Slashdot Mirror


FCC To Consider Making Text Messaging an Information Service, Denying Twilio Petition (fiercewireless.com)

The FCC has unveiled a new proposal as part of its plan to help reduce unwanted phone and text spam. From a report: In a move that's sure to make wireless operators happy, the FCC at its December meeting will consider a draft Declaratory Ruling on text messaging that would formally rule text messaging services are information services, not telecommunications services. That means carriers will be able to continue using robotext-blocking and anti-spoofing measures to protect consumers from unwanted text messages. Chairman Ajit Pai revealed the plan in a blog post highlighting items on the Dec. 12 meeting agenda.

"Today's wireless messaging providers apply filtering to prevent large volumes of unwanted messages from ever reaching your phone," Pai wrote. "However, there's been an effort underway to put these successful consumer protections at risk. In 2015, a mass-texting company named Twilio petitioned the FCC, arguing that wireless messaging should be classified as a 'telecommunications service.' This may not seem like a big deal, but such a classification would dramatically curb the ability of wireless providers to use robotext-blocking, anti-spoofing, and other anti-spam features."

That's why he's circulating a Declaratory Ruling that would instead classify wireless messaging as an "information service," denying Twilio's petition [PDF]. "Aside from being a more legally sound approach, this decision would keep the floodgates to a torrent of spam texts closed, remove regulatory uncertainty, and empower providers to continue finding innovative ways to protect consumers from unwanted text messages," Pai said.

92 comments

  1. Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use Twillio to send important doctor appointment reminders, and I would hate to see them get blocked. On the other hand I know some people use services like them to send spam.

    1. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the text messages for doctors appointments. A calender has worked for thousands of years, appointment text annoying.

      No I would orefer a text to alert me when my table is ready over the vibrating drink coaster that are probably dirty af

    2. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is another fool that got played by the blood sucking globalists. Keep shilling fool.

    3. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, President fat baby going to Fedawal Pwison, awwwwwwww. Pooooooor traitor faggots.

    4. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way for a doctor to text you an appointment reminder is if they have your cell-phone number.
      I've never given that to someone I do business with.

    5. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might hate the reminders, but us slashdot folks might be the ones who actually use and check our calendars aren't ordinary.

    6. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is another fool that got played by the blood sucking globalists. Keep shilling fool.

      Funny how Trump supporters don't realize he is playing them like violins.

      Tiny violins. You know, tiny hands and all.

    7. Re:Mixed feelings by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I use Twillio to send important doctor appointment reminders,

      Right there is the problem. Everyone who sends spam and junk texts and junk emails thinks their shit is so important that they should not be blocked from sending it. Every one of the spammers thinks that way. You NEED these ED meds! You NEED to speak to Russian women! You NEED our help to clean the viruses off your computer! You NEED a back brace! You NEED a third party to remind you about a doctor's appointment! Yada yada yada.

      So the fact that YOU think that way speaks volumes.

    8. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't be a problem since you're only messaging people who explicitly signed up to receive those reminders, right?

      On the other hand if you're sending out reminders without explicit permission, then you can go fuck yourself.

    9. Re: Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll much? Your argument is obviously fallacious so I'm guessing you're still perfecting your approach.

  2. Texts being blocked by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have an online service that sends me texts daily (weather forecasts and alerts), as well as a few other people. At some point my cell company started blocking those texts sent by my system. The others still received them (different cell carriers) but I did not, for a period of a few weeks. Then they started coming through again out of the blue.

    No notification, no action on my part to indicate they were spam, no recourse to try and get my server whitelisted, etc. They just went in a black hole. I visited my carrier's website and there was no portal I could find for services to contact the carrier about being blocked.

    I'm sure the"robotext-blocking and anti-spoofing measures" help in the scheme of things, but this stuff needs to be standardized and centralized in some way.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Texts being blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have an online service that sends me texts daily (weather forecasts and alerts), as well as a few other people. At some point my cell company started blocking those texts sent by my system. The others still received them (different cell carriers) but I did not, for a period of a few weeks. Then they started coming through again out of the blue.

