<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FTC Shuts Down Text Message Spammer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/</link>
	<description>The trade association representing the wireless ecosystem.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 19:03:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: REALLY?</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-31649</link>
		<dc:creator>REALLY?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 13:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-31649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: Red Tape

@Amy - Really? No offense, but can you point to specifics? In my dealings with the CTIA, they come across as maids with white gloves, tasked with touching-up the neatly kept affairs of short code marketers. 6 months after your post, I still only see red tape. 

I hear little about shutting down VOIP, long-code and SMTP gateway offenders. *Please* put down the white gloves and pick up a toilet brush. Given the premium we pay for the right to use the short code channel, we deserve that. 

@Hans, what steps have you taken referenced in your comment, &quot;we work very hard to stop people...&quot;

Thank you]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Red Tape</p>
<p>@Amy - Really? No offense, but can you point to specifics? In my dealings with the CTIA, they come across as maids with white gloves, tasked with touching-up the neatly kept affairs of short code marketers. 6 months after your post, I still only see red tape. </p>
<p>I hear little about shutting down VOIP, long-code and SMTP gateway offenders. *Please* put down the white gloves and pick up a toilet brush. Given the premium we pay for the right to use the short code channel, we deserve that. </p>
<p>@Hans, what steps have you taken referenced in your comment, "we work very hard to stop people..."</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans Hegge</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-13522</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans Hegge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-13522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am excited to see this.  We work hard to educate our customers on what is the best way to engage your customers via text message.  We also work very hard to stop people that use VOIP or long codes to send marketing messages. Short codes is the only way to send &quot;for profit&quot; or revenue generating marketing message to an opted in database.

Again great job!

Thanks,

Hans Hegge
CEO
Text Ripple, Inc]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am excited to see this.  We work hard to educate our customers on what is the best way to engage your customers via text message.  We also work very hard to stop people that use VOIP or long codes to send marketing messages. Short codes is the only way to send "for profit" or revenue generating marketing message to an opted in database.</p>
<p>Again great job!</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Hans Hegge<br />
CEO<br />
Text Ripple, Inc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Crybaby</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-10879</link>
		<dc:creator>Crybaby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-10879</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stop crying and grow up]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stop crying and grow up</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy Storey</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-9477</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Storey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-9477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We recognize some of the requirements may be unnecessarily burdensome and are working to eliminate what isn’t needed so we can focus on what’s most important to consumers. We welcome your suggestions (support [AT] USshortcodes.com) on how to improve the SMS channel for both consumers and marketers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We recognize some of the requirements may be unnecessarily burdensome and are working to eliminate what isn’t needed so we can focus on what’s most important to consumers. We welcome your suggestions (support [AT] USshortcodes.com) on how to improve the SMS channel for both consumers and marketers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Concerned SMS</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-9292</link>
		<dc:creator>Concerned SMS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-9292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree spam should be kept off the SMS channel, and understand the concept of &quot;opting In&quot; for customers.  My problem (as a content provider) is the CTIA and NeuStar make up more red tape that sometimes does not make sense.  Yet, the third party of the content providers have no say on the new rules that affect how customers use our services.  It is just like a cable company and tv manufacturer telling ABC, CBS, NBC the criteria for what type of shows need to shown to customers.  Content providers should have more say on the new rules for the SMS channel (THEY ARE SHARED CUSTOMERS), keeping us in the closet will only go on for so long.  I can see why many content providers are now turning to FaceBook and Twitter and scaling back on SMS, because of the red tape, costs and hassle.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree spam should be kept off the SMS channel, and understand the concept of "opting In" for customers.  My problem (as a content provider) is the CTIA and NeuStar make up more red tape that sometimes does not make sense.  Yet, the third party of the content providers have no say on the new rules that affect how customers use our services.  It is just like a cable company and tv manufacturer telling ABC, CBS, NBC the criteria for what type of shows need to shown to customers.  Content providers should have more say on the new rules for the SMS channel (THEY ARE SHARED CUSTOMERS), keeping us in the closet will only go on for so long.  I can see why many content providers are now turning to FaceBook and Twitter and scaling back on SMS, because of the red tape, costs and hassle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Text messaging: The 20th century technology that just won&#8217;t die &#124; The Technology Buzz</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-8484</link>
		<dc:creator>Text messaging: The 20th century technology that just won&#8217;t die &#124; The Technology Buzz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-8484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] text messag, mobile network operator, 20th century technology, email  Mouse here for Related LinksText Messaging Spammer Shut Down By FTC        &#8592; Next post Previous post [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] text messag, mobile network operator, 20th century technology, email  Mouse here for Related LinksText Messaging Spammer Shut Down By FTC        &larr; Next post Previous post [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John H Meyers</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-7627</link>
		<dc:creator>John H Meyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-7627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[31778 is TracFone (and their other brands such as Net10, StraightTalk).  Are you on that system?  Did you switch any SIM card with a phone from that system?

