17]

The SMS concept was developed in the Franco-German GSM cooperation in 1984 by Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert.[18] The GSM is optimized for telephony, since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost. However, it was necessary to limit the length of the messages to 128 bytes (later improved to 160 seven-bit characters) so that the messages could fit into the existing signalling formats. Based on his personal observations and on analysis of the typical lengths of postcard and Telex messages, Hillebrand argued that 160 characters was sufficient for most brief communications.[19]

SMS could be implemented in every mobile station by updating its software. Hence, a large base of SMS-capable terminals and networks existed when people began to use SMS.[20] A new network element required was a specialized short message service centre, and enhancements were required to the radio capacity and network transport infrastructure to accommodate growing SMS traffic.[21]

Early development

[edit]

The technical development of SMS was a multinational collaboration supporting the framework of standards bodies. Through these organizations the technology was made freely available to the whole world.[22]

The first proposal which initiated the development of SMS was made by a contribution of Germany and France in the GSM group meeting in February 1985 in Oslo.[23] This proposal was further elaborated in GSM subgroup WP1 Services (Chairman Martine Alvernhe, France Telecom) based on a contribution from Germany. There were also initial discussions in the subgroup WP3 network aspects chaired by Jan Audestad (Telenor). The result was approved by the main GSM group in a June 1985 document which was distributed to industry.[24] The input documents on SMS had been prepared by Friedhelm Hillebrand of Deutsche Telekom, with contributions from Bernard Ghillebaert of France Télécom. The definition that Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert brought into GSM called for the provision of a message transmission service of alphanumeric messages to mobile users "with acknowledgement capabilities". The last three words transformed SMS into something much more useful than the electronic paging services used at the time that some in GSM might have had in mind.[25]

SMS was considered in the main GSM group as a possible service for the new digital cellular system. In GSM document "Services and Facilities to be provided in the GSM System,"[12] both mobile-originated and mobile-terminated short messages appear on the table of GSM teleservices.[12]

The discussions on the GSM services were concluded in the recommendation GSM 02.03 "TeleServices supported by a GSM PLMN."[26] Here a rudimentary description of the three services was given:

  1. Short message mobile-terminated (SMS-MT)/ Point-to-Point: the ability of a network to transmit a Short Message to a mobile phone. The message can be sent by phone or by a software application.
  2. Short message mobile-originated (SMS-MO)/ Point-to-Point: the ability of a network to transmit a Short Message sent by a mobile phone. The message can be sent to a phone or to a software application.
  3. Short message cell broadcast.[26]

The material elaborated in GSM and its WP1 subgroup was handed over in Spring 1987 to a new GSM body called IDEG (the Implementation of Data and Telematic Services Experts Group), which had its kickoff in May 1987 under the chairmanship of Friedhelm Hillebrand (German Telecom). The technical standard known today was largely created by IDEG (later WP4) as the two recommendations GSM 03.40 (the two point-to-point services merged) and GSM 03.41 (cell broadcast).[citation needed]

WP4 created a Drafting Group Message Handling (DGMH), which was responsible for the specification of SMS. Finn Trosby of Telenor chaired the draft group through its first three years, in which the design of SMS was established. DGMH had five to eight participants, and Finn Trosby mentions as major contributors Kevin Holley, Eija Altonen, Didier Luizard and Alan Cox. The first action plan[27] mentions for the first time the Technical Specification 03.40 "Technical Realisation of the Short Message Service". Responsible editor was Finn Trosby. The first and very rudimentary draft of the technical specification was completed in November 1987.[28] However, drafts useful for the manufacturers followed at a later stage in the period. A comprehensive description of the work in this period is given in.[29]

The work on the draft specification continued in the following few years, where Kevin Holley of Cellnet (now Telefónica O2 UK) played a leading role. Besides the completion of the main specification GSM 03.40, the detailed protocol specifications on the system interfaces also needed to be completed.[citation needed]

Early implementations

[edit]

The first SMS message[13] was sent over the Vodafone GSM network in the United Kingdom on 3 December 1992, from Neil Papworth of Sema Group (now Mavenir Systems) using a personal computer to Richard Jarvis of Vodafone using an Orbitel 901 handset. The text of the message was "Merry Christmas."[30]

The first commercial deployment of a short message service center (SMSC) was by Aldiscon part of Logica (now part of CGI) with Telia (now TeliaSonera) in Sweden in 1993,[31] followed by Fleet Call (now Nextel)[32] in the US, Telenor in Norway[33] and BT Cellnet (now O2 UK)[34] later in 1993. All first installations of SMS gateways were for network notifications sent to mobile phones, usually to inform of voice mail messages.[citation needed]

The first commercially sold SMS service was offered to consumers, as a person-to-person text messaging service by Radiolinja (now part of Elisa) in Finland in 1993. Most early GSM mobile phone handsets did not support the ability to send SMS text messages, and Nokia was the only handset manufacturer whose total GSM phone line in 1993 supported user-sending of SMS text messages. According to Matti Makkonen, an engineer at Nokia at the time, the Nokia 2010, which was released in January 1994, was the first mobile phone to support composing SMSes easily.[35]

Growth and adoption

[edit]

Initial growth was slow, with customers in 1995 sending on average only 0.4 messages per GSM customer per month.[36] Initially, networks in the UK only allowed customers to send messages to other users on the same network, limiting the usefulness of the service. This restriction was lifted in 1999.[13] Over time, this issue was eliminated by switch billing instead of billing at the SMSC and by new features within SMSCs to allow blocking of foreign mobile users sending messages through it. By the end of 2000, the average number of messages reached 35 per user per month,[36] and on Christmas Day 2006, over 205 million messages were sent in the UK alone.[37] SMS had become a social phenomenon in Finland among teens and youngsters by 1999.[38] SMS traffic across Europe reached 4 billion messages as of January 2000.[39]

SMS became extremely popular in the Philippines by 2001 and the country was dubbed the "texting capital of the world",[40][41] partly helped by large numbers of free text messages offered by the mobile operators in monthly subscriptions.[42] SMS adoption was limited to parts of Europe and Asia during these earlier years,[43] with U.S. adoption being low partly due to incompatible networks and cheap voice calls relative to other countries.[42] The Economist wrote in 2003, as noted by an analyst:[44]

The short answer is that, in America, talk is cheap. Because local calls on land lines are usually free, wireless operators have to offer big “bundles” of minutes—up to 5,000 minutes per month—as part of their monthly pricing plans to persuade subscribers to use mobile phones instead. Texting first took off in other parts of the world among cost-conscious teenagers who found that it was cheaper to text than to call [..] Free local calls also make logging on to the internet, for hours at a time, and using PC-to-PC “instant messaging” (IM) the preferred mode of electronic chat among American teenagers.

This is also backed by the fact that as of 2003, American internet users were spending on average five times more time online than Europeans,[45] and many poorer countries in Europe and other regions around the world had significantly lower rates of internet access compared to the United States at the time (see digital divide), hence making SMS more accessible.[46]

Contemporary usage

[edit]
SMS messages sent monthly in the U.S. from 2001 to 2008 (in billions)
Country Monthly messages sent per mobile subscriber (2003)[47][42]
Philippines
195
South Korea
120
Ireland
79
Croatia
72
Indonesia
68
France
19
United States
13

SMS has become a large commercial industry, earning $114.6 billion globally in 2010.[48] In the year 2002, 366 billion SMS text messages were sent globally,[49] a number that rose to 6.1 trillion in 2010,[9] which is an average of 193,000 messages per second. The global average price for an SMS message is US$0.11, while mobile networks charge each other interconnect fees of at least US$0.04 when connecting between different phone networks.[citation needed] In 2015, the actual cost of sending an SMS in Australia was found to be $0.00016 per SMS.[50] The global SMS messaging business was estimated to be worth over US$240 billion in 2013, accounting for almost half of all revenue generated by mobile messaging.[51]

The popularity of SMS also led to the spontaneous creation of the so-called 'SMS language' phenomenon, where words are shortened in order to deal with the 160 character limit of SMS messages.[52] Usage of SMS for mobile data services became increasingly prominent in the early 2000s due to its ubiquity, reliability, and cold reception of the newer WAP standard.[53] (see Premium-rated services below). In the early and mid 2000s, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) was developed as an improved version of SMS that supports sending of pictures and video.[54]

