Text Message Spammer Wants FCC To Declare Spam Filters Illegal 338
TCPALaw writes "ccAdvertising, a company purported to have 'a long, long, long history of pumping spam out of every telecommunications orifice, and even boasting of voter suppression' has asked the FCC to declare spam filters illegal. Citing Free Speech rights, the company claims wireless carriers should be prohibited from employing spam filters that might block ccAdvertising's political spam. Without stating it explicitly, the filing implies that network neutrality must apply to spam, so the FCC must therefore prohibit spam filters (unless political spam is whitelisted). In an earlier filing, the company suggests it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited political speech sent to their cell phones. The public can file comments with the FCC on ccAdvertising's filing online."
Car Analogy (Score:2, Informative)
That'd be like... Fuck you, spammer.
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Informative)
"Hello, I'm calling you collect, because my uncle, the Prince of Persia has all his cash tied up in banks overseas, and we need your help to liberate those $10.000.000.000..."
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Where I live, the sender pays for text messages. Problem solved. I don't get any spam.
Here in Brazil the sender pays, but I still receive spam. It so happens that the phone company can partner with a spammer so that he pays much, much less for sending spam SMS than normal people do. At least they make the official spammers offer an opt-out, but any time a new company signs up with them, I start receiving brand new spam. ~sigh~
Re:Sounds reasonable (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently the spammers missed "EmarkertersAmerica.org vs Spamhaus" in their research. I foresee nothing but fail related to this action.
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Informative)
The simplest solution is to prosecute phone, computer, and fax spam under the existing federal law of USCC Section 18, paragraph 2701. The law applies to "unlawful stored communications", and it's only deliberate regulatory cooperation with bulk advertisers that have prevented applying it to email and phone spam.
Under that law, a first offense of spam for commercial gain is punishable by 5 years in jail. Second offense, 10 years.
Re:First spam! (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK the US Law does not state any such thing. That therefore must mean you do not have any such right, and are obliged to listen to whatever anyone has to say. /sarcasm
(Sarcasm tag aside...) for a private person: what is not prohibited by law it is permitted. Thus, one doesn't need to have a law granting a right to enjoy it (for govts is the other way around: what is not specificity allowed by a law, it is supposed to be prohibited).
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
Just FYI, the political calls are not restricted by the Do Not Call lists.
From the FTC website ( http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm [ftc.gov] ):
Q&A # 28
*****
"If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls?
No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you’ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls. However, if you ask a company with which you have an existing business relationship to place your number on its own do-not-call list, it must honor your request. You should keep a record of the date you make the request."
*****
Re:First spam! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the request is not to ban spam filters, it is to ban carriers from applying filters which filter out speech the carrier chooses. This is not a request to prohibit individuals, or carriers on the behalf of individuals, from filtering out speech which the individual does not wish to receive. Blocking spam by the carrier of the carriers choice, is equivalent to blocking phone calls from a specific number by the carriers choice, which they are regulated not to be able to.
I hate spam texts as much as anyone else, but the argument being made in the filing is sound. The filling is not saying that you have to read or even receive his speech, only that the common carrier can not block his speech without your explicit request.