FCC Seeks Comment on Protections for Short Text Messages
The FCC late Monday sought comment on a petition by various public interest groups asking that the FCC declare that short text messages are protected by the anti- discrimination provisions of Title II of the Communications Act. CTIA disputed the groups’ complaints and said Tuesday it will set the record straight. Public interest groups filed a petition at the FCC in December in the aftermath of Verizon Wireless’s initial refusal to issue a text messaging short code to abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. Verizon Wireless relented after being hit by a wave of bad publicity.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
“Mobile carriers currently can and do arbitrarily decide what customers to serve and which speech to allow on text messages, refusing to serve those that they find controversial or that compete with the mobile carriers’ services,” the petition said: “This type of discrimination would be unthinkable and illegal in the world of voice communications, and it should be so in the world of text messaging as well.” Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, the Media Access Project, the New America Foundation, and U.S. PIRG signed a Dec. 11 petition for declaratory judgment. Comments are due Feb. 13, replies March 14.
“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,” said CTIA President Steve Largent in a statement. “First and foremost, the wireless industry does not block text messages of any type. 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.”
The FCC also sought comment on a petition by Free Press, Public Knowledge and other groups charging that the practice of degrading peer-to-peer traffic violates the FCC’s Internet policy statement and is not reasonable network management and on a petition filed by Vuze seeking a rulemaking to clarify what constitutes “reasonable” network management.
Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said the FCC had rightfully started “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,” she said: “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’s decision to seek comments on network management policies also won praise from Free Press, which said the commission needs to send a “stern” warning to phone and cable companies that “try to control our Internet experience,” said Policy Director Ben Scott. “The longer the FCC waits to punish Comcast and Verizon, the more these companies will invest in technologies to censor and manipulate what we can do online and over the public airwaves.”
Anti-neutrality blogger Scott Cleland predicted that the FCC will eventually support network-management practices. “No one should mistake the FCC doing its job in investigating significant allegations (by issuing public notices for comments) for an FCC predilection against reasonable network management in favor of net neutrality supremacy,” he said. Companies need to do network management, he argued, and there is no “legal and binding” rule against it. The comments illustrate that the debate over net neutrality isn’t over, an opinion expressed in a Dec. 20 Congressional Research Service report. The report said it was unlikely legislation would progress in the 110th Congress but discussion would continue.