cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,089
The EFF and other groups have lambasted the latest FCC vote to keep text messaging classified as "information services" as another measure that elevates the power of corporations over the rights of consumers. The EFF notes that wireless providers such as Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint have already been caught numerous times discriminating and censoring texts related to political speech, charities, businesses, and religious groups. Also reclassifying text messages as "telecommunications services" "under Title II would require that wireless carriers contribute to the Universal Service Fund which funds initiatives to, among other things, increase the availability and affordability of phone and Internet services for rural and low-income users." The FCC release can be read here.

Lone dissenting FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel called the ruling "doublespeak" as "doublespeak is language designed to evade responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant and the unattractive appear attractive" in her statement. She also notes that none of the talking points brought up by dissenters were referenced in the FCC statement to mislead Americans with discussions about spam. She says that the FCC has already empowered the wireless carriers to block spam and scam texts. "At the same time, this approach makes a range of key FCC policies newly vulnerable--from roaming obligations to universal service. But you will find no discussion of these harms in today's decision." She goes on to say that the "approach we take now does not newly empower consumers," it "empowers companies instead" by letting them "censor content . . . at their whim . . . rather than at the consumer's will."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reiterates that the ruling is strictly about filtering spam, scams, and robotexts. He goes on to talk about how robocalls are plaguing the nation and are the number one category of consumer complaints. He lists numerous groups that say they want to keep spam, scams and robotexts off text messaging platforms. He finds it "unfortunate that one of my colleagues has suggested that those in favor of our action today--including Democratic state attorneys general, African-American elected officials, and consumer groups--are aiding and abetting, if not engaging in themselves, deception and "doublespeak." Actually, doublespeak is demanding that companies offer robocall-blocking tools to consumers for free while--on the very same day--voting to block wireless messaging providers from continuing to use free robotextblocking tools to protect consumers from unwanted text messages."
 
I have yet to get bombarded by these spam texts they're referring to, am I missing something?

Now emails? That's another story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
Spam texts seem fairly under control as it is. If it is working, don't break it. Disagree with the EFF about the benefits of collecting more money for the USF. The wireless providers would just pass any USF fees on to customers as below line extra fees. And if the USF was actually being used for rural broadband improvements, we wouldn't have so many rural areas of the US dealing with slow service and high costs. 12mb DSL in rural for $90 vs 50mb basic AT&T fiber for $40 in city. And from what I have been reading, I have to count myself as lucky to get the 12mb service.
 
If Ajit is backing something, you have to know there is an agenda he is covering up. He is a corporate shill, at best with absolutely no conerne for anyone who is not feeding him cash. Anyone believing he is doing something for the general good is an idiot.

I have text messaging blocked, by the carrier, so this has zero impact on me. Is text spamming out of control? I know robocall spamming is completely out of control.
 
I wondered where the Ajit Pai haters were on the other thread. I guess they were all waiting for some god-like tech group to validate their hate before speaking up.

Realize, that the FCC refused to change the current ruling, so if you don't get spam texts, be thankful because your provider is keeping them from you. Had this ruling gone forward, you could be prepared to be deluged.
 
I have yet to get bombarded by these spam texts they're referring to, am I missing something?

Now emails? That's another story.
They story is purposely confusing. Basically this allows carriers to keep blocking spam on their end. The new rules would have made it easier for you to stop spam on your end but blocked companies from doing it on their end. That and a hidden tax on phone users under the guise of a 'fund'.
 
Oh no no more net neutrality now isp's will throttle content, and the free market will cause other isp's that don't to take on more business instead.

Oh no, it's carry on with what you're doing regarding text spam.

Next they'll be angry if Ajit Pai undoes the Icann handover.
 
I don't want ANY texts pertaining to religion, politics, charities, or businesses.

I only want texts from friends and family. Same with my phone calls.
 
Because I'm sure they have expanded their rural networks and subsidised those poor folks. So thats why my dad pays a ridiculous amount of money for a 12/2 line
 
I don't want ANY texts pertaining to religion, politics, charities, or businesses.

I only want texts from friends and family. Same with my phone calls.
I assume that they meant texts to people that actually signed up for those types of texts. But you know what assume means. :)
 
I get spam texts near daily on my work cell phone at that. I have to block a new number, at a minimum of 2x a week. If this would help, by all means, please do it. I don't know how that number got on a list as it's a new phone, but the day I got it from work, it started.
 
I get spam texts near daily on my work cell phone at that. I have to block a new number, at a minimum of 2x a week. If this would help, by all means, please do it. I don't know how that number got on a list as it's a new phone, but the day I got it from work, it started.
What the EFF wants, puts the burden on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this
I can see there's a lot of worry about a possible Universal Service Fund tax being added if they change the designation of texts to communication instead of information. Well first the USF is not a tax, it's levied against all communication carriers, so if your cell phone accepts voice calls which is literally 100% of cell phones, then it already is being taxed. You seeing a USF on your bill isn't the government taxing you, it's the company you are with passing the cost onto you but doing so in a way that puts it under "taxes & fees" so they can still happily advertise a low price that is in fact a lie all by putting an asterisk next to the number and microprint below that says "plus taxes and fees".

Now the question is whether they (the federal government) would be able to double charge for that or not
 
Last edited:
Something even crazier just came up:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-using-businesses-and-give-the-money-to-isps/

The FCC wants to tax everything that goes through the ISP oligopolies' pipes, and then hand them that pile of money.

AT&T's argument for taxing companies and customers further:
AT&T executive Chris Nurse, the telecom's assistant VP for state legislative and regulatory affairs, said the definition is "not broad enough."

"It basically is everybody [that should be taxed] because this is a societal objective," Nurse said during the BDAC meeting. "Universal service is a societal objective. We want to spread that $20 or $30 billion burden more broadly so the tax is low on everybody."
Talk about delusive speak.
DaveSimmons posts:
So AT&T wants to get paid:
- By customers for internet access
- By Netflix when AT&T is the ISP for their servers
- By Netflix a second time to not have its bandwidth crippled in a slow lane
- By the Feds through the existing subsidy
- By the Feds again through this new tax
Work once, get paid five times. Nice outcome if you can bribe Pai and co. to require it.

Sounds like a good way to tank a digital economy.
 
Last edited:
About that gentle and eloquent, but condescending tone Ajit uses in the announcement video... Feigning ignorance is a childish tactic. AKA playing stupid. It is used to minimize concern or hide important details by oversimplifying an issue and selectively dropping relevant facts. The gentle tone is the kicker -- when used with a simplified message it makes any retort appear as irrational or aggressive. That way, you can smile, pat the aggressor on the head, and dismiss any conflict as irrational, devoid of moral ground.

Doublespeak describes Ajit Pai perfectly. You don't need to be a psychologist to tell that he's lying during his announcements and interview videos, but any psychologist can attest that he is a sack of shit.

What's worst is that the sentiment of the issue is so easily defended; to help stop spam. But this application is so wrong. Do carriers not provide a common graylisting service? It's simple and cheap to implement and provides the consumer with all the power to block or allow what they want. Any complaints about spam could have easily been channeled into the simple effort of changing to a carrier who does provide such a service. Make no mistake, this is the FCC using these complaints as justification for overstepping their jurisdiction and both directing how business should be conducted. Effectively repealing both corporate and consumer freedom.
 
Back
Top