BREAKING: @TMobile has quietly updated their TOS to include fines for content they don’t agree with.
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) December 24, 2023
Beginning on January 1, 2024, they will be fining users who commit perceived violations on their bandwidth.
Who knew in America that the phone providers would now be policing… pic.twitter.com/spdzxGxtjx
Post Reply
1 of 1
If any of us use t mobile, might be time to change.
15,238 Views |
29 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Teslag
how exactly would they enforce the fines? This sounds like a f\onward from grandpa.
You have a better source than Looney Tunes.
https://resellerkb.mobilesecuregateway.com/support/solutions/articles/47001255049-new-t-mobile-non-compliance-fees-starting-1-1-2024Quote:
The non-compliance fine(s) (USD) will be assessed for every Sev-0 violation issued as follows:
- Tier 1: $2,000, for phishing, smishing, and social engineering
- Social Engineering refers to the practice of targeting individuals in a way that manipulates individuals to reveal private information like credit card numbers, or social security numbers.
- Tier 2: $1,000, for illegal content (content must be legal in all 50 states and federally)
- Illegal content includes, but is not limited to, Cannabis, Marijuana, CBD, Illegal, Prescriptions and Solicitation.
- Tier 3: $500, for all other violations including, but not limited to, SHAFT
- Please review the T-Mobile Code of Conduct Section 5.2 for a list of all disallowed contact
You dont like it just set up your own nationwide cell network. /****** muh private business conservative
On a serious note, I assume tmobile has / gets all sorts of kickbacks / benefits from local/state/federal governments. Why are they able to benefit from taxpayers while infringing on our rights?
On a serious note, I assume tmobile has / gets all sorts of kickbacks / benefits from local/state/federal governments. Why are they able to benefit from taxpayers while infringing on our rights?
Sounds like this for all mobile carriers.
https://help.dialpad.com/docs/sms-content-compliance
https://help.dialpad.com/docs/sms-content-compliance
Quote:
Mobile carriers enforce compliance with telecommunication regulation guidelines (such as TCPA and CTIA) to maintain a safe standard for US text messaging. When messages don't comply with these guidelines, carriers will block them and charge non-compliance fees.
Even if your SMS Campaign is approved, your messages must adhere to the carrier content standards.
Quote:
Mobile carriers enforce non-compliance fees for messages that violate their messaging policies.
I know that name but who is she?
Agitator.45-70Ag said:
I know that name but who is she?
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
This. A quick fact check makes it clear this applies to messaging campaigns that organizations do, and not to John and Jane sending each other nudes.
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
Good now maybe Joe and Jill Biden won't text me any more
ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
Funky Winkerbean[b said:
Tier 3: $500, for all other violations including, but not limited to, SHAFT
ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Loomer completely full of **** ? Never.
Since all 3 of them are the same on this, just use Signal and encrypt all SMS messages =)
I believe that even in the dark ages of print only, newspapers had restrictions on what advertisers were allowed to put in ads in their papers. I see this as just a modern analog.Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Elon needs to revoke their partnership
Pookers said:
You dont like it just set up your own nationwide cell network. /****** muh private business conservative
On a serious note, I assume tmobile has / gets all sorts of kickbacks / benefits from local/state/federal governments. Why are they able to benefit from taxpayers while infringing on our rights?
Reagan started the program that Bush43 basstardized to include cell companies. Remember "Obama phones", misnomer....They're Bush phones.
I can dig it.
/black middle finger emoji
So, will this include a ban on abortion lobbyists since abortion is not legal in all 50 states? Or talking about gasoline engine lawn mowers? Or gas powered stoves?
I remember when all the conservatives on this board were completely against Net Neutrality.
Guess you reap what you sow.
Guess you reap what you sow.
Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
Not freedom of speech when you're talking commercial use of a private network. T-Mobile certainly has the right to deny commercial entities the ability to use their network for uses they do not agree with or are illegal.
boboguitar said:
I remember when all the conservatives on this board were completely against Net Neutrality.
Guess you reap what you sow.
Who here is for it?
Also, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
ABATTBQ11 said:Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
Not freedom of speech when you're talking commercial use of a private network. T-Mobile certainly has the right to deny commercial entities the ability to use their network for uses they do not agree with or are illegal.
Corporatocracy Is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they came up with that BOR. Just because the can, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it with our wallets
BMX Bandit said:boboguitar said:
I remember when all the conservatives on this board were completely against Net Neutrality.
Guess you reap what you sow.
Who here is for it?
Also, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Yes, and that poster considers himself a techie.
Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
Not freedom of speech when you're talking commercial use of a private network. T-Mobile certainly has the right to deny commercial entities the ability to use their network for uses they do not agree with or are illegal.
Corporatocracy Is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they came up with that BOR. Just because the can, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it with our wallets
They had the idea that the government could not limit your speech, which this is not. What they didn't have in mind was forcing others to help you promote speech they didn't want to, which is what you want. They should not have to bake the cake because you want access to their privately built and run network to commercially push whatever message you feel like.
ABATTBQ11 said:Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:Philip J Fry said:ABATTBQ11 said:
Seems like this is not for the average consumer and only for texting campaigns, so a lot of nothing.
Incremental encroaches on freedom of speech should be fought vigorously
Not freedom of speech when you're talking commercial use of a private network. T-Mobile certainly has the right to deny commercial entities the ability to use their network for uses they do not agree with or are illegal.
Corporatocracy Is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they came up with that BOR. Just because the can, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it with our wallets
They had the idea that the government could not limit your speech, which this is not. What they didn't have in mind was forcing others to help you promote speech they didn't want to, which is what you want. They should not have to bake the cake because you want access to their privately built and run network to commercially push whatever message you feel like.
Imagine thinking these networks are privately built. Some of you will deserve your walmart gulag.
boboguitar said:
I remember when all the conservatives on this board were completely against Net Neutrality.
Guess you reap what you sow.
Tell us you know jack **** about net neutrality without filling us you know jack **** about net neutrality
Featured Stories
See All
4:10
4m ago
138
15:49
11h ago
2.4k
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 111, Prairie View A&M 82
by Luke Evangelist
5:17
22h ago
5.9k
5:07
1h ago
509
Charean Williams highlights Texas A&M's best moments of 2025
by Richard Zane
OklahomaSooner Ag
Newest member of class of 2048 arrived this morning
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
111
Thurman Merman
Interesting tweet about the state of college football
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
36