Commenters offer mixed 'messages' on Title II classification of texting
"Wireless provider messaging practices are designed to protect consumers, not restrict them, and in the past Twilio has recognized the value of these measures. Its call to subject mobile messaging to Title II common carriage requirements is the wrong policy and wrong on the law. At its core, Tw...
Saved in:
Published in | Telecommunications Reports Vol. 81; no. 24; p. 36 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Newsletter Trade Publication Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Washington
Aspen Publishers, Inc
15.12.2015
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | "Wireless provider messaging practices are designed to protect consumers, not restrict them, and in the past Twilio has recognized the value of these measures. Its call to subject mobile messaging to Title II common carriage requirements is the wrong policy and wrong on the law. At its core, Twilio's request is for the Commission to require mobile operators to cease using spam filters and to instead deliver every message that seeks to defraud, trick, and abuse end-user customers. Such regulatory maneuvering directly serves Twilio's interests, as the company's business model clearly reflects that the more traffic Twilio sends, the more profit Twilio generates," CTIA added. CTIA added that the FCC "must also reject Twilio's Petition as a matter of law. Twilio asks the Commission to subject 'short-code-based services' to common carrier regulation under Title II, but its arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Short Codes, which are not a communications service at all. When a mobile provider sells access to a Short Code, the product being sold is an addressing, billing, and marketing tool, and none of these functions involves the transmission of information. Accordingly, Short Codes are neither telecommunications nor a telecommunications service. Likewise, the Commission must reject Twilio's contention that SMS and MMS are telecommunications services subject to common carrier obligations under the Act. The characteristics of mobile messaging necessarily make it an information service under the Act, not a telecommunications service." Verizon added that "those arguments for classifying mobile messaging as a common carrier service fail as a matter of law. Twilio's effort to extend Title II to mobile messaging is contrary to both the Communications Act and the Open Internet Order. Mobile messaging - like email - is a store-and-forward service: messages are stored by the service while the recipient device is located and then forwarded. The Commission has long correctly classified email as an information service for that very reason; mobile messaging is therefore an information service as well. Furthermore, mobile messaging services, which are able to communicate only with other text-enabled devices on the public switched network, lack the quality of ubiquitous access that the Commission found in the Open Internet Order is emblematic of a commercial mobile service or its functional equivalent. Because messaging services are information services and private mobile services, they cannot be subject to Title II regulation. The common short code system also cannot be subject to Title II because it is not a communications service at all, but merely a means of addressing messages." Foursquare Labs, Inc., which "uses text messaging to confirm user identity on mobile as well as send users contextually relevant content about places near a user," supported the petition. "This year, carriers have begun blocking more and more text message traffic," it said. "There are periods where Foursquare has seen 100% of the messages being blocked by certain carriers. This has significant impact on Foursquare's services. When identity verification texts are blocked users are unable to use Foursquare's services because they cannot confirm their identity. When contextual relevant content [is] blocked, it results in Foursquare being unable to provide its service to users in a manner the user expects, which reflects negatively on the company." |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0163-9854 |