      No notification, no action on my part to indicate they were spam, no recourse to try and get my server whitelisted, etc. They just went in a black hole. I visited my carrier's website and there was no portal I could find for services to contact the carrier about being blocked.

      I'm sure the"robotext-blocking and anti-spoofing measures" help in the scheme of things, but this stuff needs to be standardized and centralized in some way.

      I don't agree with centralized... the federal do-not-call list is a giant fiasco. Consumers should be able to communicate with their provider (preferably also via an interface that can be automated) block whomever they want by phone number or IP address or email or whatever will actually work.

      And telecoms should have the legal authority to block any known or suspected criminal communications with a due process appeals process in the courts.

    2. Re:Texts being blocked by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. I also have a system that uses SMS text to send alert notifications to volunteer firefighters. If a carrier decides to block what I send, there is literally no point of contact to resolve the issue.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    3. Re:Texts being blocked by nwf · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. I also have a system that uses SMS text to send alert notifications to volunteer firefighters. If a carrier decides to block what I send, there is literally no point of contact to resolve the issue.

      We send texts for our business and have had the same problem. We had like 500 clients call Verizon and complain. We finally got a point of contact back then to unblock us. That's about the only way. Other than using some short code service, which they don't block for spam.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    4. Re:Texts being blocked by shess · · Score: 2

      I have an online service that sends me texts daily (weather forecasts and alerts), as well as a few other people. At some point my cell company started blocking those texts sent by my system. The others still received them (different cell carriers) but I did not, for a period of a few weeks. Then they started coming through again out of the blue.

      No notification, no action on my part to indicate they were spam, no recourse to try and get my server whitelisted, etc. They just went in a black hole. I visited my carrier's website and there was no portal I could find for services to contact the carrier about being blocked.

      I bet your carrier provides a portal for commercial senders to submit funds to get their postings cleared for transmission, though.

    5. Re:Texts being blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The Do Not Call list should have been Opt In. As it is, it's a listing spammers can use to verify known working numbers.

      It's hard to believe the Congresscritters really thought it would work.

      I'm feeling uncomfortable, however, in that I agree with Pai on this one...wondering if I'm missing something!

    6. Re:Texts being blocked by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I visited my carrier's website and there was no portal I could find for services to contact the carrier about being blocked.

      If you have a cell carrier that does not have a customer support telephone number, you need to get a better carrier.

    7. Re:Texts being blocked by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with centralized... the federal do-not-call list is a giant fiasco.

      It is a fiasco for two reasons. 1) there is little or no visible feedback that anything is done when someone complains of a violation. I complained many times about a harassing political campaign and have heard nothing back at all. 2) there is usually no information that can help the FTC find the violators. Spoofed caller ID prevents a large number of complaints, and prevents the FTC from finding anyone.

      block whomever they want by phone number or IP address or email or whatever will actually work.

      The same spoofed caller ID that prevents the FTC from doing anything also prevents this blocking. I.e., "whatever will actually work" is information that the consumer does not have and cannot find.

      And telecoms should have the legal authority to block any known or suspected criminal communications with a due process appeals process in the courts.

      Wow. Simply wow.

    8. Re:Texts being blocked by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      Political Calls are "Protected Speech" under the USA Constitution. It has been widely announced by the USA Federal Government and the news media that the Do Not Call list will NOT stop political calls, i.e., Protected Speech. The FTC will not act against political callers. This is actually Public Knowledge (it has been said so many times). So, don't expect that to change.

    9. Re:Texts being blocked by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Political Calls are "Protected Speech" under the USA Constitution.

      As soon as the source is instructed to stop calling, they fall under the DNC.

      i.e., Protected Speech.