SMS has been increasingly challenged by Internet Protocol-based messaging services with additional features for modern mobile devices, such as Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, or WeChat.[55] These services run independently from mobile network operators and typically don't provide cross-platform messaging capabilities like SMS or email does.[11] For example, between 2010 and 2022, SMS telecom revenue in India dropped 94 percent, while "revenue share per user from data usage...grew over 10 times.",[56] although in some regions such as North America SMS continues to be used by over 80 percent of the population as of 2023.[57] In order to create a modern successor to SMS that isn't run by a single company and is fully interoperable between devices, industry figures have created the RCS 'Universal Profile' initiative.[11] It was supported by Apple when iOS 18 came out in 2024, which will mean that virtually all new mobile phones (iOS and Android platforms) will have RCS texting capabilities, though this may also depend on if the network operator supports it.[58]

Premium-rated services

[edit]

SMS may be used to provide premium rate services to subscribers of a network.[59] Mobile-terminated short messages can be used to deliver digital content such as news alerts, financial information, logos, and ringtones. The first premium-rate media content delivered via the SMS system was the world's first paid downloadable ringing tones, as commercially launched by Saunalahti (later Jippii Group, now part of Elisa Group), in 1998. Initially, only Nokia branded phones could handle them. By 2002 the ringtone business globally had exceeded $1 billion of service revenues, and nearly US$5 billion by 2008.[citation needed] Today, they are also used to pay smaller payments online—for example, for file-sharing services, in mobile application stores, or VIP section entrance. Outside the online world, one can buy a bus ticket or beverages[60] from ATM, pay a parking ticket, order a store catalog or some goods (e.g., discount movie DVDs), make a donation to charity, and much more.[citation needed]

Other uses

[edit]
A Siemens landline DECT telephone that is capable of SMS

Additionally, an intermediary service can facilitate a text-to-voice conversion to be sent to landlines.[61]

In 2014, Caktus Group[62] developed the world's first SMS-based voter registration system in Libya. As of February 2015 more than 1.5 million people have registered using that system, providing Libyan voters with unprecedented access to the democratic process.[63]

SMS enablement allows individuals to send an SMS message to a business phone number (traditional landline) and receive a SMS in return. Providing customers with the ability to text to a phone number allows organizations to offer new services that deliver value. Examples include chat bots, and text enabled customer service and call centers.[citation needed]

Flash SMS

[edit]

A Flash SMS is a type of SMS that appears directly on the main screen without user interaction and is not automatically stored in the inbox.[64] It can be useful in emergencies, such as a fire alarm or cases of confidentiality, as in delivering one-time passwords.[65]

Silent SMS

[edit]

In 2010, almost half a million silent SMS messages were sent by the German federal police, customs and the federal domestic intelligence service Verfassungsschutz.[66][67] These silent messages, also known as silent TMS, stealth SMS, stealth ping or Short Message Type 0,[68] are used to locate a person and thus to create a complete movement profile. They do not show up on a display, nor trigger any acoustical signal when received. Their primary purpose was to deliver special services of the network operator to any cell phone.

SMS bombs

[edit]

In March 2001, Dutch police in Amsterdam attempted to fight increasing cell phone theft by sending an SMS every three minutes to a phone that has been reported stolen, with the message "This handset was nicked, buying or selling is a crime. The police."[69][70]

Text messaging outside GSM

[edit]

SMS was originally designed as part of GSM, but is now available on a wide range of networks globally, including 3G, 4G and 5G networks. However, not all text messaging systems use SMS, and some notable alternative implementations of the concept include J-Phone's SkyMail and NTT Docomo's Short Mail, both in Japan. Email messaging from phones, as popularized by NTT Docomo's i-mode and the RIM BlackBerry, also typically uses standard mail protocols such as SMTP over TCP/IP.[citation needed]

Technical details

[edit]

GSM

[edit]

The Short Message Service—Point to Point (SMS-PP)—was originally defined in GSM recommendation 03.40, which is now maintained in 3GPP as TS 23.040.[71][72] GSM 03.41 (now 3GPP TS 23.041) defines the Short Message Service—Cell Broadcast (SMS-CB), which allows messages (advertising, public information, etc.) to be broadcast to all mobile users in a specified geographical area.[73][74] Cell broadcast is the technology behind Wireless Emergency Alerts in the US which is used for public safety messages and AMBER alerts,[75][76] and similar public safety messages in other countries. These messages are similar to SMS messages.

Messages are sent to a short message service center (SMSC), which provides a "store and forward" mechanism. It attempts to send messages to the SMSC's recipients. If a recipient is not reachable, the SMSC queues the message for later retry.[77] Some SMSCs also provide a "forward and forget" option where transmission is tried only once. Both mobile terminated (MT, for messages sent to a mobile handset) and mobile originating (MO, for those sent from the mobile handset) operations are supported. Message delivery is "best effort", so there are no guarantees that a message will actually be delivered to its recipient, but delay or complete loss of a message is uncommon, typically affecting less than 5 percent of messages.[78] Some providers allow users to request delivery reports, either via the SMS settings of most modern phones, or by prefixing each message with *0#[79] or *N#. However, the exact meaning of confirmations varies from reaching the network, to being queued for sending, to being sent, to receiving a confirmation of receipt from the target device, and users are often not informed of the specific type of success being reported.[citation needed]

SMS is a stateless communication protocol in which every SMS message is considered entirely independent of other messages. Enterprise applications using SMS as a communication channel for stateful dialogue (where an MO reply message is paired to a specific MT message) requires that session management be maintained external to the protocol.[citation needed]

Message size

[edit]

Transmission of short messages between the SMSC and the handset is done whenever using the Mobile Application Part (MAP) of the SS7 protocol.[80] Messages are sent with the MAP MO- and MT-ForwardSM operations, whose payload length is limited by the constraints of the signaling protocol to precisely 140 bytes (140 bytes × 8 bits / byte = 1120 bits).

Short messages can be encoded using a variety of alphabets: the default GSM 7-bit alphabet, the 8-bit data alphabet, and the 16-bit UCS-2 or UTF-16 alphabets.[81][82] Depending on which alphabet the subscriber has configured in the handset, this leads to the maximum individual short message sizes of 160 7-bit characters, 140 8-bit characters, or 70 16-bit characters. GSM 7-bit alphabet support is mandatory for GSM handsets and network elements,[82] but characters in languages such as Hindi, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Cyrillic alphabet languages (e.g., Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.) must be encoded using the 16-bit UCS-2 character encoding (see Unicode). Routing data and other metadata is additional to the payload size.[citation needed]

Larger content (concatenated SMS, multipart or segmented SMS, or "long SMS") can be sent using multiple messages, in which case each message will start with a User Data Header (UDH) containing segmentation information. Since UDH is part of the payload, the number of available characters per segment is lower: 153 for 7-bit encoding, 134 for 8-bit encoding and 67 for 16-bit encoding. The receiving handset is then responsible for reassembling the message and presenting it to the user as one long message. While the standard theoretically permits up to 255 segments,[83] 10 segments is the practical maximum with some carriers,[84] and long messages are often billed as equivalent to multiple SMS messages. In some cases 127 segments are supported,[85] but software limitations in some SMS applications do not permit this. Some providers have offered length-oriented pricing schemes for messages, although that type of pricing structure is rapidly disappearing.[citation needed]

Gateway providers

[edit]

SMS gateway providers facilitate SMS traffic between businesses and mobile subscribers, including SMS for enterprises, content delivery, and entertainment services involving SMS, e.g. TV voting. Considering SMS messaging performance and cost, as well as the level of messaging services, SMS gateway providers can be classified as aggregators or SS7 providers.[citation needed]

The aggregator model is based on multiple agreements with mobile carriers to exchange two-way SMS traffic into and out of the operator's SMSC, also known as "local termination model". Aggregators lack direct access into the SS7 protocol, which is the protocol where the SMS messages are exchanged. SMS messages are delivered to the operator's SMSC, but not the subscriber's handset; the SMSC takes care of further handling of the message through the SS7 network.[citation needed]