The &quot;long string of numbers following //TF&quot; is probably data for updating the phone itself, and normally would not be visible to phones on that system.  In fact, phones on the TF system do not charge for messages from that code, because the messages are used only for phone updates and responses from TF for service confirmations, etc.

If the above does not explain why you receive such messages, just call TracFone and tell them about receiving such messages in error -- I&#039;m sure they will want to correct this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>31778 is TracFone (and their other brands such as Net10, StraightTalk).  Are you on that system?  Did you switch any SIM card with a phone from that system?</p>
<p>The "long string of numbers following //TF" is probably data for updating the phone itself, and normally would not be visible to phones on that system.  In fact, phones on the TF system do not charge for messages from that code, because the messages are used only for phone updates and responses from TF for service confirmations, etc.</p>
<p>If the above does not explain why you receive such messages, just call TracFone and tell them about receiving such messages in error -- I'm sure they will want to correct this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NotAsDumbAsYouThink</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-6604</link>
		<dc:creator>NotAsDumbAsYouThink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-6604</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are incorrect. When you agreed to your TV contract and selected your stations, you &quot;opted-in&quot; to receive the content transmitted by those stations, including commercials.

In a contract, both parties receive &quot;consideration&quot;. 

With your &quot;the TV I paid for&quot; contract, the vendor receives your money as their consideration. As your consideration, via a connection (cable, satellite, etc.), you can select various TV stations from which to receive transmissions. The content of those transmissions may include movies, news, sports, commercials, etc. You willingly chose to enter into a contract to receive those transmissions.   

I would have thought someone as smart as you would realize this.

And, considering that you are smarter than everyone, I have a humble request. Please contact the less intelligent people at the TV stations and provide them with the brilliant concept you must have, in which they can eliminate commercials yet still raise money so that they can transmit your favourite programs. 

On now, onward...

With a phone contract, the vendor once again receives your money as consideration. The consideration you receive from them is to simply act as the carrier of your transmissions. Specific content is not a factor, in regard to the contract. 

Of special note, most often the contract sets specific limitations (volume, size, etc.) for the various types of transmissions allowed. Exceeding those limits entitles the vendor to additional consideration (typically at a much higher rate than the original package). 

Quite often, a contract includes a limit on the number of text messages one can receive. Therefore, spurious messages (AKA spam) are, for the most part, unwelcome, as they can potentially cause an additional charge to be incurred by the phone&#039;s owner, if they cause the owner to exceed their threshold for total number of text messages allowed.  

Here&#039;s a parallel example of sending spam messages:

Suppose the post office decided they were no longer going to charge any companies for delivering their advertisements (AKA junk mail). Instead, they would charge the recipient a fee for each piece of mail put into their mailbox. Sounds ridiculous, doesn&#039;t it? Bordering on absurd? It&#039;s scary to think of the potential cost the recipient would incur as more and more companies take advantage of this free advertising.

Now, simply substitute the physical mailbox in this scenario with a virtual mailbox on a phone. This is the concept you are defending, SmarterThanYou. You call it &quot;free speech&quot;, when in fact, it is actually &quot;paid for by the other guy&quot; speech?