      Harassment has never been protected speech, and getting calls multiple times a day pleading with me to vote for X, from fake caller ID numbers with fake contact numbers in the message, are harassment. When the caller ID is valid, it requires just once telling the robocaller to remove your number from the list to put the "protected speech" into unprotected status.

      This is actually Public Knowledge

      Ahh, we've identified a political robocall shill, I see.

    10. Re: Texts being blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally no other way? Like uhm calling them? With a phone? Since you have their phone numbers?

      Block everything. SMS is idiotic, almost as bad as smtp.

    11. Re:Texts being blocked by antdude · · Score: 1

      Emails as well especially used as SMSes (e.g., tmomail.net). Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't! :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re: Texts being blocked by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      GP is correct. You may not like the law but it's as described.

      Stop being a douchebag and labeling people you don't like as 'shills' and 'bots', especially when it's just someone trying to set the record straight.

    13. Re: Texts being blocked by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Stop being a douchebag and labeling people you don't like as 'shills' and 'bots',

      I've done that once, here, because the right of political parties to make harassing phone calls is NOT "protected speech", no matter how straight you think he's setting the record. Trying to claim that politicians get a special pass on harassment because it is Public Knowledge is, well, acting like a shill.

  3. Consumer Human Shields by michaelcole · · Score: 1

    ATT/Sprint/T-Mobile are really on ytour side aren't they. They sell your personal information, they should be able to sell the interuptions as well.

  4. Wait by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    So Ajit Pai is good this week??

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a stopped clock is right once a day (or twice a day in the US).

    2. Re:Wait by jythie · · Score: 1

      Not really. I am highly skeptical that they can not stop things like spoofing or spamming while still being classified as a telecommunication services.

    3. Re:Wait by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he just doesn't want to regulate them, so he's suggesting that the carriers "regulate" them instead, and by "regulate" I mean "charge", "favor", etc. So you'll continue to get spam, because that's paid for, but you won't get TFA tokens or fraud alerts, because nobody's willing to pay for that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not even slightly.

      Everyone that thinks what he's doing is a good thing has fundamentally misunderstood the ramifications of redefining your text telecommunications from ... telecommunications, to an 'information service' with much weaker regulations and consumer protections. The whole "it's to stop t3h sp4mm3rz!" thing is a red herring, because there were already plenty of court rulings, etc. that allowed those narrowly-defined types of blocking on behalf of users. This is more likely a power/money grab on behalf of Verizon et al., who must have decided they weren't fucking consumers hard enough.

    5. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even slightly.

      Everyone that thinks what he's doing is a good thing has fundamentally misunderstood the ramifications of redefining your text telecommunications from ... telecommunications, to an 'information service' with much weaker regulations and consumer protections.

      You are right, but you are overlooking the bigger issue.

      Classifying some things as "information services" and other things as "telecommunications services" is just stupid, and serves no legitimate purpose. The common sense solution is to have one classification and then create appropriate regulations. There's no reason why spam can't be prohibited regardless of how something is "classified".

    6. Re:Wait by nasch · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai gets more money from the likes of AT&T than from the likes of Twilio, so he sided with the former. It's pure coincidence that that position happens to align with the interests of the public in this case.

    7. Re:Wait by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Unknown, but he wants to relabel a telecommunications service as an information service. Whether well or badly intended, it's clearly a dishonest, ends-justifies-the-means move.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    8. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure coincidence? So you have a problem with luck ?? Better Republican luck, than the agenda-driven Trotsky-slut spew of gaffot-infested nibberized pandering by progressive DemoRats.

    9. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he's just proposing stripping more common-carrier regulations as an anti-spam solution. Which won't help either; the only difference is that now carriers will be able to take their cut of the spam. There's nothing in common carrier regulation that prohibits them from providing a service to users to block unwanted communications.

    10. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't russia have its own internet you can troll?

    11. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are these heaps text message spam you complain of? Here, the sender pays for text messages. Consumers can usually send a few hundred/month before any extra charges apply. But spamming would be expensive!