Another type of SMS gateway provider is based on SS7 connectivity to route SMS messages, also known as "international termination model". The advantage of this model is the ability to route data directly through SS7, which gives the provider total control and visibility of the complete path during SMS routing. This means SMS messages can be sent directly to and from recipients without having to go through the SMSCs of other mobile operators. Therefore, it is possible to avoid delays and message losses, offering full delivery guarantees of messages and optimized routing. This model is particularly efficient when used in mission-critical messaging and SMS used in corporate communications. Moreover, these SMS gateway providers are providing branded SMS services with masking but after misuse of these gateways most countries' governments have taken serious steps to block these gateways.[citation needed]

Interconnectivity with other networks

[edit]

Message Service Centers communicate with the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or PSTN via Interworking and Gateway MSCs.[citation needed]

Subscriber-originated messages are transported from a handset to a service center, and may be destined for mobile users, subscribers on a fixed network, or Value-Added Service Providers (VASPs), also known as application-terminated. Subscriber-terminated messages are transported from the service center to the destination handset, and may originate from mobile users, from fixed network subscribers, or from other sources such as VASPs.[citation needed]

On some carriers non-subscribers can send messages to a subscriber's phone using an Email-to-SMS gateway. Additionally, many carriers, including AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile USA,[86] Sprint,[87] and Verizon Wireless,[88] offer the ability to do this through their respective websites.[89]

For example, an AT&T subscriber whose phone number was 555-555-5555 would receive emails addressed to 5555555555@txt.att.net as text messages. Subscribers can easily reply to these SMS messages, and the SMS reply is sent back to the original email address. Sending email to SMS is free for the sender, but the recipient is subject to the standard delivery charges. Only the first 160 characters of an email message can be delivered to a phone, and only 160 characters can be sent from a phone. However, longer messages may be broken up into multiple texts, depending upon the telephone service provider.[90][91]

Text-enabled fixed-line handsets are required to receive messages in text format. However, messages can be delivered to non enabled phones using text-to-speech conversion.[92]

Short messages can send binary content such as ringtones or logos, as well as Over-the-air programming (OTA) or configuration data. Such uses are a vendor-specific extension of the GSM specification and there are multiple competing standards, although Nokia's Smart Messaging is common.

SMS is used for M2M (Machine to Machine) communication. For instance, there is an LED display machine controlled by SMS, and some vehicle tracking companies use SMS for their data transport or telemetry needs. SMS usage for these purposes is slowly being superseded by GPRS services owing to their lower overall cost.[citation needed] GPRS is offered by smaller telco players as a route of sending SMS text to reduce the cost of SMS texting internationally.[93]

Support in other architectures

[edit]

The Mobile Application Part (MAP) of the SS7 protocol included support for the transport of Short Messages through the Core Network from its inception.[94] MAP Phase 2 expanded support for SMS by introducing a separate operation code for Mobile Terminated Short Message transport.[94] Since Phase 2, there have been no changes to the Short Message operation packages in MAP, although other operation packages have been enhanced to support CAMEL SMS control.[citation needed]

From 3GPP Releases 99 and 4 onwards, CAMEL Phase 3 introduced the ability for the Intelligent Network (IN) to control aspects of the Mobile Originated Short Message Service,[95] while CAMEL Phase 4, as part of 3GPP Release 5 and onwards, provides the IN with the ability to control the Mobile Terminated service.[95] CAMEL allows the gsmSCP to block the submission (MO) or delivery (MT) of Short Messages, route messages to destinations other than that specified by the user, and perform real-time billing for the use of the service. Prior to standardized CAMEL control of the Short Message Service, IN control relied on switch vendor specific extensions to the Intelligent Network Application Part (INAP) of SS7.[citation needed]

AT commands

[edit]

Many mobile and satellite transceiver units support the sending and receiving of SMS using an extended version of the Hayes command set. The extensions were standardised as part of the GSM Standards and extended as part of the 3GPP standards process.[96]

The connection between the terminal equipment and the transceiver can be realized with a serial cable (e.g., USB), a Bluetooth link, an infrared link, etc. Common AT commands include AT+CMGS (send message), AT+CMSS (send message from storage), AT+CMGL (list messages) and AT+CMGR (read message).[97]

However, not all modern devices support receiving of messages if the message storage (for instance the device's internal memory) is not accessible using AT commands.[98]

Premium-rated short messages

[edit]

The Value-added service provider (VASP) providing premium-rate content submits the message to the mobile operator's SMSC(s) using a TCP/IP protocol such as the short message peer-to-peer protocol (SMPP) or the External Machine Interface (EMI). The SMSC delivers the text using the normal Mobile Terminated delivery procedure. The subscribers are charged extra for receiving this premium content; the revenue is typically divided between the mobile network operator and the VASP either through revenue share or a fixed transport fee. Submission to the SMSC is usually handled by a third party.[citation needed]

Mobile-originated short messages may also be used in a premium-rated manner for services such as televoting. In this case, the VASP providing the service obtains a short code from the telephone network operator, and subscribers send texts to that number. The payouts to the carriers vary by carrier; percentages paid are greatest on the lowest-priced premium SMS services. Most information providers should expect to pay about 45 percent of the cost of the premium SMS up front to the carrier. The submission of the text to the SMSC is identical to a standard MO Short Message submission, but once the text is at the SMSC, the Service Center (SC) identifies the Short Code as a premium service. The SC will then direct the content of the text message to the VASP, typically using an IP protocol such as SMPP or EMI. Subscribers are charged a premium for the sending of such messages, with the revenue typically shared between the network operator and the VASP. Short codes only work within one country, they are not international.[citation needed]

An alternative to inbound SMS is based on long numbers (international number format, such as "+44 762 480 5000"), which can be used in place of short codes for SMS reception in several applications, such as TV voting, product promotions and campaigns. Long numbers work internationally, allow businesses to use their own numbers, rather than short codes, which are usually shared across many brands. Additionally, long numbers are nonpremium inbound numbers.[59]

Threaded SMS

[edit]

Threaded SMS is a visual styling orientation of SMS message history that arranges messages to and from a contact in chronological order on a single screen. It was first invented by a developer working to implement the SMS client for the BlackBerry, who was looking to make use of the blank screen left below the message on a device with a larger screen capable of displaying far more than the usual 160 characters, and was inspired by threaded Reply conversations in email.[99]

Visually, this style of representation provides a back-and-forth chat-like history for each individual contact.[100] Hierarchical-threading at the conversation-level (as typical in blogs and online messaging boards) is not widely supported by SMS messaging clients. This limitation is due to the fact that there is no session identifier or subject-line passed back and forth between sent and received messages in the header data (as specified by SMS protocol) from which the client device can properly thread an incoming message to a specific dialogue, or even to a specific message within a dialogue.

Most smart phone text-messaging-clients are able to create some contextual threading of "group messages" which narrows the context of the thread around the common interests shared by group members. On the other hand, advanced enterprise messaging applications which push messages from a remote server often display a dynamically changing reply number (multiple numbers used by the same sender), which is used along with the sender's phone number to create session-tracking capabilities analogous to the functionality that cookies provide for web-browsing.[citation needed] As one pervasive example, this technique is used to extend the functionality of many Instant Messenger (IM) applications such that they are able to communicate over two-way dialogues with the much larger SMS user-base.[101] In cases where multiple reply numbers are used by the enterprise server to maintain the dialogue, the visual conversation threading on the client may be separated into multiple threads.[citation needed]

Application-to-person (A2P) SMS

[edit]

While SMS reached its popularity as a person-to-person messaging, another type of SMS is growing fast: application-to-person (A2P) messaging. A2P is a type of SMS sent from a subscriber to an application or sent from an application to a subscriber. It is commonly used by businesses, such as banks, e-gaming, logistic companies, e-commerce, to send SMS messages from their systems to their customers.[102]

In the US, carriers have traditionally preferred that A2P messages be sent using a short code rather than a standard long code.[103] In 2021, US carriers introduced a new service called A2P 10DLC, supporting the used of 10-digit long codes for A2P messages.[104][105][106] In the United Kingdom A2P messages can be sent with a dynamic 11 character sender ID; however, short codes are used for OPTOUT commands.

