stories about: "fcc"

Thankfully, Marketing Industry Plan For 'Ringless Voicemail' Dies a Quiet Death...For Now

from the it's-our-god-given-right-to-annoy-you dept

Wed, Jun 28th 2017 3:34pm — Karl Bode

So we've been talking the past month about a push by the marketing industry (a company by the name of "All About The Message," specifically) to exempt "ringless voicemail" from existing robocalling and privacy rules. Ringless voicemail lets a company leave a marketing or political message in your inbox without your phone ringing. But such technology is currently prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) , which prohibits such marketing efforts without the "prior express consent of the called party."

In its petition to the FCC (pdf), All About the Message tried to claim that the existing consumer protections on this front were "archaic," ringless voicemails shouldn't be included because they're not technically "calls," and that exempting ringless voicemail from these rules provided an "important public purpose:"

"A direct to voicemail service platform is not covered by the TCPA, and the use of direct to voicemail insertion technology does not “make a call” to a wireless phone number as contemplated by Section 227, of Title 47 of the U.S. Code. What is more, consumers are not charged for delivery of the voicemail communications. Further, from a broader policy perspective, the use of direct to voicemail technology serves an important public purpose. The act of depositing a voicemail on a voicemail service without dialing a consumers' cellular telephone line does not result in the kind of disruptions to a consumer’s life—dead air calls, calls interrupting consumers at inconvenient times, or delivery charges to consumers -- which the TCPA was designed to prevent.

The effort quickly then received the full-throated support of the US Chamber of Commerce, American Financial Services Association and the Republican National Committee, which in a supporting filing of its own (pdf) tried to claim that blocking this annoying effort would violate the First Amendment:

"Telephone outreach campaigns are a core part of political activism. Political organizations like the RNC use all manner of communications to discuss political and governmental issues and to solicit donations – including direct-to-voicemail messages. The Commission should tread carefully so as not to burden constitutionally protected political speech without a compelling interest.

The problem: at no point did any of these companies or organizations spend much time thinking about what consumers actually wanted, and they sure as hell didn't want their voicemail inboxes being filled up with spam. As a result, when the news wires began to issue reports on the ringless voicemail plan, consumers were quick to complain to the FCC and political leaders about the effort. All About the Message has since submitted a very short letter to the FCC stating they were pulling their petition from consideration, putting this latest attempt to annoy the hell out of you and your family to bed... for now.

Filed Under: marketing, ringless voicemail, voicemail
Companies: fcc

23 Comments

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Just Loves Net Neutrality Rulemaking Transparency, Except When It's His Turn To Be Transparent

Politics

from the walk-the-talk dept

Wed, Jun 10th 2015 10:38am — Karl Bode

You might recall that to try and thwart the agency's new net neutrality rules, former Verizon lawyer turned FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai launched a last-minute, facts-optional war on net neutrality and neutrality supporters like Netflix. Most of his arguments were nonsensically awful, like claiming that having real neutrality rules would somehow inspire North Korea and Iran to censor the internet, or that Netflix's fairly ordinary use of a CDN suggested it was somehow a hypocrite on the idea of net neutrality and was trying to destroy the internet.

But Pai's biggest complaint about the net neutrality rules was that the FCC wasn't being transparent enough, despite countless years of conversation and fully documented public input. Pai repeatedly and often proclaimed that the entire process wasn't transparent, even going so far as to hint that the White House's public Title II support was somehow part of a secret cabal with the FCC, even though as we noted at the time no rules were broken by the White House's entirely ordinary public statement of support for Title II.

If you know telecom company lawyers, you probably were keyed in early on that Pai and his staff's breathless love of transparency was a bit of a political show pony designed to rile up the folks that believe net neutrality is some vile, secret plot by government to ruin the internet. You also likely realized early on that when the shoe was on the other foot, this love of transparency would probably magically disappear.