    12. Re:Wait by I75BJC · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't been on /. for long. Ajit Pai is widely hated and everything that he does is "evil". Ajit is The Ad Hominem! He probably even pulls the wings off flies!

  5. right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And give them the right to spy on (filter) all your communications.

    1. Re:right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, once it becomes an information service it no longer has privacy protections.

  6. making wireless operators happy by bonedonut · · Score: 1

    seems to be one of the main focus of the current FCC.

    1. Re:making wireless operators happy by edi_guy · · Score: 5, Informative
      My initial response is while I dislike Pai, this seems like a good idea. But RTFA there is a nuance to this that wasn't in the summary.

      "...Chairman Pai’s action would give carriers unlimited freedom to censor any speech they consider ‘controversial,’ " This is from some guy that has a beef with FCC, but still seems to be a real concern.

    2. Re:making wireless operators happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "...Chairman Pai’s action would give carriers unlimited freedom to censor any speech they consider ‘controversial,’ " This is from some guy that has a beef with FCC, but still seems to be a real concern.

      What happened to "private companies aren't bound by the first amendment"?

      The closest to a consensus is that companies are free to censor anyone I disagree with and it's a first amendment violation if they censor anyone I agree with and only a few people arguing "how about nobody gets censored?" who get shouted down.

    3. Re:making wireless operators happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The closest to a consensus is that companies are free to censor anyone I disagree with and it's a first amendment violation if they censor anyone I agree with and only a few people arguing "how about nobody gets censored?" who get shouted down.

      The problem with companies having unlimited freedom is it tends to get abused, primarily in ways that enforce or contribute to monopolies. I tend to think we won't see a huge amount of political shenanigans, though they may happen, where texts to people on your list mysteriously vanish when they contain important info at a critical time. Again, I don't think you will see much of that because of the backlash. Most likely it will be used in more subtle ways to gain power.

      It's sometimes hard to say how things can be abused. Republicans often say "Voter Fraud!!! The democrats are everywhere bringing in millions and billions and trillions of pregnant illegal aliens to rape your wife, take your job, and vote them in office. Its quite clever really, since by shouting about fraud, they distract from their actual attempts to suppress votes in politically beneficial ways. That is probably what is happening here, by saying he is protecting us he is hiding a real motive, though it could be just the church that all things without regulations are better. It's one of those republican beliefs they haul out from time to time, that some of them actually seem to believe in, while others just seem to use it when that argument gets them what they want that day.

      Either way, doesn't seem world ending or anything. The real problem is the president. Hell, he attacked the general who went after Osama and got him, and today its the Chief Justice. I'd ask if tomorrow was the Pope, but he has already went there.

    4. Re:making wireless operators happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it feel to slurp the hot Satanic jizz of the Demoncrap royalty?

  7. Let me guess the timeline on this... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Twillo value now goes down.
      Twillo bought out by a certain somebody.
      This somebody is connected with another somebody.
      Ruling goes away.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  8. No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should just get new rules for Telecom services that allow providers to implement agreeable blocking measures.

    We rely on texts. My provider should not have unilateral authority to decide what text messages I do and don't receive,
    assuming all the text messages are from an authentic (Non-Spoofed) source.

    However, the FCC should also allow protections against SPOOFING and reasonable Denial of Service attack protections for Telecom services....

    And as for blocking spam for telecom services: BOTH text message-based AND call-based robocalling and solicitation attempts ---
    Providers SHOULD be encouraged and allowed to provide filtering, provided recipients have the option of controlling and/or opting out entirely of
    content filtering services if so desired, And rate limits above a reasonable amount of traffic To/From a particular authentic sender/recipient should be allowed
    with an Option of notification to the recipient when some messages are being suppressed.

    For example: A system where someone can't send you more than a few text messages before you have replied.