Satellite phone networks

[edit]

All commercial satellite phone networks except ACeS and OptusSat support SMS.[citation needed] While early Iridium handsets only support incoming SMS, later models can also send messages. The price per message varies for different networks. Unlike some mobile phone networks, there is no extra charge for sending international SMS or to send one to a different satellite phone network. SMS can sometimes be sent from areas where the signal is too poor to make a voice call.

Satellite phone networks usually have web-based or email-based SMS portals where one can send free SMS to phones on that particular network.

Unreliability

[edit]

Unlike dedicated texting systems like the Simple Network Paging Protocol and Motorola's ReFLEX protocol,[107] SMS message delivery is not guaranteed, and many implementations provide no mechanism through which a sender can determine whether an SMS message has been delivered in a timely manner.[108] SMS messages are generally treated as lower-priority traffic than voice, and various studies have shown that around 1% to 5% of messages are lost entirely, even during normal operation conditions, and others may not be delivered until long after their relevance has passed.[109] The use of SMS as an emergency notification service in particular has been questioned.[108]

Vulnerabilities

[edit]
An example of a phishing attack through SMS, showing a fake message and URL claiming to be from Apple

The Global Service for Mobile communications (GSM), with the greatest worldwide number of users, succumbs to several security vulnerabilities. In the GSM, only the airway traffic between the Mobile Station (MS) and the Base Transceiver Station (BTS) is optionally encrypted with a weak and broken stream cipher (A5/1 or A5/2). The authentication is unilateral and also vulnerable. There are also many other security vulnerabilities and shortcomings.[110] Such vulnerabilities are inherent to SMS as one of the superior and well-tried services with a global availability in the GSM networks. SMS messaging has some extra security vulnerabilities due to its store-and-forward feature, and the problem of fake SMS that can be conducted via the Internet. When a user is roaming, SMS content passes through different networks, perhaps including the Internet, and is exposed to various vulnerabilities and attacks. Another concern arises when an adversary gets access to a phone and reads the previous unprotected messages.[111]

In October 2005, researchers from Pennsylvania State University published an analysis of vulnerabilities in SMS-capable cellular networks. The researchers speculated that attackers might exploit the open functionality of these networks to disrupt them or cause them to fail, possibly on a nationwide scale.[112]

SMS spoofing

[edit]

The GSM industry has identified a number of potential fraud attacks on mobile operators that can be delivered via abuse of SMS messaging services. The most serious threat is SMS Spoofing, which occurs when a fraudster manipulates address information in order to impersonate a user that has roamed onto a foreign network and is submitting messages to the home network. Frequently, these messages are addressed to destinations outside the home network—with the home SMSC essentially being "hijacked" to send messages into other networks.[citation needed]

The only sure way of detecting and blocking spoofed messages is to screen incoming mobile-originated messages to verify that the sender is a valid subscriber and that the message is coming from a valid and correct location. This can be implemented by adding an intelligent routing function to the network that can query originating subscriber details from the home location register (HLR) before the message is submitted for delivery. This kind of intelligent routing function is beyond the capabilities of legacy messaging infrastructure.[113]

Limitation

[edit]

In an effort to limit telemarketers who had taken to bombarding users with hordes of unsolicited messages, India introduced new regulations in September 2011, including a cap of 3,000 SMS messages per subscriber per month, or an average of 100 per subscriber per day.[114] Due to representations received from some of the service providers and consumers, TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) has raised this limit to 200 SMS messages per SIM per day in case of prepaid services, and up to 6,000 SMS messages per SIM per month in case of postpaid services with effect from November 1, 2011.[115] However, it was ruled unconstitutional by the Delhi high court, but there are some limitations.[116]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Short Message Service (SMS) is a store-and-forward protocol standardized for transmission of brief alphanumeric messages, typically up to 160 characters in length using 7-bit encoding, between mobile devices over cellular networks such as . Developed in the early 1980s by engineers including Friedhelm Hillebrand, who proposed the core concept of short personal messaging during standardization efforts by the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), SMS enables asynchronous communication without requiring both parties to be online simultaneously, distinguishing it from circuit-switched voice calls. The first operational SMS message, "Merry ," was sent on December 3, 1992, by engineer Neil Papworth from a computer to a Orbitel 901 handset via the UK's , marking the practical debut of the service shortly after its formal specification in phase 1 standards. SMS rapidly proliferated in the and as mobile penetration grew, evolving from a niche notification tool—initially for alerts and network updates—to a primary interpersonal and commercial medium due to its low bandwidth demands and universal compatibility across carriers without needing . By , messages are routed via SMS centers (SMSCs) that queue and deliver payloads even if the recipient device is temporarily unavailable, supporting global under protocols like those in TS 23.040 for technical realization. Adoption peaked with cultural phenomena like widespread youth texting in and , where prepaid plans incentivized volume over voice minutes, though vulnerabilities to spoofing and emerged as usage scaled, prompting regulatory scrutiny on and . As of recent estimates, approximately 23 billion SMS messages are exchanged daily worldwide, underscoring its enduring role in two-factor authentication, alerts, and regions with limited data infrastructure despite competition from IP-based alternatives.

History

Origins and Initial Development

The concept of Short Message Service (SMS) emerged in the early 1980s as part of efforts to standardize mobile in through the Global System for Mobile Communications (). In , the Conférence Européenne des Administrations des Postes et des Télécommunications (CEPT) established the GSM group to develop a pan-European digital cellular network, addressing fragmentation in analog systems. Friedhelm Hillebrand, a German engineer, and Bernard Ghillebaert, a French counterpart, proposed the SMS idea in 1984 during Franco-German collaboration within the GSM working group, envisioning a simple, asynchronous system that could utilize existing signaling channels without requiring dedicated voice circuits. Hillebrand's contributions were instrumental in defining SMS parameters; to determine feasible message length, he manually typed common phrases and sentences on a typewriter, counting characters until they exceeded the capacity of GSM's available signaling bits, settling on a 160-character alphanumeric limit that balanced usability with efficient use of the network's control channel. This limit ensured SMS could operate as a low-bandwidth, store-and-forward service routed via a Short Message Service Center (SMSC), independent of call setup. The GSM memorandum of understanding, signed in 1987 by 13 European nations, formalized SMS within the standard's Phase 1 specifications, though implementation required further protocol refinements by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). Initial development progressed through prototypes in the late 1980s and early 1990s, focusing on integration with 's SS7 signaling system for message routing. The first functional demonstration occurred on December 3, 1992, when 22-year-old engineer Neil Papworth, working for Sema Group (a contractor), transmitted the message "Merry Christmas" from a via the network to an Orbitel 901 handset owned by colleague Richard Jarvis in the . This test validated end-to-end delivery using a development SMSC, confirming SMS's viability on live infrastructure before commercial rollout.

Standardization and Early Deployments

The Short Message Service (SMS) was standardized as an integral component of the (GSM) specifications developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The primary technical specification for point-to-point SMS, , outlined the protocol for message transfer between mobile stations and service centers within the GSM (PLMN), including procedures for submission, delivery, and status reporting. Complementary standards, such as , defined the default 7-bit alphabet for , enabling up to 160 characters per message in the initial format. These specifications were finalized in the early as part of GSM Phase 1, building on earlier conceptual work from the late to ensure interoperability across European networks amid the shift from analog to digital cellular systems. The first operational SMS transmission occurred on December 3, 1992, over the network in the , when engineer Neil Papworth sent the message "Merry Christmas" from a to the Orbitel 901 handset of colleague Richard Jarvis. This test demonstrated the feasibility of SMS using the existing signaling channels (specifically, the control channel for delivery during idle periods), without requiring dedicated data infrastructure. Initial deployments were confined to early operators, as SMS relied on the (SMSC) to store and forward messages when recipients were unavailable, a mechanism specified in to handle and mobility. Commercial rollout began in 1993, with Aldiscon providing the first SMS service to Telia in , followed by deployments in networks such as Fleet Call (later AirTouch) in the United States and in . These early systems supported basic person-to-person messaging and rudimentary application-to-person alerts, such as network notifications, but adoption was gradual due to limited handset compatibility—initially only and similar devices with numeric keypads for input—and the absence of cross-network interoperability until later enhancements. By mid-1993, SMS volumes remained low, with operators like Radiolinja in integrating it into their 1991-launched service for paging-like notifications, marking the transition from experimental to viable consumer feature in digital mobile ecosystems.

