There is an email being distributed by CREDO Mobile that pertains to the transmission of text messages on wireless networks. Specifically, it cites a recent incident in which an organization's request for a common short code was initially denied by a carrier, and then permitted once the carrier realized its policy was outdated and quickly reversed itself. Without getting into all of the particulars of the email, I think it's important to point out that it's perpetuating a premise that simply does not exist. Carriers do not block text messages. Period. If any organization wants to communicate with its members, or anyone else for that matter, it is free to send as many text messages as it would like. It is also possible for mobile subscribers to use their wireless devices to access organizations' websites, where they may receive information on making contact with the organization, such as via email or toll-free phone numbers. Carriers have an outstanding track record of blocking unwanted, illegal, or objectionable content---- pornography and spam are examples of that. Inaccurate and misleading emails such as the one CREDO is distributing attempt to confuse the issue for many, and they don't reflect the situation as it exists today. The incident on which it is based was an error that was swiftly corrected in less than 24 hours. On a side, but hardly unimportant, note, think about how long it might take government regulation or intervention in a disputed case such as this one. Instead, the carrier admitted an error, and in an extremely short period of time, corrected itself. To the larger issue, it is worth repeating in plain and simple terms: No carrier is blocking text messages. Any charges to that effect are just flat-out wrong.
RSS Feed
There are plenty of reports out there that carriers have denied the creation of these codes. It's happened enough times and the FCC has gotten enough complaints that it is investigating.
No common carrier should ever be allowed to deny the creation of a common short code.
You say your members don't filter text messages between individuals. Short codes are used for people to text message with organizations. Why is it ok for mobile network operators to decide which organizations people can and can't SMS to? What makes two people texting about an illegal or "immoral" activity any different than a person texting an organization about it? Why filter in one case, but not the other?
This practice of giving carriers the right to veto particular short codes serves to balkanize the SMS network. If the mobile network operators tried to do this with voice service (e.g. block access to the 800 number for NAMBLA--assuming it exists), it'd be violating federal law.
Many people are either confused about the differences between text messages and common short codes, or are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. The group my comments pertained to is soliciting support to fight a practice that doesn't exist. Contrary to its email, carriers do not block text messages between users. As for common short codes, they are purely marketing tools for retailers and others leasing them. You say all common short codes should be made operational on all networks. Let me ask you this: Should a carrier be forced to transmit traffic on its network for a common short code that has been leased by a pornographic web site or retailer, or an illegal gambling operation? If you shop at Safeway, should it have to reserve space for Giant Food advertising? Does NBC carry CBS promos? As I said earlier, a common short code is nothing more than a marketing technique, a short cut used by retailers to facilitate communication with consumers. Decisions about whether certain codes should be operational rest squarely within a carrier's domain. At the same time, wireless subscribers may still access web sites via the Internet, where they can learn how to contact or receive materials from a business or organization via email, text messaging, or a toll-free phone number.
You are either a common carrier or not. If you are a common carrier then you treat all users the same whether you like it or not, even the competitors. You cannot limit the services you supply to your users based on what those users do with the service, that is clearly restraint of trade.
Regarding common short codes, those are just another form of marketing and in this respect, carriers have every right to exercise their prerogative to do business with whom they choose. There are numerous examples of why that's a good thing. For example, if a pornographic publisher wanted to lease a common short code to market to the carriers customers, a carrier should be able to decide whether it wants to enter into a marketing agreement through the use of a common short code. The carriers decision to deny a common short code does not prevent a company from marketing to wireless subscribers, or those customers from contacting the marketer. Marketers still have a number of ways to reach wireless customers, including text messaging, the very technology used by common short codes.