Years ago, I realized that whenever I received an email that began with "To better serve you," I knew I was fucked. I still use landlines. Sometimes, people tell me they texted me, and I'll explain that they texted a landline. I'm glad that I'm old, because there is only so much I can take of "To better serve you"...
I can't even tell you if my house still has a telephone port, let alone where it is. The flexible portability of a VOIP line is still unparalleled. It's really nice to be able to answer a phone call from my computer or my laptop or my actual phone. On top of that, lots of my clients hate talking on the phone so I'm happy meeting them where they're at.
Have you considered that the feds require a Title III warrant to tap a phone, but can access cell and texts without a warrant? I inform clients that no cellular communications are guaranteed to be confidential, and they should never discuss their case on a cellphone, but only on landlines and in person.
Is Riley v California no longer good law? Either way, I never discuss substance via text though that's based on the far bigger concern of them losing their phones (which happens with great regularity).
Your compliance message is so funny. The lack of human discretion and reasonable exceptions is maddening. It reminds me of local food regulations, where every tiny art gallery or music venue that wants to serve muffins has to have a full kitchen and inspection.
I am also not able to text my clients for reminders of appointments and I can read their texts, but cannot reply to them. I run a small pet grooming shop. I use an app called Line 2 to have a separate number on my cell phone to communicate with clients. I started the "verification process," on February 3rd. Line 2 told me they are using a 3rd party verifier, and it would take 4-14 business days. I was at the 14 business days yesterday, and my "campaign is awaiting approval" still. It is very frustrating. I have to use my personal cell phone number to text them, (at least I have that capability), but I have a copy and pasted spiel that says something like, " This is Kim on my personal cell phone because there is maintenance happening on my shop phone." Now I have muddied the waters with personal and business texts mixed up on my phone, and for someone who thrives in organization, I am struggling. The funny thing is, all this time I'm waiting to be verified to be able to send my actual clients who gave me their cell phone numbers a text, I continue to receive spam texts from fake USPS numbers saying that my package is held up and I need to input some information in order to receive my package. 🤣🤣
TCR has a Sole Proprietor 'brand' option which does not 'require' a website/social presence or an EIN...Zoom may not support this brand level because it's more work for the provider to support it, as TCR requires providers to submit a report on usage, and TCR doesn't make the submission process easy. But there are providers out there that do.
As TCR/carriers change their mind on how they want to do things, we've had to stop offering sole proprietor level brands, but we're working to implement them again very soon.
Oh that's interesting to know, I figure each carrier has their own compliance implementation. It's not feasible to hope from carrier to carrier to find out which one has the easiest process. Zoom's procedures caught me completely off-guard.
Yeah, the 'major' carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) have all formed an alliance of sorts and all agree on using TCR to manage the process, then Zoom and other providers have to abide by the process to stay in compliance.
TCR is the brand reputation authority that the carriers have agreed on, so TCR is sort of the first line of defense, if they say the brand (or you) are reliable then the carriers will decide how much throughput they want to give you.
Often, the provider (Zoom, in this case) will review the information at the different steps in the vetting process to 'help' alleviate time and vetting fees by offering up the 'suggestions' like they have to help things move along more quickly. But if they are trying to force you into a box that doesn't fit, their suggestions are just wasting time.
I'm guessing they've put you in the 'low-volume mixed' category, which does require all of the things they have 'suggested'. The next step smaller is the 'sole proprietor', but they might see it as too small or risky to mess with.
I'm also guessing you've read enough stuff about 10dlc regulations that one more thing might put you over the edge, but just in case, here's what's required of a brand when registering for one of the standard categories like the one it sounds like they're cramming you into: https://redoxygen.com/blog/what-will-i-need-to-provide-for-10dlc-registration/
Your frustration put into words, was spot on for many, I'm sure. Hopefully someone within TCR has their Google Alerts set for this topic like I did. Good luck!
This insider knowledge is fascinating! I understand the inane procedures better now that I know TCR tries to calculate a "reputation score" for each brand.
I guess they have no reason to care how this would affect small businesses, but it seems like the better solution would have been to impose a slow throughput as a default, but allow registration to lift the brakes. If the concern is then over spammers spreading texts across multiple numbers, smart filtering seems like a better fix.
I'm also annoyed at having to append every thread I ever start with REPLY STOP and other automated messages. I'm really tempted to just find a less-than-scrutable VOIP provider to avoid dealing with this nonsense, but then I'm worried about when they'll too succumb to 10DLC.
The typical journey of an SMS is from you > VoIP number provider (like Zoom) > mobile carrier > recipient.
It's often the mobile carrier, in an effort to 'protect' their customers from receiving spam/scam messages that would ultimately block the message.
A less-than-scrutable VoIP provider is just trying to hand the message off to the carrier...they may not care if it actually makes it all the way to the recipient.