Rapid Growth and Peak Adoption

Following early deployments in GSM networks, SMS usage accelerated dramatically in the late 1990s and early 2000s as mobile phone penetration expanded and per-message costs declined, particularly in and where prepaid plans made it accessible to younger users. By 2002, global SMS traffic exceeded 250 billion messages annually, reflecting widespread adoption on feature phones equipped with input like T9. In the United States, average monthly texts per user rose from 35 in 2000 to surpassing voice calls by 2007, driven by network expansions and cultural shifts toward asynchronous communication. This growth intensified through the mid-2000s, fueled by viral phenomena such as SMS-based voting in events like Eurovision in 2002 and the popularity of character-limited novels in Japan by 2003, which normalized texting as a social medium. Worldwide volumes reached 6.1 trillion messages in 2010, equivalent to 200,000 per minute, before climbing 44% to 7.4 trillion in 2011. Peak adoption occurred around 2011-2012, when SMS dominated person-to-person mobile messaging globally, with daily volumes approaching 23 billion in some estimates, prior to the rise of internet-based alternatives like (launched 2009) and (2011) that offered richer media without carrier fees. In the U.S., total messages hit 2.4 trillion in 2011, marking the zenith before smartphone data plans shifted preferences. While application-to-person services continued growing, peer-to-peer SMS volumes began declining post-2012 as over-the-top apps proliferated on / networks.

Modern Challenges and Shifts

In developed markets, person-to-person SMS usage has declined sharply since the early 2010s due to the rise of over-the-top (OTT) messaging applications like and , which provide richer media support, , and internet-based delivery without carrier fees. Globally, enterprise SMS volumes for one-time passwords (OTPs) and marketing have also decreased in high-income regions, though outliers persist in the United States where SMS remains a key channel for business communications. Despite this, an estimated 5.9 billion people worldwide were projected to send or receive SMS messages by 2025, with sustained relevance in developing countries reliant on feature phones and limited data infrastructure. Security vulnerabilities pose significant modern challenges, as SMS lacks inherent , making it susceptible to interception, SIM swapping attacks, and impersonation. Smishing—phishing via SMS—has surged, with 76% of businesses reporting incidents in the past year and a 328% increase in attacks, often exploiting trust in text alerts for financial scams that cost U.S. consumers $470 million in 2024 alone. Scammers increasingly use "SMS blasters" capable of sending up to 100,000 fraudulent texts per hour by spoofing legitimate numbers, evading traditional filters. The ongoing sunset of and networks worldwide disrupts SMS reliability, as these legacy systems underpin basic messaging for billions of devices, including feature phones and IoT endpoints. Shutdowns, accelerated since 2022 in regions like and , force migration to /LTE, where SMS fallback may fail without proper operator policies, potentially rendering older handsets unable to send or receive texts. Over 50% of cellular-connected IoT devices risk disconnection without upgrades, impacting sectors like utilities and tracking that depend on SMS alerts. A key shift is the transition toward (RCS), an IP-based protocol enhancing SMS with features like high-resolution media, read receipts, and group chats, while maintaining fallback to SMS for interoperability. Following Apple's RCS support rollout in 18 during 2024, U.S. daily RCS messages reached 1 billion by mid-2025, signaling accelerated adoption among Android and users. However, RCS deployment remains uneven globally, with the market valued at approximately $3 billion in 2025 but limited by carrier fragmentation and incomplete in many implementations. This evolution addresses SMS constraints but introduces higher costs and dependency on data connectivity, preserving SMS's role in low-bandwidth scenarios like emergency notifications and two-factor despite its risks.

Technical Foundations

Protocol Mechanics in GSM Networks

The Short Message Service (SMS) in Global System for Mobile Communications () networks relies on the Signaling System No. 7 (SS7) for out-of-band control signaling, enabling asynchronous text message transfer independent of voice circuits. The protocol mechanics are governed by GSM Technical Specification 03.40, which outlines point-to-point SMS procedures, including mobile-originated (MO) and mobile-terminated (MT) paths, using Transfer Protocol Data Units (TPDUs) such as SMS-SUBMIT, SMS-DELIVER, and associated acknowledgments. Key network elements include the (MS), (BSS), Mobile Switching Center (MSC), Visitor Location Register (VLR), Home Location Register (HLR), and (SMSC), with the SS7 stack—comprising Message Transfer Part (MTP), Signaling Connection Control Part (SCCP), Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP), and Mobile Application Part (MAP)—facilitating inter-entity communication. SMS employs a layered architecture for protocol handling: the SMS Application Layer (SM-AL) manages user data and service elements; the Transfer Layer (SM-TL) encodes/decodes Protocol Data Units (PDUs); the Relay Layer (SM-RL) supports relay functions; and lower layers interface with SS7 for transport. operations, such as MO-forwardSM and MT-forwardSM, carry SMS payloads between the MSC and SMSC, while routing queries use SendRoutingInfoForSM to the HLR. The SMSC acts as a store-and-forward node, queuing undeliverable messages and retrying delivery based on network status updates from the HLR. In the MO procedure, the sending MS transmits an SMS-SUBMIT TPDU over the radio interface (using LAPDm and RR layers) to the BSS, which relays it to the serving MSC via the BSS Application Part (BSSAP). The MSC invokes the MO-forwardSM operation over SS7 to deliver the message to the SMSC, which acknowledges receipt with an SMS-SUBMIT-REPORT to the MS, confirming submission success regardless of final delivery. The SMSC then initiates delivery to the recipient by querying the HLR with SendRoutingInfoForSM, obtaining the recipient's IMSI, serving MSC address, and VLR details; if the recipient is unreachable, the HLR may trigger an AlertServiceCentre message upon availability. For MT procedures, an external entity or another SMSC submits the message to the originating SMSC, which performs the HLR routing query as in MO delivery. The SMSC then sends MT-forwardSM over SS7 to the recipient's serving MSC/VLR, which pages the MS if idle, delivers the SMS-DELIVER TPDU over the air interface, and receives an acknowledgment from the MS. The MSC/VLR returns an MT-forwardSM acknowledgment to the SMSC, which may issue an SMS-STATUS-REPORT to the original sender indicating delivery status; error conditions, such as subscriber busy or , trigger MAP error responses like System-Failure or Absent-Subscriber. Roaming scenarios involve additional VLR-HLR interactions via MAP ProvideSubscriberInfo to validate subscriber presence before paging.

Message Structure and Constraints

SMS messages are transmitted in the form of (PDUs), which include a Service Centre Address (SCA) specifying the SMS Centre and a Transfer Protocol Data Unit (TPDU) containing the message payload and metadata. The TPDU format varies between SMS-SUBMIT for messages sent from a to the service centre and SMS-DELIVER for messages delivered from the service centre to a . Key TPDU elements include the TP-Message-Type-Indicator (TP-MTI, 2 bits indicating message type), TP-Protocol-Identifier (TP-PID, octet for application or protocol ID), TP-Data-Coding-Scheme (TP-DCS, octet defining encoding and alphabet), TP-User-Data-Length (TP-UDL, specifying length in octets or septets), and TP-User-Data (TP-UD, the message content). SMS-SUBMIT additionally features TP-Destination-Address (TP-DA, 2-12 octets for recipient number), TP-Message-Reference (TP-MR, unique integer), and optional TP-Validity-Period (TP-VP, 0-7 octets for expiration). SMS-DELIVER includes TP-Originating-Address (TP-OA, 2-12 octets for sender) and TP-Service-Centre-Time-Stamp (TP-SCTS, 7 octets for receipt timestamp). Flags such as TP-UDHI (User Data Header Indicator, 1 bit for optional headers like ) and TP-SRR (Status Report Request, 1 bit) modify behavior. The TP-DCS determines the alphabet and encoding, with support for 7-bit default alphabet (per TS 23.038), 8-bit binary data, and UCS2 (16-bit ). The 7-bit default alphabet encodes 128 characters using 7 bits each, enabling packing into octets for efficiency. TP-UD is constrained to 140 octets maximum for a single message, with effective character limits varying by encoding; presence of a (e.g., for ) reduces this by 6 octets. The following table outlines limits without headers:
EncodingMax TP-UD LengthMax Characters
7-bit140 octets (160 septets)160
8-bit data140 octets140 bytes
UCS2140 octets70
Validity periods via TP-VP can be relative (up to 63 weeks), absolute (timestamp), or enhanced, but are optional and default to service centre policy if absent. Messages exceeding single-PDU limits use (up to 255 segments via TP-UDHI), but each segment adheres to the 140-octet TP-UD cap. Addresses (TP-DA/TP-OA) use semi-octets for BCD encoding, limited to international or national formats without extension beyond 12 octets.

