<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.publicknowledge.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Tag: TXT/SMS</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms</link>
 <description>Tagged Items</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>A Little Reminder Why The PK Petition On Mobile Texting And Short Codes Matters</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1705</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Today&amp;#8217;s NYT has &lt;a href=&quot;//www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13graff.html?ex=1376280000&amp;amp;en=756f947ab1799ac3&amp;amp;ei=5124&amp;amp;partner=permalink&amp;amp;exprod=permalink&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this op ed&lt;/a&gt; on Obama&amp;#8217;s use of text messaging to announce his VP pick.  It provides a nice reminder about the importance of the pending  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Petition by PK and others&lt;/a&gt; on text messaging.  Not that Verizon or any other provider would be so foolish as to deny the Obama or McCain campaigns short codes or block their messages.  I&amp;#8217;m not even worried about independent candidates like Barr and Nader.  No, I&amp;#8217;m worried about us ordinary schlubs or unpopular folks who can&amp;#8217;t count on getting a front page story on the NYT if something happens.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To quickly review the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/898&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NARAL flap&lt;/a&gt; that prompted the filing of the Petition.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1705&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1705#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/information-policy">Information Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:00:12 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Harold Feld</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1705 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Feed the Animals: the FCC Holds Court in Pittsburgh</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1674</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.myspace.com/girltalkmusic&quot;&gt;Girl Talk&lt;/a&gt; a.k.a. Pittsburgh-based mashup artist Greg Gillis, has been making waves in both the electronic/dance and indie rock communities for a few years now. Specializing in sample-based DJ mixes, Gillis creates music that is dense, tirelessly referential and thoroughly postmodern. His breakthrough album, 2006&#039;s &lt;em&gt;Night Ripper&lt;/em&gt;, proved that a well-executed mashup can have a life beyond the Internet and his latest release, the pay-what-you-want, Creative Commons licensed &lt;a href=&quot;http://74.124.198.47/illegal-art.net/__girl__talk___feed__the__anima.ls___/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Feed the Animals&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, seems poised to push even further into the mainstream. Gillis has become quite the hot topic as of late and his name often pops up in the virtual pages of publications like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Pitchfork&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://stereogum.com/&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Stereogum&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, as DJs in clubs around the country shamelessly try to imitate his style. One place where you might not expect to hear Gillis mentioned, however, is in the corridors of power on Capitol Hill. Despite this fact, not only did Gillis&#039; name pop up twice this week during Congressional and FCC hearings but on both occasions he was held up as exemplifying a new breed of creative professional. Welcome to yet another week in the increasingly scattershot world of D.C. tech policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1674&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1674#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:24:52 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mehan Jayasuriya</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1674 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Text Messaging FUD Busting (Part I)</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1566</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Following the lead taken in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/user/2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Alex’s &lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1563&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; yesterday, I’m going to address some &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FUD&lt;/a&gt; which is making the rounds about text messaging and spam. This weekend, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com//&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;New York Times&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; ran an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/technology/10spam.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; talking about cell phone spam. Spam – or rather, the threat of spam – is a key argument used by the carriers who oppose our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;petition&lt;/a&gt; asking the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fcc.gov/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FCC&lt;/a&gt; to clarify that carriers may not discriminate in providing text messaging services. But don’t be fooled – the FUD thrown around in this article is irrelevant to the issues raised in the petition.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1566&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1566#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 12:18:25 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jef Pearlman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1566 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The Boy Who Cried &quot;Spam&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1535</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I have a nifty little service I buy from my telephone provider called &amp;#8220;teleblock.&amp;#8221;  It blocks calls originiating from certain types of phone calls unless I affirmatively allow them.  Thanks to this nifty service, I am once again able to sleep late on Sundays.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I bring this up because if there is a common carriage service left in the telecom world, it&amp;#8217;s plain old telephone service (POTS).  My POTS landline is absolutely regulated as a &amp;#8220;Title II&amp;#8221; common carrier telephone service.  But despite being a common carrier Title II telecom service, my POTS provider can offer me a very useful tool for limiting annoying calls.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1535&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1535#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/net-neutrality">Net Neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/information-policy">Information Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:56:10 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Harold Feld</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1535 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Mobile carriers argue, “Problem Solved” and “Trust Us.” Public Knowledge replies, “No” and “No.” </title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1525</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;You may recall that last month we filed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1461&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;comments&lt;/a&gt; in the FCC’s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1353&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proceeding&lt;/a&gt; on our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;text messaging petition&lt;/a&gt;.  We were joined by numerous other parties, including the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;American Civil Liberties Union&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rebtel.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rebtel&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.defazio.house.gov/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Congressmen&lt;/a&gt;, and over 200 concerned individuals.  