On a final note, I&#039;m not sure why you attributed this particular issue, in a predjudiced manner, to a particular segment of society, but let me assure you that the issue is being complained about worldwide, to all of the telecom companies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are incorrect. When you agreed to your TV contract and selected your stations, you "opted-in" to receive the content transmitted by those stations, including commercials.</p>
<p>In a contract, both parties receive "consideration". </p>
<p>With your "the TV I paid for" contract, the vendor receives your money as their consideration. As your consideration, via a connection (cable, satellite, etc.), you can select various TV stations from which to receive transmissions. The content of those transmissions may include movies, news, sports, commercials, etc. You willingly chose to enter into a contract to receive those transmissions.   </p>
<p>I would have thought someone as smart as you would realize this.</p>
<p>And, considering that you are smarter than everyone, I have a humble request. Please contact the less intelligent people at the TV stations and provide them with the brilliant concept you must have, in which they can eliminate commercials yet still raise money so that they can transmit your favourite programs. </p>
<p>On now, onward...</p>
<p>With a phone contract, the vendor once again receives your money as consideration. The consideration you receive from them is to simply act as the carrier of your transmissions. Specific content is not a factor, in regard to the contract. </p>
<p>Of special note, most often the contract sets specific limitations (volume, size, etc.) for the various types of transmissions allowed. Exceeding those limits entitles the vendor to additional consideration (typically at a much higher rate than the original package). </p>
<p>Quite often, a contract includes a limit on the number of text messages one can receive. Therefore, spurious messages (AKA spam) are, for the most part, unwelcome, as they can potentially cause an additional charge to be incurred by the phone's owner, if they cause the owner to exceed their threshold for total number of text messages allowed.  </p>
<p>Here's a parallel example of sending spam messages:</p>
<p>Suppose the post office decided they were no longer going to charge any companies for delivering their advertisements (AKA junk mail). Instead, they would charge the recipient a fee for each piece of mail put into their mailbox. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Bordering on absurd? It's scary to think of the potential cost the recipient would incur as more and more companies take advantage of this free advertising.</p>
<p>Now, simply substitute the physical mailbox in this scenario with a virtual mailbox on a phone. This is the concept you are defending, SmarterThanYou. You call it "free speech", when in fact, it is actually "paid for by the other guy" speech?</p>
<p>On a final note, I'm not sure why you attributed this particular issue, in a predjudiced manner, to a particular segment of society, but let me assure you that the issue is being complained about worldwide, to all of the telecom companies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-6582</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-6582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are right. When I sent STOP to 55330 it never happened. When I sent message back to them telling then they&#039;ve been reported to the FCC, they sent another shortly after that. Next after an hour later similar text came in from 31778, and they sent another right after ai sent the word STOP. They&#039;ve both been sending a long string of number following&quot; / //TF &quot; in the quotes, but without the quotes in the message.

