Answer first: the US and Canada look like one market from a launch plan and behave like two different ones at the carrier edge. In the US, long-code A2P runs on 10DLC registered through The Campaign Registry (TCR), and approval is only real once each of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon individually carries the traffic — the 10DLC rejection field guide covers that per-carrier status split. In Canada, there is no TCR: long-code A2P runs on carrier self-regulation, and the sanctioned sender types are dedicated short codes, long codes, and registered alphanumeric sender IDs. A sender-id regime that passed in one country can be silently misconfigured for the other. This playbook is the per-country map.
The carrier-by-carrier table
| US: AT&T / T-Mobile / Verizon | Canada: Bell / Rogers / Telus | |
|---|---|---|
| Long-code registry | TCR (brand + campaign) | Carrier self-regulation; no central registry |
| Sanctioned sender types | 10DLC, toll-free, dedicated short code | Short code, long code, alphanumeric sender ID |
| Approval granularity | Per carrier — CSP approval is not carrier approval | Per carrier, lighter — registration posture is self-declared |
| Vetting | TCR brand vetting score gates daily throughput tiers | Carrier review for short codes; long-code and alphanumeric rely on use-case accuracy |
| Fees | Campaign registration fees plus per-carrier campaign surcharges | Short-code lease comparable to the US; long-code and alphanumeric registration carry lighter fees |
| Penalties for unregistered traffic | Blocked at the carrier edge — see the sanction sweep explainer | Filtered as spam; repeated filters escalate to blocking |
| P2P vs A2P classification | A2P is any application-originated traffic; P2P exemptions are narrow | Same classification logic; enforcement is complaint-driven rather than registry-driven |
Why the US playbook cannot be assumed
Most North American SMS documentation is US-only, and teams shipping into both countries inherit its assumptions: register a brand, register a campaign, track per-carrier approval, scale throughput by vetting score. None of that machinery exists in Canada. There is no brand vetting score, no campaign use-case codes, no per-carrier approval dashboard — because there is no central registry. The sender-type comparison covers the US menu; the Canadian menu looks similar from the outside (short codes, long codes, alphanumeric) but the compliance posture behind each choice differs. Treating Canada as "10DLC but easier" misconfigures the sender-id choice at provisioning time, which is the most expensive moment to get it wrong.
Registration windows, sender-id posture, opt-out per country
Registration windows. US: TCR brand plus campaign registration typically completes in 1–5 business days, but a campaign is live only when each carrier approves it; a dedicated short code takes weeks to months end to end. Canada: dedicated short codes carry the same weeks-to-months provisioning; long codes and alphanumeric sender IDs activate in days because the carrier review path is lighter.
Sender-id posture — two different splits.
- US: alphanumeric sender IDs are not part of the long-code regime — 10DLC presents the number, short codes present the digits. Two-Way works on both.
- Canada: registered alphanumeric sender IDs are a first-class option, but they are one-way — replies go nowhere. For care threads and reply-driven flows, use a short code or a long code and reserve alphanumeric for broadcast traffic like OTP bursts and marketing blasts. In both countries, treat P2P as a narrow exemption: application-originated traffic is A2P regardless of the sender type.
Opt-out handling. US: STOP and its keywords are an industry contract baked into the TCR message_flow declaration, and TCPA exposure makes opt-out wording a legal artifact, not just a carrier courtesy. Canada: CASL governs consent and identification requirements, and carriers expect STOP handling the same way; the enforcement path is complaint-driven rather than registry-driven. Either way, "Reply STOP to unsubscribe" belongs in the flow narrative and the sample messages before launch, exactly as the 10DLC rejection guide prescribes for US campaigns — the same discipline carries the Canadian filing.
Tenant-owned, not legal advice
Registration state is a tenant-owned control: Orbit surfaces the sender types and the country routing, your team owns the filings, the consent records, and the use-case accuracy. The compliance posture quarterly review is the standing audit frame for keeping both countries' registrations current. None of this is legal advice — final approval rests with the carriers and, on TCPA/CASL exposure, with your counsel.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need TCR registration to send into Canada?
No. TCR is a US construct; Canadian carriers run long-code A2P on self-regulation with no central registry. The sanction is different in kind: unregistered or non-compliant traffic gets filtered as spam at the carrier edge rather than blocked against a registry record, and repeated filtering escalates to blocking. Register the sender type you actually intend to use — short code, long code, or alphanumeric — and keep the use-case declaration accurate.
Can one sender ID serve both countries?
A dedicated short code can be provisioned for both the US and Canada — the CSCA lease process spans both markets — and that is the main reason short codes stay on the menu for two-country programs. Long codes and alphanumeric sender IDs are country-scoped in practice, so a two-country long-code program means a registration decision per country, not per region.
Are alphanumeric sender IDs supported in the US?
Not for long-code traffic. The US long-code regime is 10DLC and toll-free, both of which present a number to the handset; alphanumeric sender IDs are a Canadian (and international) option, and even there they are one-way. If a program needs replies, alphanumeric is the wrong sender type in either country.
How do opt-out requirements differ between the US and Canada?
Mechanically they barely differ — STOP and its standard keywords work across both. Legally they diverge: the US frames opt-out under TCPA exposure plus the TCR message-flow declaration, while Canada frames consent under CASL with complaint-driven carrier enforcement. Operationally, implement one opt-out stack that handles the keyword set and publishes the opt-out language in the message flow; that single stack satisfies both regimes.
Why does my US-approved 10DLC campaign fail at one carrier?
Because CSP-level approval is the first gate, not the last. TCR approves the brand and campaign at the registry level, then each of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon approves it independently. A campaign that reads approved at the CSP layer can still be pending — or rejected — at a specific carrier, which is why the rejection debugging guide treats per-carrier status as the only status that matters.
Related reading
- The 10DLC rejection debugging guide — the four rejection reasons that kill US campaigns and the per-carrier status split.
- The A2P 10DLC sanction sweep explainer — what US carriers sweep and the tenant-owned audit posture that keeps a campaign on the wire.
- The sender-type comparison — short code vs 10DLC vs toll-free for the US menu.
- The compliance posture quarterly review — the standing audit loop for tenant-owned registration state.