    Or better yet, a system where "unknown contacts" can only send you 1 or 2 messages per day unless you "Add" them to friends.

    Also, someone who sends a text message to more than 3 unique recipients in an hour who never sent them a text and don't have them on their friends list will become rate limited to 1 text per 15 minutes.

    1. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twilio doesn't even send many messages that are flagged as spam. They just don't like the regulatory aspect but from a practical sense, they are not impacted by this. Of all the bandwidth, a very small percent is used by SMS, often in emergencies. Only maybe 20% is captured and analyzed by the spam filtering system, which is targeted at a specific kind of spam. The rest is unrelated to informational messaging. It's all other content, like MMS, etc.

    2. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or better yet, a system where "unknown contacts" can only send you 1 or 2 messages per day unless you "Add" them to friends.

      What's a contact though? Couldn't they just send you 100 messages from 100 different numbers?

      It's not easy to solve :/

    3. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by nasch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or better yet, a system where "unknown contacts" can only send you 1 or 2 messages per day unless you "Add" them to friends.

      I don't have a problem with your overall point, but this particular idea is problematic because it requires the cellular carrier to have continuous access to the list of contacts on your phone. I see no reason to give them access to that information.

    4. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, this COULD be something that would be a welcomed feature in an updated texting app.

    5. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the spammers don't send from the same number, so they can spam you more than 1/day. Worse, I would find even 1/day quite annoying. I sent *every* sender who sent me political texts the following reply, "Send me one more text and I am voting for the other guy". It did seem to stop the political texts at least.

    6. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      assuming all the text messages are from an authentic (Non-Spoofed) source.

      Assuming there is no problem to solve, there is no problem to solve.

      That's what assuming all text messages are from authentic, non-spoofed sources would mean.

      How your cellular carrier determines if my email address is valid, authentic, and non-spoofed is a question left for the astute reader, because that would be required knowledge to make your assumption valid.

    7. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by mysidia · · Score: 1

      How your cellular carrier determines if my email address is valid, authentic, and non-spoofed

      SMS Text messages are from Wireless phone to Wireless phone.
      The origin of a text message is always a phone number, not an E-mail address.

      The carrier has only to make sure that the phone number they pass on as the origin of every text message matches the phone number that IMSI actually registered with the GSM/UMTS network.

    8. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      SMS Text messages are from Wireless phone to Wireless phone.

      Some of them are. Some of them are not. The vast majority of the SMS messages I get are from an email source.

      The origin of a text message is always a phone number, not an E-mail address.

      This is patently false. Clearly you don't understand the system as a whole.

      Now, you may claim that technically, there may be a short number (not a phone number) assigned to each message from an email source, but that number is carrier-generated and meaningless as far as validation of the source is concerned. For example, T-Mobile uses the range 3000-3999, I believe, to tag each SMS from email, which was intended to allow SMS replies to go back to the email sender. This leaves the question of how T-Mobile would possibly validate the email address of the sender, and until that is solved, your proposed solution is incomplete, to say the least.

    9. Re:No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Some of them are. Some of them are not. The vast majority of the SMS messages I get are from an email source.

      What you are describing is impossible. E-mail is an internet standard the transport is specified by RFC2821;
      SMS text messages are part of GSM / UMTS ---- something transmitted over which is NOT e-mail - SMS has no concept
      of Sending TO or FROM an e-mail address, because the telephone network is not part of the internet and does Not use internet addressing for
      recipients and senders....

      You might have some kind of message automatically transcribed or converted to you from E-mail into a SMS message by a SMS Gateway service provided by some provider for your convenience, but in that case the origin of the SMS message is a phone number belonging to that gateway server, And the gateway server is just translating and proxying some kind of traffic from outside the telecommunications network; in this case, the terminating subscriber is the Gateway system ---- The legitimate source for a text message is whatever phone number is on the SIM card of that Gateway system which connects to the SMS network.
      An e-mail to SMS or SMS to e-mail gateway, is of course an Internet Service Provider service, not a telecommunications service, Because you are using a third party to process your conversation data and convert it from the format of one system to another, and the Internet, DNS Domain System, and E-mail infrastructure are information services that ride on top of telecom services in the form of transport circuits.