And that didn't apparently take long. The House has been conducting an endless stream of political show pony hearings and "investigations" into the FCC's behavior on the net neutrality front under the noble pretense of reform, when the real goal is to punish the agency for daring to stand up to ISP campaign contributors. As the House digs through documents they hope will prove that net neutrality is an unholy, big government cabal (and not, as most realize, a genuine and remarkable grass roots movement) Pai apparently refused to provide documents to the FCC's own lawyer:

"Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is refusing to make his office’s documents available to the FCC’s Office of General Counsel as part of a House investigation into the agency’s net neutrality decision. Pai has instead promised to provide documents directly to the House Oversight Committee — though a panel spokeswoman said no documents have yet been provided."

Get it? Transparency is really, really important unless it doesn't coincide with partisan patty cake efforts to shame the FCC for finally doing its job and standing up for consumers. Of course in a few years when Pai's back at a telecom company or comfortably ensconced at one of their think tanks, this will all be forgotten, but if the rules get overturned in court by Pai's friends at Verizon, consumers and small businesses will be the ones left holding the detritus from Pai's noble, totally transparent time at the Commission.

Filed Under: ajit pai, net neutrality, transparency
Companies: fcc, netflix, verizon

10 Comments

Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'

Privacy

from the don't-take-it-personally dept

Tue, Mar 1st 2011 12:39pm — Mike Masnick

Last year, we wrote about an important case in which AT&T bizarrely claimed that it had personal privacy rights over information the FCC collected in an investigation concerning AT&T overbilling the government. An organization had made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on the info, but AT&T protested that, as a corporation, it had a personal right to privacy. As we noted, that seemed like a pretty ridiculous claim, but the appeals court accepted it. We were therefore happy to see the Supreme Court pick up the case last fall, and now it has unanimously ruled against AT&T (8 - 0, with Kagan not taking part, since she filed the original brief for the federal government in support of the FCC). Considering the complaints some have made about the Supreme Court taking the idea of "corporate personhood" too far, I think plenty of people (who don't work for AT&T) will agree that this ruling makes plenty of sense. A corporation has a right to keep certain information secret and confidential, but the idea it has a "right to privacy" makes no sense.

The actual ruling (embedded below) is quite interesting in noting, while corporations may be "persons," that does not automatically afford them "personal" rights.

Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun "crab" refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective "crabbed" can refer to handwriting that is "difficult to read," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 527 (2002); "corny" can mean "using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated," id., at 509, which has little to do with "corn," id., at 507 ("the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food"); and while "crank" is "a part of anaxis bent at right angles," "cranky" can mean "given to fretful fussiness," id., at 530.

Even in cases such as these there may well be a link between the noun and the adjective. "Cranky" describes a person with a "wayward" or "capricious" temper, see 3 Oxford English Dictionary 1117 (2d ed. 1989) (OED), which might bear some relation to the distorted or crooked angular shape from which a "crank" takes its name. That is not the point. What is significant is that, in ordinary usage, a noun and its adjective form may have meanings as disparate as any two unrelated words. The FCC's argument that "personal" does not, in fact, derive from the English word "person," but instead developed along its own etymological path, Reply Brief for Petitioners 6, simply highlights the shortcomings of AT&T's proposed rule.

"Person" is a defined term in the statute; "personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning." Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 4). "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them.

Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view.

Justice Roberts, who wrote the decision, then goes on to pick apart each argument made by AT&T as to why it should be allowed "personal" privacy, leading to the rather obvious punchline that you have to think the Justices had in mind to use from the very beginning:

We reject the argument that because "person" is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase"personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Filed Under: corporations, fcc, foia, personal privacy, personhood, privacy, supreme court
Companies: at&t, fcc

FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the get-your-last-jam-in dept

Thu, Feb 10th 2011 4:18am — Mike Masnick

Over the years, we've noted that mobile phone jammers were getting more popular in the US, even though they're completely illegal. However, it looks like the FCC has had enough and has announced plans to start cracking down on both mobile phone jammers and GPS jammers. The initial crackdown appears to be targeted at companies selling such jammers, but it hints at going further than that. The concern, of course, is that these jammers don't discriminate and block all sorts of legitimate communication among others. Still, the usual excuse about how it may prevent emergency responders rings a little hollow. It wasn't that long ago that no one had mobile phones and emergency responding still seemed to work. Obviously, having working mobile phones can be quite beneficial, but the FCC shouldn't overplay its hand here. Just stick with the truth: a jammer interferes with a public resource.

