Slashdot Mirror


FCC Gives Carriers the Option To Block Text Messages (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: The Federal Communications Commission said it's getting tough on text message spam by clarifying that phone companies can block unwanted texts. At its monthly meeting Wednesday, the Republican-led agency voted 3-1 to classify SMS text messages as a so-called Title I information service under the Telecom Act. The three Republicans on the FCC, which voted to adopt the classification, said this would allow phone companies to block spam text messages.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the new classification would empower wireless providers to stop unwanted text messages. "The FCC shouldn't make it easier for spammers and scammers to bombard consumers with unwanted texts," he said during the meeting. "And we shouldn't allow unwanted messages to plague wireless messaging services in the same way that unwanted robocalls flood voice services." But he said that's what would happen if the FCC were to classify text messages as a Title II telecommunications service under the law.
Jessica Rosenworcel, the lone Democrat on the FCC, disagrees with the classification. "Today's decision offers consumers no new ability to prevent robotexts," she said."It simply provides that carriers can block our text messages and censor the very content of those messages themselves."

She says the FCC did the same thing to the internet last year when it repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules. "That means on the one-year anniversary of the FCC's misguided net neutrality decision -- which gave your broadband provider the power to block websites and censor online content -- this agency is celebrating by expanding those powers to also include your text messages," she added.

4 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Who Defines "Unwanted" by WankerWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who is defining "unwanted"? Could your phone provider block all messages or certain messages as "unwanted" unless you agree to pay for a tiered or premium service?

    1. Re:Who Defines "Unwanted" by bob4u2c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they want to charge the originating companies extra fees for the ability to send text messages to their customers rather than charge the customers

      Not so fast there! In California they want to start taxing the user for text messages.

      Text Message Tax

  2. Re: Typical conduct by Shkreli Pai by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ideally, it would be something you could freely opt into or out of. Carriers have the advantage that they can anonymously scan incoming messages & keep count of similar ones, escalating the "is this spam?" judgment call to a human once some threshhold is exceeded.

    Blocking by origin number sounds nice, but doesn't really work because there's nothing to certify that a SMS sender actually IS who they claim to be. You can block spamming SMS numbers all day & ultimately accomplish nothing besides wasting your time because they probably weren't REALLY using that number anyway.

    It's why Gmail is so good at catching spam... they see EVERYONE'S incoming messages & flag similar messages sent to lots of users for human scrutiny.

    The representative who opposed the bill isn't entirely *wrong*, but at the moment there aren't many better options that can be implemented *quickly* to reduce sms spam. It comes down to, "is it worth the potential risk of telco tyranny to reduce our spam load NOW"? As long as it's done in a way you can freely opt into or out of, I'd say yeah.

  3. Re:Worthless by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just bought into the FCC's spinning of this. It's not about spam. It's about Verizon et al being able to handle SMS however they want, including blocking SMSes from businesses that do not pay them enough, or that promote things they disagree with.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.