THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION launched a rulemaking to determine whether mobile text messages and short codes are covered by non-discrimination provisions of the telecom act.
Public-interest and consumer groups asked the FCC in December to rule that the law forbids wireless providers from blocking the assignment of short codes used by organizations for text messaging to constituents.
“We are grateful to (FCC) Chairman (Kevin) Martin and his colleagues for starting the public debate on what rights consumers will have in an increasingly complex technological future. These inquiries will go a long way to setting out a road map for determining who will control the Internet, and whether texting will be seen in the same light as wireless voice services,” said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge. “We look forward to participating in these dockets, and we anticipate that at the end of the day, consumers will have more control over their Internet and wireless experiences than they do now.” The FCC also is investigating other alleged blocking practices of telecom carriers in separate rulemakings.
Setting the record straight
The mobile-phone industry said the FCC action offered an opportunity to set the record straight.
“We look forward to clearing up the apparent confusion between text messages and common short codes that has been put forward by a number of groups. First and foremost, the wireless industry does not block text messages of any type,” said Steve Largent, president of cellular industry association CTIA. “As far as common short codes are concerned, our comments will provide details on wireless industry practices, including several voluntary consumer-protection measures that are already in place. We are confident that after all of the facts are on the table, policymakers will conclude that government regulation of this competitive and evolving service will be bad for consumers.”
Aligned with Public Knowledge in the effort to have text messages and short code messages subjected to telecom non-discriminatory regulations are Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Media Access Project, New America Foundation and U.S. PIRG.
“Free speech should be protected everywhere – whether it’s text messages, phone calls, e-mails or the Internet,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, which coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. “The FCC has started to respond to a growing public outcry, but they shouldn’t drag their feet. Companies like Comcast and Verizon have showed repeatedly that they can’t be trusted. Without quick and decisive action, they’ll keep blocking, manipulating and interfering.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America last year bumped heads with Verizon Wireless after the No. 2 cellular carrier initially rejected its application for a short code it wanted to use to transmit wireless alerts to supporters. After the controversy gained national media attention, Verizon Wireless promptly reversed course and gave the abortion-rights organization access to its network.
Rebtel, a Voice over Internet Protocol firm that offers low-cost international calling on mobile phones, has complained about being turned down by Verizon Wireless, Alltel Corp. and T-Mobile USA Inc. in requests to secure short code-enabled text message rights. Only Verizon Wireless has offered a public explanation of its texting policy, stating it is standard practice to withhold short codes from companies with whom it competes.
Net neutrality comments
While public-interest groups applauded Martin’s response to blocking complaints, they may not be pleased that the FCC chief’s strategic approach to the controversy is geared to show that net neutrality legislation they seek – and that the cellular industry opposes – is unnecessary.
“I think these [blocking investigations] are very consistent with what the commission has talked about in the past in terms of our network neutrality rules and principles,” Martin in a press briefing. “In our network neutrality principles, we said that consumers should be able continue to have unfettered access, they shouldn’t be blocked by underlying network operators. And I’ve testified up on Congress that there’s no need for net neutrality legislation because I believe the commission has the authority today to enforce those principles. As a result, I think it’s important that what we’re talking about doing by opening these investigations are actually consistent with everything that I’ve said about net neutrality in the past and about the fact the there’s no need for net neutrality legislation because the commission has the enforcement tools that are available now.”