Filed Under: jammers, spectrum
Companies: fcc

51 Comments

EFF Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Rules Are A Bad, Bad Idea

Broadband

from the good-for-them dept

Mon, Feb 7th 2011 7:02pm — Mike Masnick

We've been pointing this out for years, but it seems that many of the "tech elite" are so focused on the phrase "net neutrality" that they're willing to jump on any sort of regulation that says it's "net neutrality." So, it's nice to see that the EFF is not following suit, but instead is warning that the FCC does not have the regulatory mandate to do what it's trying to do with net neutrality -- and if it is given that control, it will inevitably lead to much more internet regulation that we will all come to regret.

We're wholly in favor of net neutrality in practice, but a finding of ancillary jurisdiction here would give the FCC pretty much boundless authority to regulate the Internet for whatever it sees fit. And that kind of unrestrained authority makes us nervous about follow-on initiatives like broadcast flags and indecency campaigns. In general, we think arguments that regulating the Internet is "ancillary" to some other regulatory authority that the FCC has been granted just don't have sufficient limitations to stop bad FCC behavior in the future and create the "Trojan horse" risk we have long warned about.

In discussing this stance with Wired, Abigail Phillips, a staff attorney at the EFF said she wasn't sure what "the right solution is" to the question of keeping the basic end-to-end principles of the internet in place. I still don't think the "solution" is that complex. For over five years I've been pointing out that if there was real competition in the marketplace, net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue, because customers would go to ISPs that didn't discriminate. The real problem is how deeply connected our government is to a very small number of giant broadband providers. They've set the game up so that there's very little real competition, which allows those ISPs to pull stunts like trying to doublecharge, favor certain content, and do metered billing. Get more competition, and none of those things fly.

Filed Under: broadband, net neutrality
Companies: eff, fcc

45 Comments

Verizon Tries To Jump The Legal Line In Challenging FCC's Weak Net Neutrality Rules

Legal Issues

from the speed-up-the-process dept

Fri, Jan 21st 2011 4:12am — Mike Masnick

There was a noticeable split when the FCC announced its vague and totally watered down net neutrality rules last month. The rules were prepared in close conjunction with AT&T. And while they're pretty similar to what Verizon and Google had proposed, the fact that Verizon didn't get to work on it so closely with the FCC left it with hurt feelings. The scuttlebutt was that the FCC was pretty pissed off about the Google/Verizon announcement which derailed some other negotiations the FCC was already involved in.

In response, even though these rules are completely watered down and really have plenty of loopholes and clauses favorable to the telcos, Verizon, more or less on principle, has decided to fight them, just to make sure that the FCC can't implement stricter rules later (which seems pretty unlikely anyway). However, it also tried to jump the legal line. Rather than filing a lawsuit in a district court, it went straight to the Appeals Court of the DC circuit, leapfrogging the standard district court and appeals process. Apparently, it's using a rather unique legal interpretation to claim that it can do this, though others are pointing out if this is accurate, then basically all cases involving FCC regulations would be forced into that single court, killing off the idea of having different circuits examine issues.

Filed Under: lawsuits, net neutrality
Companies: fcc, verizon

5 Comments

How The FCC Got Millions To See Charlotte Ross's Naked Behind... And Then Lost In Court

Free Speech

from the nice-work,-FCC dept

Wed, Jan 5th 2011 12:03pm — Mike Masnick

We had just discussed how two separate appeals courts were trying to determine whether or not the FCC's indecency fines over "fleeting nudity" on TV were legal. The case involving Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is just beginning, but the other case, involving Charlotte Ross's bare behind being shown on NYPD Blue has now concluded with the (not surprising) decision to toss out the $1.43 million fine the FCC issued against ABC. This wasn't all that surprising, given that the courts had already struck down FCC fines over "fleeting expletives," and had suggested that fleeting nudity would fall under the same analysis. Even the FCC had admitted that under the ruling concerning "fleeting expletives," the NYPD Blue fine was probably a goner. It's still appealing the original ruling about fleeting expletives, however, so it's not over yet.

