How can I get credit for undelivered SMS messages?

[AboutToGoPostal]

I've been having trouble - undelivered text messages - on and off all year.

I use Google Voice, so I have logs that show that messages I never received were sent.

Google Voice shows R sent me messages at 6:44 PM and 8:15 PM, and C did at 7:02 PM, all on Sunday.  I got earlier and later messages, but not these.

Is there a way to get credit other than calling in?  Tech folks are unable to troubleshoot. They don't have access to logs, so they simply suggest I swap my SIM and/or phone, hoping that 'll fix it or make me go away.

[tyboadams1982]

and sms messages are that are received on the network are repeatedly attempted to be delivered for 72 hours then the message is dropped thats how it works for every carrier, i work for sprint tech support if you are using a third party application for sms then no at&t would not be responsible for the issue due to the fact that you are using google voice and not direct sms through the at&t network.

[AboutToGoPostal]

---

@spmfox wrote:
ATT didnt invent the SMS protocol, you can take that up with the "maker" of the protocol. While your at it, why not dispute things the government does to "guarantee" the economy goes up. Plain and simple, the document you referenced doesnt use that word in the same context as you are.

---

I've got no issue with the protocol.  I have an issue with AT&T's implementation; namely it's defective.  If all the carriers drop messages after 72 hours, they're all defective implementations.  

I've written a protocol specification that is in widespread use.  Have you?

[coolstorybro]

Turn your phone off for 72 hours, send yourself a message and see what happens. Maybe you should be on mythbusters or something lol

[wingrider01]

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:

---

@spmfox wrote:
ATT didnt invent the SMS protocol, you can take that up with the "maker" of the protocol. While your at it, why not dispute things the government does to "guarantee" the economy goes up. Plain and simple, the document you referenced doesnt use that word in the same context as you are.

---

I've got no issue with the protocol.  I have an issue with AT&T's implementation; namely it's defective.  If all the carriers drop messages after 72 hours, they're all defective implementations.  

I've written a protocol specification that is in widespread use.  Have you?

---

really which RFC or NPS did you author and what is the number?

The all carriers have defective implementation becasue they all drop after 72

[AboutToGoPostal]

---

@wingrider01 wrote:

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:

---

@spmfox wrote:
ATT didnt invent the SMS protocol, you can take that up with the "maker" of the protocol. While your at it, why not dispute things the government does to "guarantee" the economy goes up. Plain and simple, the document you referenced doesnt use that word in the same context as you are.

---

I've got no issue with the protocol.  I have an issue with AT&T's implementation; namely it's defective.  If all the carriers drop messages after 72 hours, they're all defective implementations.  

I've written a protocol specification that is in widespread use.  Have you?

---

really which RFC or NPS did you author and what is the number?

The all carriers have defective implementation becasue they all drop after 72

---

If I didn't use a pseudonym here, I'd be happy to tell you.  If one went through enough of my posts, one could figure it out if one was smart.

[AboutToGoPostal]

---

@wingrider01 wrote:

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:

I've written a protocol specification that is in widespread use.  Have you?

---

really which RFC or NPS did you author and what is the number?

Way to answer a question with a question. 

[MicCheck]

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:

---

@wingrider01 wrote:

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:

I've written a protocol specification that is in widespread use.  Have you?

---

really which RFC or NPS did you author and what is the number?

Way to answer a question with a question. 

---

Did you really come back after almost 3 years just to say that?

Are you getting your text messages now?

[AboutToGoPostal]

AT&T service is unreliable for no good reason. Nothing you've said or quoted changes that. AGAIN: If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the documentation of the SMS protocol and system doesn't show that it is engineered to guarantee delivery, go ahead. But I will continue to insist that all the documentation I've seen shows it does, as long as that continues to be true. (SMS is very different from voice service, which is not engineered to guarantee delivery.) If you are trying to lawyer that the SMS service AT&T provides doesn't refer to the standard SMS protocol / system, which your use of the wording "the term" suggests, be my guest. I concede that if AT&T wanted to cower behind its TOS disclaimers (which, BTW should clearly indicate that it does attempt to block SMS spam) as a reason for not providing credit for defective service, it could attempt to do so. AT&T SMS service is unreliable for no good reason, and AT&T won't own up to that truth. Nigh everything you've said is a distraction to obfuscate that fact.

[lizdance40]

@AboutToGoPostal

5 years ago you posted this:

I've been having trouble - undelivered text messages - on and off all year.

I use Google Voice, so I have logs that show that messages I never received were sent.

Google Voice shows R sent me messages at 6:44 PM and 8:15 PM, and C did at 7:02 PM, all on Sunday. I got earlier and later messages, but not these.

Is there a way to get credit other than calling in? Tech folks are unable to troubleshoot. They don't have access to logs, so they simply suggest I swap my SIM and/or phone, hoping that 'll fix it or make me go away.

Since you are using a 3 rd party message service, how does this in any way become an ATT problem?

Its kind of like blaming the post office when your UPS package doesn't arrive.

[sandblaster]

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:
 If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the documentation of the SMS protocol and system doesn't show that it is engineered to guarantee delivery, go ahead. But I will continue to insist that all the documentation I've seen shows it does, as long as that continues to be true..

---

Very interesting thread. I've never thought of SMS as being a guaranteed delivery protocol. As for documentation of that, I believe this is the "official" SMS rfc: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5724.txt. I quote this from paragraph 4:

"SMS messages very often are delivered almost instantaneously (if the receiving SMS client is online), but there is no guarantee for when SMS messages will be delivered.  In particular, SMS messages between different network operators sometimes take a long time to be delivered (hours or even days) or are not delivered at all, so applications SHOULD NOT make any assumptions about the reliability and performance of SMS message transmission."

[lizdance40]

Just plug in "google voice text messages not being received" in browser and I get a ton of responses.  5 years fussing over ATT when you should be troubleshooting your GV account.

[AboutToGoPostal]

---

@sandblaster wrote:

---

@AboutToGoPostal wrote:
 If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the documentation of the SMS protocol and system doesn't show that it is engineered to guarantee delivery, go ahead. But I will continue to insist that all the documentation I've seen shows it does, as long as that continues to be true..

---

Very interesting thread. I've never thought of SMS as being a guaranteed delivery protocol. As for documentation of that, I believe this is the "official" SMS rfc: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5724.txt.

---

Wow, how deceptive can you be? RFC 5724 is CERTAINLY NOT the "official" documentation of the SMS protocol.  The documentation of the SMS protocol is found at the URL I provided.  Let's take a look at the IETF RFC you refer to. It is titled 

URI Scheme for Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)
                      Short Message Service (SMS)

 It does include some useful references, however:

[SMS]      European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "3GPP TS
              23.040 V7.0.1 (2007-03): 3rd Generation Partnership
              Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and
              Terminals; Technical realization of the Short Message
              Service (SMS) (Release 7)", March 2007, <http://
              www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/23_series/23.040/
              23040-701.zip>.

   [SMS-CHAR]
              European Telecommunications Standards Institute, "TS 100
              900 (GSM 03.38 version 7.2.0 Release 1998): Digital
              Cellular Telecommunications System (Phase 2+); Alphabets
              and language-specific information", July 1999, <http://
              www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/03_series/03.38/
              0338-720.zip>.