FCC Does Wireless Carriers Another Favor By Reclassifying Text Messages

from the who-needs-oversight dept

The FCC this week voted yes on a new proposal the agency says will help combat the scourge of robocalls, but critics and consumer groups say opens the door to wireless carriers being able to censor text message campaigns they don’t like, or SMS services that may compete with their own offerings.

In a 3-1 party line vote, the FCC approved (pdf) redefining text messages as an “information service,” therefore freeing such services from FCC oversight. In its announcement, the agency was quick to insist that this was done specifically to help carriers better fight robocalls and robotexts without worrying about running afoul of government rules:

“In today?s ruling, the FCC denies requests from mass-texting companies and other parties to classify text messaging services as ?telecommunications services? subject to common carrier regulation under the Communications Act?a classification that would limit wireless providers? efforts to combat spam and scam robotexts effectively. Instead, the FCC finds that two forms of wireless messaging services, SMS and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), are “information services” under the Communications Act. With this decision, the FCC empowers wireless providers to continue taking action to protect American consumers from unwanted text messages.

Critics, however, charge that this was another example of the FCC’s motives not being made entirely clear to the public at large.

As we’ve noted previously, this particular debate over text message classification began some time back, after Verizon decided to ban a pro-choice group named NARAL Pro-Choice America from sending text messages to Verizon Wireless customers that had opted in to receiving them. Ever since then, consumer groups, worried that cellular carriers would use their power as gatekeepers to stifle certain voices, have been urging the FCC to declare text messages a ?telecommunications service,” making it illegal for carriers to ban such select SMS services.

This being the Ajit Pai FCC, the agency went the complete opposite direction in a move that largely benefits wireless carriers. The fight somewhat mirrors the net neutrality battle involving whether to classify ISPs themselves as “information services” under the telecom act (freeing them from significant oversight), or “telecommunications services”–keeping them locked into oversight by the FCC. Consumer groups like Public Knowledge were quick to issue statements pointing out this had everything to do with ensuring telecom giants are less accountable, and little to nothing to do with actually combating robocalls and robotexts:

“No one should mistake today?s action as an effort to help consumers limit spam and robotexts. There is a reason why carriers are applauding while more than 20 consumer protection advocates — along with 10 Senators — have cried foul. This decision does nothing to curb spam, and is not needed to curb spam. It is simply the latest example of Chairman Pai?s radical agenda that puts companies ahead of consumers. We urge members of Congress to overturn this decision and ensure that wireless carriers cannot block or censor personal text messages.”

Those concerns were mirrored by FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in her lone dissent:

Like net neutrality, gutting oversight of companies with decades of anti-competitive behavior under their belts (not to mention flimsy and dwindling organic free market pressure to behave) generally doesn’t work out very well for end users or those looking to compete with these entrenched network operators. It’s worth noting the ruling doesn’t apply to the next-generation texting standard, RCS, though carriers like Verizon have already called for that to occur in future orders; something Ajit Pai is likely to approve as well.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Does Wireless Carriers Another Favor By Reclassifying Text Messages”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
19 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'Oh please don't throw me into that brier patch...'

Minus the jail part(obviously) that would likely be entirely to Pai’s liking actually. A completely powerless FCC would be great news for his past, current(unofficially) and future employers, as it would mean there would essentially be no-one to hold the telecom companies accountable beyond bought and paid for politicians.

He’s been doing everything he can to neuter the agency, killing it entirely would be a very desirable outcome to him.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think I actually agree with the FCC on this one. SMS was designed purely as a carrier information service. MMS and later are just tacked on top of that, and really compete with Internet-based messaging systems (which is where competitors should go). SMS is supposed to be messages passed through your carrier. The sooner everyone abandons it as a messaging service between customer devices, the better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If this change does indeed make it harder for SMS spammers to do their thing then I’m all for it. If, on the other hand, it lets carriers filter out messages they don’t like between private individuals then we have a serious problem.

If history is any guide here the latter is far more likely than the former.

Anonymous Coward says:

This goes beyond just blocking texts.

What if the carriers start blocking two factor authentication messages for websites they don’t like? On some sites, no 2FA code = no access. They could block competitors or sites they just don’t agree with.

Also, what does this mean for the privacy of the messages? Will carriers be allowed to sell or use the contents of the messages? Since there is no oversight, how would we know or prove it?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Not sure where you got that, but it doesn’t seem to jive with what I read, and more to the point how the ones objecting to it read it. The FCC voted to change the definition, not keep it the same, and the ones cheering it on are the ISP’s, with ones objecting being consumer advocacy groups.

As noted by the Public Knowledge post:

"No one should mistake today’s action as an effort to help consumers limit spam and robotexts. There is a reason why carriers are applauding while more than 20 consumer protection advocates — along with 10 Senators — have cried foul. This decision does nothing to curb spam, and is not needed to curb spam. It is simply the latest example of Chairman Pai’s radical agenda that puts companies ahead of consumers. We urge members of Congress to overturn this decision and ensure that wireless carriers cannot block or censor personal text messages."’

tom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

From the FCC news release and as quoted in TD posting:

“In today’s ruling, the FCC denies requests from mass-texting companies and other parties to classify text messaging services as “telecommunications services” subject to common carrier regulation under the Communications Act—a classification that would limit wireless providers’ efforts to combat spam and scam robotexts effectively. Instead, the FCC finds that two forms of wireless messaging services, SMS and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), are “information services” under the Communications Act. With this decision, the FCC empowers wireless providers to continue taking action to protect American consumers from unwanted text messages. “

Plain English reading seems to imply the FCC didn’t take the action the mass marketers wanted them to take.

Or were SMS and MMS not defined as anything prior to this apparent non action?

I know that hate for the FCC is in vogue right now but I still think they got this one correct.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Forget 'hate', try 'trustworthiness and the lack thereof'

Yeah, if, at this point, you accept anything they tell you at face value, despite opposing claims by consumer/privacy advocate groups, and despite history that makes it clear that at least some of the companies involved rather like the stuff the change is supposedly for fighting, I can only say…

I’ve got some positively amazing bridges to sell you.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...