Interoperability and Delivery Systems

The delivery of SMS messages operates through a store-and-forward architecture centered on the (SMSC), a core network component that receives, stores, routes, and forwards messages. When a user initiates an SMS, the sending transmits it via the Mobile Switching Center (MSC) to the SMSC, which queries the recipient's location using signaling protocols like SS7's (MAP). If the recipient's device is available, the SMSC attempts immediate delivery; otherwise, it stores the message for later forwarding, with retries typically lasting up to 72 hours depending on operator policies. Inter-network delivery involves routing through interconnected carrier SMSCs, often via international or national clearinghouses that handle peering agreements to ensure message exchange. In single-operator scenarios, delivery remains intra-network for efficiency, but cross-carrier transmission requires interoperability protocols to translate addressing (e.g., MSISDN numbers) and handle format compatibility. Delivery success rates exceed 95% in mature networks, though failures can arise from congestion, invalid numbers, or handset issues, prompting SMSCs to generate delivery reports or error codes like those defined in GSM 03.40 standards. Interoperability across diverse networks, such as and CDMA, relies on SS7-based gateways that bridge protocol differences, enabling global SMS exchange since the late . Full cross-carrier SMS in networks was achieved by 1999 through operator agreements, extending to CDMA via standardized teleservices and international protocols that encapsulate messages for compatibility. In regions like the , bodies such as the CTIA enforce guidelines mandating bidirectional SMS support across licensed spectrum bands, including support for and concatenated messages up to 1,600 characters. These measures mitigate issues like one-way delivery failures, which historically affected early CDMA-GSM handoffs due to differing air interface layers, now resolved through IP-based SMS gateways in hybrid LTE environments.

Variants and Non-Standard Extensions

enables the transmission of messages exceeding the standard 140-octet (160-character in GSM-7 encoding) limit by dividing the content into multiple segments, each prefixed with a (UDH) containing a reference number, sequence identifier, and total part count for reassembly by the recipient device. This mechanism, defined in , supports up to 255 segments in practice, though network operators often limit to fewer to manage delivery reliability. Flash SMS, classified as Class 0 under specifications, delivers content that appears immediately on the recipient's screen without storage in the inbox or user notification prompt, making it suitable for urgent alerts like emergency warnings or network provisioning. Unlike standard SMS, it requires explicit device support and may be discarded after display, with delivery confirmed via protocol acknowledgment. Type 0 SMS, also known as silent or null SMS, instructs the mobile equipment to acknowledge receipt to the network but discard the payload without presentation to the user or storage, as specified in 03.40. This variant has been exploited for location tracking by querying cell tower associations upon delivery response, enabling without user awareness, particularly in SS7-interconnected networks. Enhanced Message Service (EMS) represents a extension primarily developed by , , and in the late , layering simple elements—such as bitmapped images, monophonic melodies, animations, and text formatting (e.g., bold, italic)—over via dedicated User Data Headers. Unlike the text-only SMS standard, EMS required compatible handsets and was not universally interoperable, limiting adoption and paving the way for the more robust MMS standard in 2002; it supported up to 30 objects per message but fell into disuse by the mid-2000s due to inconsistent vendor implementations. SMS adaptations for non-GSM networks, such as CDMA (IS-95/) and TDMA (ANSI-136), utilize gateway protocols like SMPP to bridge delivery, maintaining core message structure while adjusting for air-interface differences like coding schemes and signaling. In fixed-line contexts, SMS extensions over PSTN/ISDN employ modem-based gateways for text relay between landlines and mobile networks, introduced in the for interoperability but constrained by lower throughput compared to cellular bearers.

Applications and Usage Patterns

Person-to-Person Communication

The first person-to-person SMS message was transmitted on December 3, 1992, when engineer Neil Papworth sent "Merry Christmas" from a to colleague Richard Jarvis's Orbitel 901 via the network. Initially conceived for network signaling and alerts, SMS rapidly evolved into a bidirectional tool for casual interpersonal exchanges, leveraging existing voice call infrastructure without requiring data connectivity. Standard SMS supports up to 160 characters per message using GSM-7 encoding for basic Latin scripts, numerals, and symbols; messages with characters, emojis, or non-Latin alphabets drop to 70 characters due to UCS-2 encoding inefficiencies. Exceeding limits triggers automatic into multi-part messages, billed separately by carriers, which historically encouraged concise phrasing, abbreviations (e.g., "BRB" for ""), and rudimentary emoticons like ":)" to imply or within tight constraints. Delivery occurs store-and-forward via cellular base stations, with near-real-time receipt on compatible devices, though lacking read receipts or typing indicators in basic implementations. Person-to-person SMS adoption exploded in the late 1990s, driven by falling per-message costs and proliferation; by 2002, global volumes exceeded 250 billion annually, with peaks in regions like the (over 1 billion daily by 2007) where social norms favored texting over calls. In low-data environments, such as and , SMS facilitated coordination, greetings, and flirtation among users without smartphones, sustaining volumes equivalent to over 5 billion daily engagements as of 2024—representing more than 65% of the global population. In high-income markets, however, P2P SMS has waned since 2010 due to competition from internet protocol-based alternatives like (launched 2009) and Facebook Messenger, which provide free, multimedia-rich conversations over or data plans, , and group features absent in plain SMS. U.S. person-to-person volumes, for instance, plateaued after 2012 before declining amid saturation, though total traffic rebounded 8.7% globally in 2024 from hybrid P2P and utility uses. SMS endures for cross-platform reliability, emergency alerts, and two-factor authentication, underscoring its resilience where network coverage outstrips data affordability.

Business and Application-to-Person Services

Application-to-person (A2P) SMS messaging involves the automated transmission of text messages from applications or enterprise systems to individual mobile users, distinct from (P2P) exchanges between persons. This one-directional communication typically requires no user reply and leverages SMS infrastructure for high deliverability, with global volumes exceeding trillions annually due to its integration in sectors like , retail, and healthcare. A2P services emerged prominently in the early as mobile penetration grew, enabling scalable outreach without reliance on data. Key applications include transactional notifications, such as alerts for deposits or detection, which enhance user and by delivering real-time updates to over 90% of mobile devices worldwide. One-time passwords (OTPs) via SMS serve as a primary method for online logins, payments, and account verifications, with billions sent daily to mitigate unauthorized access despite vulnerabilities like SIM swapping. campaigns utilize A2P for promotional offers, flash sales, and loyalty rewards, often achieving open rates above 95% within minutes of sending, though success depends on prior opt-in consent to avoid spam filters. In healthcare, appointment reminders reduce no-show rates by up to 30%, while e-commerce employs order confirmations and shipping updates to streamline . The A2P market reached approximately USD 71.5 billion in , driven by in emerging economies and regulatory pushes for verified messaging, with projections estimating growth to USD 96.7 billion by 2030 at a (CAGR) of 5.4%. , the segment generated USD 14 billion in , fueled by compliance adaptations like 10-digit long code (10DLC) registration. Businesses route A2P through aggregators or mobile network operators (MNOs) using or dedicated long codes, ensuring prioritization over P2P for reliability, though costs vary from $0.001 to $0.05 per message based on volume and geography. Regulatory frameworks mandate explicit consent to curb unsolicited messaging, with the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibiting promotional A2P without prior express written agreement, enforced via fines up to $1,500 per violation since its 1991 enactment and strengthened by 10DLC rules effective December 1, 2022, requiring campaign registration through The Campaign Registry to filter high-risk traffic. In the , the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and demand opt-in mechanisms and data minimization, with national variations like France's CNIL oversight, leading to blocked messages for non-compliance and emphasizing double opt-in for marketing. These measures, while reducing spam, have increased operational costs for enterprises by 20-30% through vetting processes, yet they sustain trust in A2P as a channel for critical communications.