Of course, the history of almost all of these cases all tracks back to the infamous Parents Television Council (PTC), the group that is famous for flooding the FCC with bogus "complaints" from its members who never actually saw the content in question, but were urged on by the PTC to send complaints. We recently had noted that PTC was coming under some serious scrutiny concerning some of its more questionable practices.

However, what we still found most amusing about this particular case is the fact that when Kevin Martin (who headed the FCC when the original fine was issued) decided to pursue this fine over Charlotte Ross's nudity, all it really did was drive a tremendous amount of interest in people seeing what the clip was about. In other words, in trying to fine ABC for "indecency," the PTC and Kevin Martin helped to publicize the video, which for a while was apparently the most popular video on YouTube. And now, not only did the PTC and Kevin Martin help millions of people learn about ways to see Charlotte Ross' bare behind, but the FCC got absolutely nothing for it, given this latest ruling.

Filed Under: charlotte ross, fcc, fines, first amendment, free speech, indecency, tv
Companies: fcc, parents television council, ptc

21 Comments

Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights

Legal Issues

from the fcc-malfunction dept

Wed, Dec 29th 2010 4:01pm — Mike Masnick

Would you believe that the FCC, CBS and the courts are still fighting over the FCC's right to fine CBS over Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the half-time show of the Superbowl in 2004 (yes, seven years ago). There have actually been a series of related cases bouncing up and down through the court system, trying to establish whether or not the FCC's policies on "fleeting expletives" or "fleeting nudity" are arbitrary and if they violate the First Amendment. A court had originally found the FCC's policies to be arbitrary and tossed them out. The Supreme Court, in a related but different case (focusing on the fleeting expletives), ruled extremely narrowly that the FCC was allowed to change its policies, but did not rule on the constitutionality of the policy itself. The Second Circuit appeals court then ruled that even if the rule change was allowed, it still violated the First Amendment. From that, the court then asked -- if such rules on fleeting expletives are not allowed -- does that also cover fleeting nudity -- but that involved a separate case involving a scene of a bare rear end on NYPD Blue. But, of course, the Janet Jackson case, in the Third Circuit, also is relevant here as well.

Which brings us mostly up-to-date, other than the latest news in the Janet Jackson case, which is that the FCC is now trying to claim that broadcasters give up some of their First Amendment rights when they get a government license to broadcast over public airwaves. This seems like a huge stretch as a legal interpretation, which would have serious implications for anyone using public airwaves. I don't recall the First Amendment saying "Congress shall make no law... except if it involves public airwaves." Either way, as the article linked above notes, this will all be going back to the Supreme Court eventually.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, janet jackson, obscenities, wardrove malfunction
Companies: cbs, fcc

36 Comments

Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?

Wireless

from the these-are-the-people-who-regulate-us? dept

Wed, Dec 22nd 2010 7:47am — Mike Masnick

As we still wait for the details of the FCC's net neutrality ruling, some have noticed that the FCC's justification for not caring much about wireless networks is somewhat baffling. Specifically, the FCC used the openness of the Android operating system as evidence that things are open in the mobile networking world:

Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android.

Now, whether or not you agree with the FCC's plans, or with the idea of "net neutrality" regulations in general, this statement is a bit of a head scratcher. It's kind of like saying "because cars use gasoline, we see no reason to set speed limits." I mean, the two are kinda sorta related in that they both involve cars (or mobile computing), but they're not the same thing at all. Just because Android is a more open operating system has nothing to do with network discrimination or questions about the end-to-end principle of networks. Making such a statement suggests that the FCC doesn't understand the difference between an operating system and a mobile network... and that's just scary.

Filed Under: android, fcc, net neutrality, openness, operating system
Companies: fcc

26 Comments

Irony: If You Want To Know What The FCC's Rules On Internet Openness Are, You Need To File A FOIA

Politics

from the openness-is-a-matter-of-degree dept

Tue, Dec 21st 2010 2:13pm — Mike Masnick

We've already talked about how the FCC was going to approve heavily watered down (and written in conjunction with AT&T) "net neutrality" rules today -- which it did. However, one aspect of all this that is particularly ridiculous is the fact that the FCC voted on rules which it has not released, and which it claims may be adjusted before they are released. Considering that these rules are supposed to be about internet openness it seems pretty ironic that the rules are secret. Jeff Jarvis noted this irony in asking if he needed to file a Freedom of Information Act request just to find out what was voted on. He followed it up by filing just such a request that seeks not just the rules, but also details of correspondences and meeting notes leading up to the creation of the rules. We'll see what the FCC comes back with.