On the other side of the debate, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tmobile.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.vzw.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;number&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.att.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;of&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metropcs.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ctia.org]&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;carriers&lt;/a&gt; weighed in as well.  The carriers’ main arguments? That the problem is solved, and that consumers are actually better off when the carriers get to decide who speaks and who doesn’t over text messages. Yesterday, we filed &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-etal-replies-20080414.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;reply comments&lt;/a&gt; addressing these arguments, and making it clear to the FCC that the problem has not been solved, and that it is unacceptable to have mobile carriers act as editors passing judgment on the content of text messages.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1525&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1525#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:22:37 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jef Pearlman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1525 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Public Knowledge and Advocacy Groups Urge FCC To Protect Text Messaging Rights</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1520</link>
 <description>&lt;strong&gt;For Immediate Release: &lt;span class=&quot;date-single&quot;&gt;April 14, 2008&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Public Knowledge, joined by a prominent state legislator as well as consumer and public interest groups, told the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that regulators act to protect the rights of consumers to use text messaging without undue interference from wireless companies.  The FCC should also protect some wireless carriers from the anticompetitive behavior of others, Public Knowledge and groups filing with it said.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In addition, groups representing advocacy organizations and the disability community agreed that their access to texting remains in jeopardy unless the FCC acts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1520&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:05:59 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Art Brodsky</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1520 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Wireless Companies Say that they Can Censor Your Speech--Tell the FCC They Can&#039;t!</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1512</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;This Monday, April 14, is the deadline for submitting reply comments to the FCC on the issue of whether wireless phone companies should be able to block text messages based on their source or content.  Several months ago, Public Knowledge, Free Press and a number of other organizations filed a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;petition&lt;/a&gt; asking the FCC to declare such practices to be illegal. The petition arose out of two incidents involving wireless companies: 1) Verizon refused to give a &amp;#8220;short code&amp;#8221; to the National Abortion Rights Action League to disseminate an action alert text message its members asked to receive, but which Verizon determined to be too controversial; and 2) Verizon, T-Mobile and Alltell refused to carry the text messages of competitive Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1512&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1512#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/open-standards">Open Standards</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:16:58 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Gigi Sohn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1512 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Round 1 of Text Messaging Comments Ends, Round 2 Begins</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1461</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;fight to keep speech free in text messaging&lt;/a&gt; continued last week, when Public Knowledge and all of the original parties &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1456&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;filed comments&lt;/a&gt; with the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fcc.gov&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FCC&lt;/a&gt;, repeating our message to the Commission that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1305&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;text messaging must be protected&lt;/a&gt;. In those comments, we drove home the point that because text messaging and short codes are offered to the public at large, they are common carrier services subject to nondiscrimination, and further developed the policy reasons that text messaging needs to remain a free communications medium.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1461&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1461#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/information-policy">Information Policy</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:15:08 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jef Pearlman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1461 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Public Knowledge and Public Interest Groups Tell FCC Text Messaging Discrimination Problem Needs To Be Solved</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1457</link>
 <description>&lt;strong&gt;For Immediate Release: &lt;span class=&quot;date-single&quot;&gt;March 14, 2008&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should realize that wireless carriers continue to discriminate against text messaging, and that the Commission needs to act to remedy the situation, according to comments filed with the FCC by Public Knowledge and several others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1457&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/net-neutrality">Net Neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:30:00 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Art Brodsky</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1457 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Defend Your Right to Free Speech: Tell the FCC to Protect Text Messaging!</title>
 <link>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1447</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img align=&quot;right&quot; src=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/images/byop6wide.png&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Next up in our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/byophone&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;campaign&lt;/a&gt; for open phones and an open Internet is the Public Knowledge-Free Press &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/text-message-petition&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;petition&lt;/a&gt; that seeks to ensure that wireless phone companies do not block your text messages.  Here are the facts: Verizon wireless blocked its customers from receiving NARAL Pro-Choice America action alert text messages – messages that Verizon customers had asked to receive - because it deemed those messages to be too controversial.  While Verizon reversed its decision in the NARAL case, the company still maintains that it can decide who their customers can communicate with.  And although Verizon promised Congress that it would develop a new text message policy some five months ago, we have yet to see it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1447&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1447#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/fcc">FCC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/net-neutrality">Net Neutrality</category>
 <category domain="http://www.publicknowledge.org/tag/txtsms">TXT/SMS</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:19:12 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Gigi Sohn</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1447 at http://www.publicknowledge.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