Specialized and Non-Traditional Implementations

SMS has been adapted for machine-to-machine (M2M) communications, particularly in (IoT) applications where low-bandwidth, reliable signaling is required without internet dependency. In these setups, SMS serves as a fallback or primary channel for device , remote commands, and alerts, such as monitoring industrial sensors or activating security systems, leveraging its global cellular coverage and minimal power needs. Protocols like CoAP over SMS enable efficient data exchange for resource-constrained devices, with implementations demonstrating delivery times under 15 seconds for short payloads. Extensions to fixed-line and landline networks represent a non-traditional adaptation, where SMS gateways or VoIP integrations convert messages between cellular protocols and (POTS). Services enable sending texts to numbers, which are converted to voice readouts or handled via app interfaces, supporting bidirectional communication on non-mobile infrastructure. This is achieved through signaling extensions in some PSTN equipment, though adoption remains limited due to the lack of native SMS support in traditional copper networks. In communications, SMS protocols are implemented over geostationary or low-Earth orbit constellations, providing in areas beyond terrestrial cellular reach. Networks like support standard 160-character SMS with delivery guarantees within 15 minutes, using specialized handsets or paired devices for two-way exchange, often for maritime, , or remote fieldwork applications. Recent advancements integrate satellite SMS directly into smartphones, as demonstrated by trials achieving native SMS over space-based cells, with latencies comparable to ground-based . These systems maintain with signaling while compensating for higher delays through .

Security Vulnerabilities and Risks

Protocol-Level Weaknesses

The SMS protocol, standardized in the TS 23.040 specification originating from Phase 2 in 1991, transmits messages without or integrity protection, rendering content vulnerable to interception and tampering in the core network. While the over-the-air link between the and uses stream ciphers like or A5/3 for confidentiality during initial transmission, subsequent routing via the SS7 signaling system or its successor occurs in plaintext or with minimal safeguards, exposing payloads to entities with network access. SS7, the foundational signaling protocol for SMS delivery through the Mobile Application Part (), assumes a perimeter of trust among operators and lacks built-in , , or access controls, a design flaw rooted in its origins for circuit-switched rather than packet-based adversarial environments. This enables global roaming scenarios where foreign networks can query or reroute SMS without verification, facilitating attacks such as message demonstrated publicly since 2014 by researchers exploiting MAP operations like SendRoutingInfoForSM. The protocol's absence of sender permits straightforward spoofing of originating addresses, as SMS centers (SMSCs) forward messages based solely on network-provided parameters without cryptographic validation, a weakness inherent since the protocol's inception and unmitigated in legacy / implementations. No mechanisms exist for or replay detection, allowing duplicated or forged messages to propagate undetected, exacerbating risks in authentication-dependent uses. These flaws persist in transitional networks, where fallback to / during / handovers reintroduces SS7 dependencies, and even in newer systems inherits partial SS7 compatibility without retrofitting comprehensive security, as evidenced by ongoing exploits reported through 2024.

Prevalent Attack Vectors

Smishing, or SMS phishing, represents one of the most widespread attack vectors targeting SMS users, involving fraudulent text messages that lure recipients into clicking malicious links, disclosing sensitive information, or downloading . Attackers often impersonate trusted entities such as banks, agencies, or delivery services to exploit user trust. In February 2025, Americans received a record 19.2 billion spam text messages, highlighting the scale of this . Click-through rates for SMS messages range from 8.9% to 14.5%, significantly higher than phishing equivalents, underscoring the effectiveness of this vector. SMS spoofing enables attackers to falsify the sender's identity, making messages appear to originate from legitimate sources like personal contacts or institutions, thereby facilitating scams such as unauthorized fund transfers or credential theft. This technique exploits the lack of inherent in SMS protocols, allowing easy manipulation of caller ID equivalents in . Spoofed messages have been used in schemes prompting urgent actions, such as verifying account details or claiming prizes, leading to direct financial losses. Interception attacks leverage vulnerabilities in the SS7 signaling protocol, which routes SMS traffic across global networks without encryption, permitting unauthorized access to message contents including one-time passwords (OTPs) for two-factor authentication. Such exploits allow real-time or rerouting of SMS, compromising user and in financial or authentication contexts. Demonstrations of SS7 attacks have revealed capabilities to intercept calls and texts en masse, with ongoing prevalence due to incomplete network upgrades. SIM swapping attacks involve social engineering telecom providers to port a victim's phone number to an attacker-controlled , thereby diverting all incoming SMS—including OTPs—to the perpetrator. This vector bypasses device-level security, enabling account takeovers on platforms reliant on SMS for verification. Regulatory bodies have noted increased incidents tied to lax carrier controls, prompting calls for enhanced identity verification processes. Additional vectors include SMS flooding, where barrages of messages overwhelm devices or incur costs, and malware propagation via embedded links leading to trojan downloads. These attacks exploit SMS's unencrypted nature and user interaction tendencies, with defenses relying on carrier filtering and user awareness rather than protocol-level safeguards.

Reliability and Performance Issues

SMS employs a store-and-forward mechanism without end-to-end delivery guarantees, relying on network operators to attempt transmission until success or expiration, which can result in undelivered messages if the recipient device is unavailable, the network is congested, or other transient issues occur. A 2005 analysis of a nationwide SMS system reported a 5.1% delivery failure rate, comparable to email and inferior to traditional telephony reliability. Typical carrier delivery rates range from 90% to over 99%, but these degrade due to factors such as invalid recipient numbers, device settings blocking messages, carrier spam filters rejecting content deemed promotional or violative, and unverified sender IDs. Performance limitations manifest primarily as variable latency and throughput constraints inherent to the protocol's design over circuit-switched or packet-switched mobile networks. Messages can experience delays from queuing during peak usage periods, such as evenings or mass events, where high traffic volumes overwhelm signaling channels and lead to postponement or selective dropping to manage overload. exacerbates this, with studies showing air interface delays increasing significantly in weak signal environments due to retransmission attempts and reduced channel efficiency. Protocol-level policies may cap maximum delays for priority messages or limit postponement percentages, but overall throughput remains bounded by SMS's original 2G-era specifications, typically handling far lower volumes than modern data services. Additional reliability challenges arise from message fragmentation for content exceeding 160 characters (or 70 in non-Latin encodings), where split segments may arrive out of order or fail independently, compounding errors in long-form transmissions. International introduces further variability, with grey routes used by low-cost providers often yielding inconsistent delivery due to suboptimal paths or regulatory blocks. These issues persist despite advancements in fallback mechanisms, underscoring SMS's foundational constraints in handling scale and real-time demands compared to IP-based alternatives.

Criticisms in Authentication Contexts

SMS-based authentication, particularly for delivering one-time passwords (OTPs) in two-factor authentication (2FA), has faced substantial criticism due to inherent protocol weaknesses that undermine its reliability as a security measure. Despite its widespread adoption for convenience—leveraging the near-universal availability of mobile phones—SMS lacks , exposing messages to interception during transmission over cellular networks. This vulnerability stems from the Signaling System No. 7 (SS7) protocol, an outdated standard from the 1970s designed without modern cryptographic protections, which enables attackers with access to telecom infrastructure to eavesdrop on or reroute SMS traffic globally, including OTPs intended for account verification. A prominent exploit is the SIM swapping attack, where fraudsters impersonate victims to convince mobile carriers to transfer phone numbers to attacker-controlled SIM cards, thereby redirecting all incoming SMS, including codes, without the victim's knowledge. Such attacks have compromised high-value accounts, as attackers exploit carrier processes often reliant on minimal verification, bypassing traditional protections. experts note that phone numbers serve as poor authenticators because they are not inherently secret or possession-bound, and their portability facilitates unauthorized redirection. Regulatory and standards bodies have formalized these concerns; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its Special Publication 800-63B Revision 4, released in 2025, classifies SMS and (PSTN)-based OTPs as "restricted" authenticators, suitable only for low-assurance scenarios due to risks like interception and number porting. NIST advises against their use for sensitive applications, recommending alternatives such as app-generated codes or hardware tokens that resist remote interception. Additional flaws include susceptibility to —where users may disclose OTPs—and transmission delays that can render codes obsolete or prompt repeated sends, increasing exposure windows. These issues have prompted calls from cybersecurity professionals to phase out SMS 2FA entirely in favor of phishing-resistant methods like passkeys.