    10. Re: No, Text messages SHOULD be a Telecom service by locketine · · Score: 1

      https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/...

      Every carrier has an SMS gateway. They could simply require you verify your phone number with their gateway before being able to use it and then that way they could use your real number in the SMS.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  9. Color me surprised... SNAFU by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Where's the opposition? Disasters everywhere and everyone's in a daze. The best we get is gridlock. Actual improvement is *off the table*. Pelosi will guarantee that. Round and round we go! WEEE!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Color me surprised... SNAFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep challenging your friends and family to explain the difference between the two parties, as well as explain why most people don't vote. The fundamental change to process that is needed is only going to happen on a long timeline.

    2. Re: Color me surprised... SNAFU by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Keep challenging your friends and family to explain the difference between the two parties

      Nope, wouldn't be prudent... Everybody has to take their own initiative

      The fundamental change to process that is needed is only going to happen on a long timeline.

      Yes, an evolutionary one.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  10. TXT is the new FAX by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    Did Ajit Pai just lay a golden egg?

    AT&T has for decades maneuvered to change the Internet to ' metered rate' over ' access rate'. Here, the FCC singlehandedly transfers access to the providers AND assigns regulatory responsibility to monitor it, as well. That ain't gonna be cheap. TXT is the new FAX

  11. Re:Love or Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who's we? you decide for yourself only.

  12. Horse poop / common carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's horse poop. He comes from big telecom and wants less government regulation of big telecom and he''s doing this to get that.

    This is about making it harder for anyone to challenge big telecom decisions that abuse customers or businesses. Period.

    If you classify services as less regulated, it''s harder to sue.

    He thinks that's good because he grew up in the industry and government regs are a pain. But they're also the only thing government has that remotely provides a check on bug telecom.

  13. Re:Love or Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  14. Information Service? by ramriot · · Score: 1

    So if the FCC defines SMS as an Information Service then what does that do for telecoms providers charging exorbitant fees per message, especially for "Roaming" SMS?

  15. Re:Love or Hate by ichthus · · Score: 0

    In unionized America, clock stops you!

    --
    sig: sauer
  16. Re:Are you fucking simple or what. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the robo calls are there to cause phone services to become information services for the purposes of regulatory capture.

  17. This will allow ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the carriers to share in the profits (i.e. take a cut) of telemarketing messaging revenue.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:This will allow ... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Sort of, they already charge for receipt of the data. And for the delivery. Now they want paid for the ability to inspect and throttle in transit.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  18. Congress Needs to Settle This by Artagel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the 1996 Telecommunications Act was being drafted, the intersection of the internet and personal communications devices was in its infancy. Browsers and hypertext pages that made the internet usable by ordinary people were only a few years old. Congress thought it understood the emerging marketplace and technology. It was wrong. There is nothing shocking about them being wrong about it. They gave the FCC a framework within which to make rules, but when the framework doesn't match the technology and marketplace there is no objective, technical, reconciliation that can happen. So the rules lurch with the winds of whatever the current administration is.

    Congress should revisit the law, make the key political decisions and compromises, and pass a revised law. There was a failed effort to do it, but it is worth trying again. Otherwise we have an unending mess of the rules twisting in the political winds of whoever is president forever.

  19. Good decision. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... this decision would keep the floodgates to a torrent of spam texts closed ...

    Torrent is not a good way to distribute spam texts.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  20. Re:Kill SMS already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what will feature phone users do?

    And, no, it's not just Luddites who use feature phones. In my closest circle, all developers and veterans of multiple startup companies, about 1 out of 5 use a feature phone.