I don&#039;t see what purpose it will serve them to change the number and continue to send other than jsut trying to annoy people. I&#039;m also on the Do Not Call List for several years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right. When I sent STOP to 55330 it never happened. When I sent message back to them telling then they've been reported to the FCC, they sent another shortly after that. Next after an hour later similar text came in from 31778, and they sent another right after ai sent the word STOP. They've both been sending a long string of number following" / //TF " in the quotes, but without the quotes in the message.</p>
<p>I don't see what purpose it will serve them to change the number and continue to send other than jsut trying to annoy people. I'm also on the Do Not Call List for several years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SmarterThanYou</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-5565</link>
		<dc:creator>SmarterThanYou</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 18:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-5565</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I never &quot;opted-in&quot; for TV commercials nor can I &quot;opt-out&quot;.  How come they&#039;re not being stopped for the SPAM coming in on the channels of the TV I paid for?  Why isn&#039;t the FTC pursuing them?  Kinda makes me think that they&#039;re just going after the &quot;little guy&quot; because he can&#039;t buy them off in DC like the others.  Does a txt msg really hurt you?  Is it as influential as a TV ad that you see a dozen or so times per day?  Isn&#039;t telling someone what they can do/not do for advertising a complete violation of that person&#039;s free speech?  If you selectively apply laws as most ignorant, white, christian americans do, then you yourself do not deserve those same protections if you will not allow them to all.  Grow up americans you have much bigger issues going on then worrying about someone sending you a text message.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never "opted-in" for TV commercials nor can I "opt-out".  How come they're not being stopped for the SPAM coming in on the channels of the TV I paid for?  Why isn't the FTC pursuing them?  Kinda makes me think that they're just going after the "little guy" because he can't buy them off in DC like the others.  Does a txt msg really hurt you?  Is it as influential as a TV ad that you see a dozen or so times per day?  Isn't telling someone what they can do/not do for advertising a complete violation of that person's free speech?  If you selectively apply laws as most ignorant, white, christian americans do, then you yourself do not deserve those same protections if you will not allow them to all.  Grow up americans you have much bigger issues going on then worrying about someone sending you a text message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-4296</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-4296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, out out is broken but the industry is making strides. Take for example the open sms email gateways. Almost every major cell provider offers an email sms gateway. With no short code at all a spammer can send emails to your phone just by sending it to yournumber@yourgateway.com. 
But SMTP email to cell phones are highly unreliable and heavily protected. The normal SMS protocol is SMPP which requires a special gateway. Users usually have to buy credits at an average price of $0.11 each to send sms texts via these gateways. Gateway providers offer a wide range of solutions including Short Codes. Getting a short code can take up to 8 weeks and an applicant can still be denied if their software and systems dont meet criteria. Once a short code is attained, it is a valuable although expensive, tool to the avid mobile marketer. Similar to the DEA license a pharmacy has, sms providers do not want to jeopardize their time and money by spamming with their short code.
The Federal DNC Registry was supposed to help but sells its list to telemarketers. I&#039;m not sure how that is supposed to protect me. I dont list with the registry and I dont get telemarketing calls, go figure. 
SMS Spam is not as well known as email spam accounting for only about 1% of SMS traffic in the United States. In India, where unlimited texts are the norm, SMS spam consumes 30% of the total SMS traffic. By comparison, here in the United States about 70% of email traffic is spam.
Thanks to the work of the FCC, Cellular providers and telecoms, SMS spam is not a daily concern of most Americans. 
With that said, the majority of bulk sms user are not actually spammers but companies with Opt-In lists who send millions of sms texts daily to people who are happy to receive them. Kudos for using proven and effective and ethical mobile marketing strategies.  It makes the world a better place. I get sms texts from my local pizza shop whenever they have a special, about once a week. I love it and wouldn&#039;t trade it in.
FCC, please keep up the good work of weeding out the bad seeds so I can enjoy the messages I want from the people who use the systems ethically and legally.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, out out is broken but the industry is making strides. Take for example the open sms email gateways. Almost every major cell provider offers an email sms gateway. With no short code at all a spammer can send emails to your phone just by sending it to <a href="mailto:yournumber@yourgateway.com">yournumber@yourgateway.com</a>.<br />
But SMTP email to cell phones are highly unreliable and heavily protected. The normal SMS protocol is SMPP which requires a special gateway. Users usually have to buy credits at an average price of $0.11 each to send sms texts via these gateways. Gateway providers offer a wide range of solutions including Short Codes. Getting a short code can take up to 8 weeks and an applicant can still be denied if their software and systems dont meet criteria. Once a short code is attained, it is a valuable although expensive, tool to the avid mobile marketer. Similar to the DEA license a pharmacy has, sms providers do not want to jeopardize their time and money by spamming with their short code.<br />
The Federal DNC Registry was supposed to help but sells its list to telemarketers. I'm not sure how that is supposed to protect me. I dont list with the registry and I dont get telemarketing calls, go figure.<br />
SMS Spam is not as well known as email spam accounting for only about 1% of SMS traffic in the United States. In India, where unlimited texts are the norm, SMS spam consumes 30% of the total SMS traffic. By comparison, here in the United States about 70% of email traffic is spam.<br />
Thanks to the work of the FCC, Cellular providers and telecoms, SMS spam is not a daily concern of most Americans.<br />
With that said, the majority of bulk sms user are not actually spammers but companies with Opt-In lists who send millions of sms texts daily to people who are happy to receive them. Kudos for using proven and effective and ethical mobile marketing strategies.  It makes the world a better place. I get sms texts from my local pizza shop whenever they have a special, about once a week. I love it and wouldn't trade it in.<br />
FCC, please keep up the good work of weeding out the bad seeds so I can enjoy the messages I want from the people who use the systems ethically and legally.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate W</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-3999</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-3999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The &quot;opt out&quot; idea is broken - as noted above, the spammer need only change to a different short-code and then spam you again.  

If you&#039;re lucky, it accomplishes nothing.  

If you&#039;re not lucky, it confirms to the spammer that you actually read and respond to their spam, so you end up getting more spam than you would have otherwise.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The "opt out" idea is broken - as noted above, the spammer need only change to a different short-code and then spam you again.  </p>
<p>If you're lucky, it accomplishes nothing.  </p>
<p>If you're not lucky, it confirms to the spammer that you actually read and respond to their spam, so you end up getting more spam than you would have otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-1996</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-1996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m glad they shut them down, but I still want to know one thing......Why do we have to opt-out of something when we never opted-in?  Anything sent without us requesting it should be spam, regardless of them showing the &quot;STOP&quot; instructions at the bottom.  They&#039;ve still cost me for a text I didn&#039;t want and it&#039;s still spam.  And they don&#039;t necessarily opt you out.  They just change to a different short code.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm glad they shut them down, but I still want to know one thing......Why do we have to opt-out of something when we never opted-in?  Anything sent without us requesting it should be spam, regardless of them showing the "STOP" instructions at the bottom.  They've still cost me for a text I didn't want and it's still spam.  And they don't necessarily opt you out.  They just change to a different short code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wheatgrass Juicers</title>
		<link>http://blog.ctia.org/2011/02/25/ftc-shuts-down-text-message-spammer/#comment-1825</link>
		<dc:creator>Wheatgrass Juicers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 05:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ctia.org/?p=1615#comment-1825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That is good that the FTC is watching this. Receiving spam texts is very frustrating.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is good that the FTC is watching this. Receiving spam texts is very frustrating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
