I want to go on the record. Rebtel does not promote the use of alcohol, tobacco products, guns, other weapons, or illegal drugs. Nor does Rebtel advocate or have anything to do whatsoever with intense profanity or violence, graphic depiction of sexual activity, nudity, or hate speech.
We are not SPAMers or purveyors of fraudulent materials or activities that are restricted by law to those over 18, such as gambling or lotteries.
Nevertheless, if you take the time to wade through the nearly 200 collective pages of legal mumbo jumbo recently filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint Nextel and CTIA, The Wireless Association, you might actually come away thinking we are. Or could be.
In fact, the only thing we do at Rebtel is give consumers an alternative way to make an international call from their mobile phone, for which we charge them a few pennies per minute instead of mobile operators ridiculous rip-off rates.
As you might guess, the carriers are not wild about our service even though it’s super simple and very low cost to implement. Just ask our friends at Skype, Jajah and Jaxter which are now blatantly copying Rebtel’s invention.
That, however, is an entirely separate kettle of fish.
The issue at hand before the FCC is very straightforward. And we totally agree with AT&T, which wrote in its filing that it is important for the FCC to be clear as to what this proceeding is about, and more importantly, what it is not about.
AT&T wrote in its filing: “This proceeding is not about the ability of wireless customers to exchange [text] messages with other wireless customers. What is at issue is whether wireless carriers can be forced to enter into joint marketing arrangements with content providers through the activation of short code campaigns.”
But for some reason they got it backward. The issue concerning Rebtel is all about the ability of wireless customers to exchange text messages with other wireless customers, and has absolutely nothing to do with marketing using short code campaigns.
As I’ve discussed here in the past, short codes, among other uses are how text messages (SMS) get sent from a company’s web site to an individual’s phone in the U.S.
What’s happening is the carriers customers want to send themselves a text message from the Rebtel web site and they want to receive text messages that their friends, family and work colleagues send to them from the Rebtel web site.
But Verizon and Alltel won’t approve a Rebtel short code campaign that would allow those messages through. And while AT&T has approved Rebtel’s campaign, it transmits the messages as flash SMS so they disappear if you don’t immediately save them when they arrive.
All these games because the carriers don’t like what’s in the messages: local phone numbers where you live that connect you to friends abroad.
Verizon wrote in its filing that it does not block text messages, except those addressed to its subscribers that are captured by its spam filters, or that are affirmatively selected for blocking by its subscribers.
But there is no mass mailing of text messages going out from Rebtel that might be trapped by a SPAM filter. Instead every single messages is 1:1 sending initiated by the Verizon or AT&T or Alltel or whatever customer to either themselves or from a friend.
What the carriers are doing is really no different than if Verizon started listening into customers voice calls and disconnecting the calls if someone talks about a better deal over at AT&T.
So, let’s cut through the baloney. This is about business.
We created Rebtel with a very simple vision: Take the phony out of telephony.
Our mission: Create a genuinely good, honest, trustworthy global communications service that saves people money.
And we set out in 2006 to build a company on just three values: Always take the customers side, whatever you do must be clear and simple, and have no fear; do the right thing.
That approach has paid off. Rebtel blew past 1 million regular customers months ago and we’re now tripling in size every three months in terms of new customers, revenue and minutes carried.
In contrast, I think Verizon’s approach of trapping customers into multi-year contracts and then milking them for every penny possible is beautifully captured in its request for the FCC to dismiss the petition filed by Public Knowledge, Free Press and other leading consumer advocacy groups.
Verizon argues that the complaints in the petition refer to isolated instances that don’t warrant government involvement. If consumers want to join a short code campaign that Verizon Wireless has not enabled, they may switch to a provider willing to enable that campaign.
Okay, Verizon which providers do you suggest? And, by the way, will you wave the penalty fee on my contract when I do?
Facebook
Flickr
Friendfeed
LinkedIn
Plurk
Twitter
YouTube