Societal Impact and Evolution

Global Adoption and Economic Role

SMS, introduced commercially on December 3, 1992, with the first message sent between two handsets in the , rapidly expanded globally as mobile networks proliferated. Adoption accelerated in the late and early , fueled by the affordability of feature phones and per-message pricing models that made it accessible even in low-income regions. By 2025, an estimated 5.9 billion people worldwide were sending and receiving text messages, representing approximately 65% of the global population, with usage sustained by its simplicity and universality across networks. In developing countries, where smartphone penetration lagged and data costs remained high, SMS served as the dominant , enabling person-to-person exchanges and bridging gaps in for . The economic role of SMS has been profound, initially generating significant revenue for mobile operators through usage-based tariffs, which in many markets accounted for a substantial portion of non-voice during peak years. Application-to-person (A2P) messaging evolved into a critical , powering applications such as alerts, notifications, and transactions, with global A2P volumes supporting sectors like and healthcare. In emerging economies, SMS facilitated economic inclusion by enabling mobile money transfers—such as Kenya's , which processed billions in remittances—and communications, reducing information asymmetries for smallholder farmers. Despite declines in person-to-person volumes in developed regions due to internet-based alternatives, A2P SMS maintained operator revenues, projected to comprise 32% of global mobile messaging value by 2029, though total SMS market share eroded amid competition. This dual role in adoption and economics underscores SMS's resilience in underserved areas, where it continues to drive utility beyond mere communication, including interventions and via low-bandwidth alerts. However, high SMS termination fees in some developing markets have occasionally hindered innovative uses, such as AI-driven services, limiting broader economic potential for over a billion users reliant on basic mobiles.

Decline Amid OTT Alternatives

The proliferation of over-the-top (OTT) messaging applications in the early 2010s marked the onset of SMS decline in person-to-person communication, as these internet-based services offered cost-free alternatives over data networks, bypassing traditional carrier billing. Apps such as WhatsApp, launched in 2009 and gaining massive traction by 2011, and Apple's iMessage, introduced in 2011, provided enhanced features including multimedia sharing, group chats, and end-to-end encryption, which SMS—limited to 160-character plain text messages—could not match. By early 2014, WhatsApp alone processed 64 billion messages daily, surpassing twice the global SMS volume at the time. In the United States, SMS volumes peaked in 2011 at 2.4 trillion messages annually before steadily falling as iMessage captured inter-iPhone traffic, where Apple held over 50% smartphone market share. Globally, SMS traffic reached its zenith in 2012, after which OTT adoption accelerated the downturn, particularly in developed markets with affordable data plans and high penetration. Juniper Research projects SMS will constitute only 32% of global mobile messaging revenue by 2029, reflecting the shift to OTT platforms amid declining carrier revenues, estimated at a $3 billion loss to OTT business messaging channels over five years from 2024. While person-to-person SMS usage eroded due to these alternatives' superior functionality and zero over or unlimited data bundles, application-to-person services like one-time passwords persisted longer in regions with limited , though even these faced encroachment from OTT equivalents. Dramatic shifts occurred in markets like the and , where OTT uptake displaced SMS almost entirely by the mid-2010s. OTT dominance stemmed from economic incentives—SMS often incurred per-message fees, while apps leveraged flat-rate —and network effects, with cross-platform compatibility drawing users away from siloed carrier services. By 2024, global OTT business messaging traffic had surged to projections of 375 billion messages annually by 2028, underscoring the irreversible migration driven by user preference for richer, instantaneous communication over SMS's reliability trade-offs in congested networks. This decline prompted carriers to explore successors like RCS, though adoption lagged behind established OTT ecosystems.

Regulatory Responses and Privacy Debates

In the United States, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 has been interpreted to regulate SMS marketing by treating text messages as equivalent to telephone calls, requiring prior express written consent for autodialed or prerecorded commercial texts, clear mechanisms such as replying "STOP," and restrictions on sending messages before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. in the recipient's time zone. Violations can result in fines of $500 to $1,500 per message, enforced by the (FCC), which in January 2024 finalized rules to target unlawful texts by affirming TCPA's coverage of the and enhancing traceback requirements for messaging providers. The primarily governs commercial emails but extends FCC authority to certain text messages sent to wireless devices, mandating sender identification, accurate headers, and options within 10 business days. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes strict requirements for SMS marketing, demanding explicit opt-in consent, purpose limitation, data minimization, and easy withdrawal of consent, with fines up to 4% of global annual turnover for non-compliance. Complementing GDPR, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) prohibit unsolicited marketing texts without prior consent, enforcing daytime sending windows and support for opt-out keywords like "STOP." These frameworks reflect responses to rising SMS spam complaints, with industry bodies like the CTIA providing voluntary guidelines for carriers to filter illegal messages, though enforcement varies by jurisdiction. Privacy debates surrounding SMS center on its inherent lack of and vulnerabilities in the Signaling System No. 7 (SS7) protocol, which enables unauthorized interception of messages, calls, and location data by exploiting trust-based network architecture without robust . SS7 flaws, known since at least 2014, have facilitated real-world attacks including the drainage of bank accounts via intercepted two-factor authentication (2FA) codes sent by SMS, prompting that telecom operators have delayed fixes despite warnings from researchers. Advocates argue for phasing out SMS-based 2FA in favor of app-generated codes or hardware tokens, citing unencrypted and open architecture as persistent risks even as and networks reduce but do not eliminate SS7 reliance. Regulatory responses have been limited, with calls for mandatory upgrades unmet, fueling debates on carrier accountability and the adequacy of legacy protocols in modern privacy standards.

Transition to Successors like RCS

Rich Communication Services (RCS) emerged as the primary successor to SMS, developed by the GSM Association (GSMA) in 2008 to enable IP-based messaging with enhanced features such as high-resolution media sharing, read receipts, typing indicators, and interactive elements, while maintaining SMS fallback for compatibility. Unlike SMS, which is limited to 160 characters and basic attachments via MMS, RCS supports richer content over data networks, addressing the protocol's outdated constraints without requiring app downloads for carrier-integrated implementations. This evolution was driven by the need to compete with over-the-top (OTT) apps like WhatsApp and iMessage, preserving carrier revenue through modernized infrastructure. Initial RCS trials began around 2012, but widespread deployment lagged due to carrier fragmentation and reliance on operator agreements; Google accelerated adoption by integrating RCS into Android's default Messages app and decoupling it from carriers in 2021, enabling universal profile support via Jibe servers. Apple's announcement in November 2023 and implementation in iOS 18 (released September 2024) marked a pivotal shift, extending RCS to cross-platform messaging between iOS and Android, though without full end-to-end encryption parity to iMessage. By mid-2025, RCS usage surged, with over 1 billion messages sent daily in the United States alone, fueled by iPhone support and Android's near-universal coverage. Global business RCS traffic grew from 33 billion messages in 2024 to a projected 50 billion in 2025, particularly in markets like and , which are expected to account for 30% of volumes due to high mobile penetration and regulatory pushes for verified messaging. However, migration challenges persist, including inconsistent carrier support, data dependency leading to SMS fallbacks in low-coverage areas, and integration hurdles with legacy SMS systems, prompting businesses to assess market maturity and fallback strategies before full transitions. Despite these, RCS's verified sender IDs and rich media capabilities position it to supplant SMS for enterprise use, with rates exceeding 40% growth in business messaging year-over-year. SMS volumes have correspondingly declined in RCS-enabled regions, though its universality ensures hybrid use persists amid uneven global rollout.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.