How much responsibility lies with the handset maker vs. the operator?
On the surface, the operator bears the brunt of the problem and associated costs. If a subscriber experiences spam or other malicious traffic, they typically would not blame their device, but would blame their operator. If the subscriber takes action, it would typically be in the form of calling the operator’s customer service staff, which is a direct cost to the operator; or they would demand a credit if the malicious traffic resulted in fraud or other unwanted costs – this credit is an additional direct cost to the operator. Ultimately, the subscriber may be unhappy enough to churn to a different provider, which would cost the operator future revenues. And a cynical perspective may be that in regions with operator-specific (locked) devices, that subscriber may be likely to purchase a similar device (from the same handset manufacturer) when they move to a different provider. However, the real answer lies in employing a variety of security solutions and shared responsibility between th
Related Questions
- How is market maker status determined for purposes of determining which party has the responsibility for reporting a trade in an OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB) or Pink Sheets security?
- What happened to Personal Responsibility, Accountability vs. Stupid Choices?
- How much responsibility lies with the handset maker vs. the operator?
