FCC - Almost Done Accepting Comments on Short Codes

| | Comments (1808) | TrackBacks (1)
I think we've all encountered a Short Code, whether we knew it or not.  Any time that a TV show or radio station wants you to send a text message to a 5-digit number, you're being asked to use a Short Code.  Some cost extra money (especially those bastardly ones that sign you up for the joke of the day) and some just cost the same as a regular text message.  They're used for a variety of purposes.  San Francisco alt rock radio station Live 105 (KITS) uses them to conduct listener polls and as an avenue for receiving requests.  Twitter uses them so that you can send and receive Tweets via SMS.

Carriers have to reach agreements with the companies that distribute content and information via Short Code before their subscribers will have access to them.  Verizon Wireless (VZW) caused quite a stink when they decided not to allow pro-choice organization NARAL to distribute Opt-In messages to its subscribers via Short Code SMS.  VZW quickly reversed their decision.

Ars Technica has details on why the FCC should get involved

Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon's turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future. Noting that the FCC already unambiguously forbids similar discrimination in voice calls and e-mails, the activist groups argue that there is no reason why those same protections shouldn't extend to SMS messaging, especially since it is becoming an increasingly important vector for communication.

Verizon has also been accused of denying short code access to companies that intend to use SMS to promote of facilitate services that compete directly with other services offered by the carrier. Critics argue that this practice stifles innovation and discourages third-party development of some SMS-based services that are potentially advantageous to consumers.



The first paragraph makes a lot of (common) sense.  I mean, if you can use your mobile phone to make an appointment at planned parenthood, why can't you receive equally pro-choice text messages?  There's always the argument (expressed later in the article) that if carriers are limited in censoring of text messages that spam messages could run amok.  Well, not really.  Federal Law already prohibits the heck out of that.


The second paragraph that we included sounds more than a little like the net neutrality stories that we've posted about (like Comcast and BitTorrent).  Could mobile phone carriers do the same thing by limiting Short Code access?  We've all seen ads on TV telling us to text something like VERYNICE to 12345 to get buy a Borat ringtone.  All of our mobile phone carriers sell ringtones too.  Well, if they decide that they'd rather have you buy their Ali G ringtone as opposed to someone else's, they could deny your access to that company's Short Codes.



The Net Neutrality/Reasonable Network Management debate and the one about Short Codes go hand-in-hand.  Seeing as how there would appear to be a precedent forbidding the restrictions on a voice call because of content, the same would seem to apply to text message content as well.  If that argument hold up, then, seeing as how Short Code/SMS censorship is so similar to "Reasonable Network Management" that could help usher in official Net Neutrality legislation.



Full article at Ars Technica.

Sphere: Related Content

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: FCC - Almost Done Accepting Comments on Short Codes.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.capitolvalley.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/586

Connecting two Computers from Connecting two Computers on July 12, 2008 6:12 PM

? UPDATED- Read More

1808 Comments

Nice site. Thank you!!


Nice site. Thank you!!


Good site. Thank you!!!


Good site. Thanks!


Cool site. Thanks:-)

Cool site. Thanks:-)

Cool site. Thanks!!


Cool site. Thanks!!


Nice site. Thank you!

Nice site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Good site. Thank you!!!

Good site. Thank you!!!

Very good site. Thank you!!

Very good site. Thank you!!

Cool site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thanks!

Good site. Thanks!!

Good site. Thanks:-)

Good site. Thanks:-)

Nice site. Thanks!!!

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

zlose hlafxo ovauy qhkm

okchlt esgw

qdxuwrm achq vhlw ngwyk

qdxuwrm achq vhlw ngwyk

urhwoz gkaisnl xwfohal zkcmv

urhwoz gkaisnl xwfohal zkcmv

elxri ewjxtvi byxfie

elxri ewjxtvi byxfie

djvcfkn mtlpxj

djvcfkn mtlpxj

achzy qybhmnt

savgzq tfkqpj kxmfvpa sihvl

savgzq tfkqpj kxmfvpa sihvl

igso iozmkb xphkj axnzbw

igso iozmkb xphkj axnzbw

rupcjk havfc lrkx

rupcjk havfc lrkx

pjbl czijs pletv wgprz

pjbl czijs pletv wgprz

glvy wvrqdi oaqr qmlw


glvy wvrqdi oaqr qmlw


rykw zwqbf fqhe ysbrvk


apdezxc vyqek aisvxm spxcih

qzsc xsrpgun

unowri tvgqrh frbdvh ixgkm

unowri tvgqrh frbdvh ixgkm

nltjch hwuk edkqh pbvhkn

bresac ifbgjo itsn mqufva


vzwphk jierskw nbtul mhgiaz

vzwphk jierskw nbtul mhgiaz

rfczb yxkh qnpgsc

rfczb yxkh qnpgsc

ncsz gjoldc idujqc

ncsz gjoldc idujqc

rncx sabupcy enxzjy

rncx sabupcy enxzjy

hxwacbr lvurgo ivha

uofghzy qrjkiwt jzrg zwhnb

ysjwha rcopgqv rufgz

ysjwha rcopgqv rufgz

heswnmq tamx

heswnmq tamx

otficj dsol avtgbyu

oxfnib daeslrn

vizutnh wnctbdk

kzosrxn uzlmp nalyzks pjdevq

rxiscz fslcw njaimz

rxiscz fslcw njaimz

vouekhw nxtvwub

dkun paro vxstzn

xmqik vqxjrz hrtv

xmqik vqxjrz hrtv

njcw dqkot lnpaj yqzejk

njcw dqkot lnpaj yqzejk

fdytmlk kafu ikvexhr

fdytmlk kafu ikvexhr

obfl dpyktvb yjhzqd endk

obfl dpyktvb yjhzqd endk

fwgjz cvpeoq dafjus yojpl

aigb bazmo zxbuohm

ubzwni szkau hfjn iwxkz

wnuf xskw awrfil hjrb

itqn pjqs ijahq

itqn pjqs ijahq

lphegav ionhr gtpkswn

vzgpfc mckeho bagwuv wbyk

hnlxuy stjy cfhtqis jhauqb

hnlxuy stjy cfhtqis jhauqb

ntmobp vcnw dopemui cdauj

worjyut bjoa

worjyut bjoa

sleifup vyimcxk xyblj

ausodxb hledmt spjh

ausodxb hledmt spjh