  21. Both wrong. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What the carriers are currently doing and what the FCC is proposing are both wrong. Everything wireless companies do is a telecommunications service, not an information service, so that covers why the FCC is wrong.

    What the carriers are doing now is also wrong: the intelligence should be at the edges. Now that all cell phones, including flip phones, are pocket computers, it's time to leverage those smarts. The wireless companies need to deliver everything (and charge a flat rate for access, none of this per minute/per text/per gigabyte bullshit)[1], and let the endpoints decide what they want to see. The wireless companies can maybe run the equivalent of the Adblock lists for spam text, and maybe enable them by default for handsets they sell, but I bet most people would opt for third party block lists. Cell phones should come with trivially easy interfaces to block unwanted texts and calls, out of the box. Maybe going so far as having a white list mode. It's long past time for the edges to be making the decisions, and the telecom providers getting their grubby mits out of our data.

    ----

    [1]If consumer flat rates can't pay for the network, charge the spammers more. They're business accounts anyway. Different rules.

    1. Re:Both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up! It's insightful.

      Even better, compared to some of the otehr posts around here, it's temperate and coherent.

    2. Re:Both wrong. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's long past time for the edges to be making the decisions,

      It is too easy for the vast number of input streams to overpower the "edges". Also, this requires the edges to be doing constant processing, consuming battery power, and will not work at all if the edge device is turned off or out of service area.

      When email spam started to be a problem, lots of "edge" solutions started popping up. Procmail was just one. Eventually, however, the load on the core systems became so high that core filters were required. In other words, if the core data transport is so busy transporting stuff that the edges are almost unanimously going to bit bucket that they cannot carry valid data anymore, then the time to move the filtering away from the edges has come. And we hit that limit a long time ago. Nobody can afford the time wasted downloading every piece of email just so the local device can decide that it comes from a spammer and will be tossed. Imagine having your webmail client contact the server to find 1000 email messages waiting, then waiting for it to scan through all 1000 to detect spam or blocked messages. And only then do you get to look at your email.

      Wireless data is a limited resource. Wasting it by sending everything to a phone to let the phone decide means that everyone will get less of what they want. While the edges may now be smart enough (not all of them are, despite your claim to the contrary) the cost of getting the data there for them to make the decisions is too high.

      [1]If consumer flat rates can't pay for the network, charge the spammers more. They're business accounts anyway. Different rules.

      This shows a complete lack of understanding of how text message can and does work. For example, how does ATT charge Gmail more for email sent via gmail?

  22. Long Term win for Twillio by Lil'wombat · · Score: 1

    The number of Cell Phone companies is finite. Twillio just needs to use their first mover advantage to develop a whitelist/badd actors process with them. Then they will have the advantage of having their messages go through and their competition can go pound sand.

    --

    Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  23. best way to avoid texting spam.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ask your carrier to disable sms completely. most will oblige.

    retro nokia or flip phone + no sms = no data or 'smart phone' charges and no spam and no alerts for anything. depending on carrier, not even the idiot in the white house can blast through that.

  24. In PAI you trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, how can he be taken so?
    You can't have your Pai and eat it too?
    This is a smoke and mirrors, bait and switch move to make Pai look like a hero, when in fact this opens even more worms, continuing this dirty mans collar of Trump lead.

  25. Re:Love or Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless it's a 24 hour clock.

  26. Bait switching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Text messaging services ARE telecommunications services, NOT information services. This is nothing more that a scam - the ends justifies the means.

  27. Twilio is not a "mass-texting company" by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Twilio makes SaaS software that lets you interact with voice, video, and text via APIs. They make and power all kinds of stuff from chatbots to voice menus. I am sure some companies use their technology for nefarious reasons as well, but Twilio is not the one sending the messages, the company is.

    Calling Twilio a "mass-texting company" is like calling Paderno a "stabbing device company".

  28. FCC To Consider Making Text Messaging an Informati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    texting = information service = title I = light-touch regulation = carriers can read your texts.