Filed Under: fcc, freedom of information, internet, openness
Companies: fcc

13 Comments

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Thursday
13:33	Former Employees Say Mossad Members Dropped By NSO Officers To Run Off-The-Books Phone Hacks (2)
12:01	No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet (18)
10:49	San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck (18)
10:44	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Java Coder Bundle (0)
09:31	As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why (44)
06:30	Comcast Continues To Bleed Olympics Viewers After Years Of Bumbling (19)
Wednesday
20:42	Apple Finally Defeats Dumb Diverse Emoji Lawsuit One Year Later (6)
15:39	Clearview Pitch Deck Says It's Aiming For A 100 Billion Image Database, Restarting Sales To The Private Sector (10)
13:41	Peloton Outage Prevents Customers From Using $2,500 Exercise Bikes (16)
12:09	The GOP Knows That The Dem's Antitrust Efforts Have A Content Moderation Trojan Horse; Why Don't The Dems? (16)
10:51	Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year (24)
09:21	Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional (34)
06:16	Medical, Home Alarm Industries Warn Of Major Outages As AT&T Shuts Down 3G Network (25)
Tuesday
20:37	Video Game History Foundation: Nintendo Actions 'Actively Destructive To Video Game History' (29)
15:35	Massachusetts Court Says No Expectation Of Privacy In Social Media Posts Unwittingly Shared With An Undercover Cop (17)
13:30	Techdirt Podcast Episode 312: Regulating The Internet (2)
12:03	US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly (60)
10:42	LA Sheriff Threatens To 'Subject' City Council To 'Defamation Law' If They Won't Stop Calling His Deputies 'Gang Members' (20)
10:37	Daily Deal: codeSpark Academy Sibling Bundle (0)
09:25	Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230 (128)
06:22	15 Years Late, The FCC Cracks Down On Broadband Apartment Monopolies (31)
Sunday
12:05	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (11)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 13th - 19th (1)
Friday
19:39	Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science (25)
15:52	Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry (44)
13:49	Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files (44)
12:13	Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate (8)
10:52	How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young (136)
10:47	Daily Deal: The Complete Blocs Website Builder Bundle (0)
09:33	Arizona Prosecutor Who Brought Bogus Gang Charges Against Protesters Files Ridiculous Defamation Suit Against Her Boss (12)

Thankfully, Marketing Industry Plan For 'Ringless Voicemail' Dies a Quiet Death...For Now

from the it's-our-god-given-right-to-annoy-you dept

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Just Loves Net Neutrality Rulemaking Transparency, Except When It's His Turn To Be Transparent

from the walk-the-talk dept

Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'

from the don't-take-it-personally dept

FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices

from the get-your-last-jam-in dept

EFF Warns That FCC Net Neutrality Rules Are A Bad, Bad Idea

from the good-for-them dept

Verizon Tries To Jump The Legal Line In Challenging FCC's Weak Net Neutrality Rules

from the speed-up-the-process dept

How The FCC Got Millions To See Charlotte Ross's Naked Behind... And Then Lost In Court

from the nice-work,-FCC dept

Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights

from the fcc-malfunction dept

Does The FCC Really Not Understand The Difference Between A Device Operating System And A Mobile Network?

from the these-are-the-people-who-regulate-us? dept

Irony: If You Want To Know What The FCC's Rules On Internet Openness Are, You Need To File A FOIA

from the openness-is-a-matter-of-degree dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Thursday

Wednesday

Tuesday

Sunday

Saturday

Friday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the it's-our-god-given-right-to-annoy-you dept

from the walk-the-talk dept

from the don't-take-it-personally dept

from the get-your-last-jam-in dept

from the good-for-them dept

from the speed-up-the-process dept

from the nice-work,-FCC dept

from the fcc-malfunction dept

from the these-are-the-people-who-regulate-us? dept

from the openness-is-a-matter-of-degree dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More