If you enjoy “robocalls” and spam email then you are really going to enjoy a request that the FCC is considering from a company called Twillio.
Twilio provides back-end systems for companies to text customers. Twilio “allows software developers to programmatically make and receive phone calls and send and receive text messages using its web service APIs. Twilio's services are accessed over HTTP and are billed based on usage.” What that means in practice is that Twilio is paid more as a greater number of automated texts or “robocalls” are made using its platform.
The company has filed a petition asking the FCC to classify texts under Title II, despite texts today being a core information service, so that all texts must be delivered regardless of harm to the consumer. Under Title II essentially the government would control texting, the “common carrier” operating under a general public license, with regulations created, interpreted and enforced by the FCC.
The company’s petition to the FCC is simply an attempt to enhance its bottom line, a classic case of rent seeking. That is, Twilio merely wants to use government as a means to bolster its business, to increase its wealth, without increasing its economic value.
Currently, wireless operators have been able to deploy filtering technology to screen out abusive, illegal or other unwanted content, resulting in mostly spam free text. Consumers are saved from wasting time and resources on unwanted messages.
Because of these industry efforts, text has become wildly successful. Data shows that nearly 90 percent of text messages are opened within 15 minutes. Compare that to email which is counted as successful if the open rate reaches the high teens or low 20 percent threshold within a full day. These results vividly demonstrate consumer trust in the product. Businesses have become increasingly reliant on text as a key means for communicating with customers, whether offering new services, bill pay reminders or even security alerts.
But Twilio wants all of its texts to be sent regardless of whether the consumer desires them so that it can maximize the amount of money it makes without having to take any responsibility. As it turns out, the texts the company is really concerned about are what might kindly be called “junk texts” or “text spam.” Twilio, in effect, argues that the preservation of its profit is worth government intervention, reducing consumer safeguards, and forcing the wireless industry into spamming unsuspecting consumers with millions and millions of unasked for, harassing text messages.
Under Twilio’s proposal the robocall would morph into a robotext, flooding two communications channels. Given the substantial work and resources that providers have expended to make texting a trustworthy means of communications, Twilio’s proposal is out of touch. More importantly, when a company is seeking to use government regulation to pad its own bottom line, to enhance the wealth of its executives without creating any new value, then government should reject the proposal.