As Zoom is a very reputable company, they are doing their best to keep it that way, by scrutinizing what gets passed through their network to the carrier. Being such a large company, their review process is likely different than smaller providers that may give more personalized attention.
Carriers have been known to fine providers greatly if they catch them not following the rules, even if it's accidental. This then damages their own reputation score hurting their relationship with that carrier even further. It's a cat and mouse game, for sure.
You're stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare designed for businesses that don't resemble yours at all. The fact that their rejection responses are basically AI-generated corporate fluff only makes it worse.
Here are some options you might consider:
1. **Push Back with Precision**
- Since Zoom is rejecting your campaign based on an "insufficient" website, try submitting a slightly more detailed one without going overboard. Add a simple paragraph explaining your practice (e.g., "This firm exclusively handles court-appointed indigent defense cases. We do not accept private clients."). This might satisfy the arbitrary requirement without giving them more than they deserve.
- If you haven't already, try submitting with a static PDF of your privacy policy instead of a webpage link. Some providers accept that.
2. **Try a Different Provider**
- Vonage and Zoom are notorious for rigid and arbitrary enforcement of 10DLC. Some alternative VoIP providers, like OpenPhone, Dialpad, or Twilio, might be easier to work with.
- There are also smaller, niche providers that cater to businesses like law firms. It might be worth calling a few directly and explaining your situation before signing up.
3. **Consider a Personal Number Workaround**
- If the main reason for using VoIP is having a separate business number, another approach is getting a second SIM card or a dual-SIM phone and using a carrier that still allows Person-to-Person (P2P) texting instead of A2P.
- Google Voice still allows some level of texting without 10DLC compliance, though it's unclear how long that will last.
4. **Legal / Regulatory Pressure**
- This system is inherently biased against small businesses and sole proprietors, especially those in public service roles. If you have any connections to a legal association or a state bar committee on technology/communications, this might be worth flagging as an unfair barrier to practicing law.
Your frustration is completely justified. You’re being treated like a marketing firm instead of an attorney handling confidential, court-appointed work. If none of the above works, you might even consider reaching out to a journalist or legal tech writer—this is exactly the kind of red tape nightmare that gets attention when framed the right way.
Want me to help draft a response to Zoom or refine your website to just barely meet their arbitrary nonsense?
Robot buddy has been helping me throughout this saga and it absolutely shared my outrage.
I actually used to have Google Voice Workspace and was texting just fine with it, but I switched last month because Voice bizarrely still lacks very very basic critical features, like three-way calling. It's so baffling! I'm tempted to switch providers yet again but there are so many options out there, and porting numbers takes so long that it's all overwhelming having to sift through it.
Email their legal contact. That'll probably get you a real person, probably one of the last places where the person answering your emails actually draws breath.
theoretically it should be possible to purchase a voip number for p2p (person 2 person) rather than a2p (application 2 person) but idk if in practice it's possible
afaik there's one org — zipwhip/twilio — that handles verification and they can behave however they want without consequences when dealing with any org that isn't huge
That's what I had for a few months (the Workspace edition) but then found out it didn't support conference calls! I often have to put investigators, attorneys, witnesses, etc on the same call and I just cannot understand why Google would neglect to implement something so critical, especially when the basic Android Phone app has that feature!
If you're in the Apple ecosystem, call and SMS forwarding give you the talk/text from any device benefit of VoIP from a normal cell phone number, plus iMessage and RCS on top. Get a dual SIM phone and a cheap calling plan from a prepaid service like Mint or Ultra.
If you aren't an Apple man or would rather stick to VoIP, try ViaTalk.com, I had them years ago and they were excellent; their CEO would often personally reply to trouble tickets. (Alas, it doesn't look like they offer SMS,)
Years ago, I realized that whenever I received an email that began with "To better serve you," I knew I was fucked. I still use landlines. Sometimes, people tell me they texted me, and I'll explain that they texted a landline. I'm glad that I'm old, because there is only so much I can take of "To better serve you"...
I can't even tell you if my house still has a telephone port, let alone where it is. The flexible portability of a VOIP line is still unparalleled. It's really nice to be able to answer a phone call from my computer or my laptop or my actual phone. On top of that, lots of my clients hate talking on the phone so I'm happy meeting them where they're at.
Have you considered that the feds require a Title III warrant to tap a phone, but can access cell and texts without a warrant? I inform clients that no cellular communications are guaranteed to be confidential, and they should never discuss their case on a cellphone, but only on landlines and in person.
Is Riley v California no longer good law? Either way, I never discuss substance via text though that's based on the far bigger concern of them losing their phones (which happens with great regularity).
Riley is hardly the only way for the govt to get cell comms. But good that you never discuss substance via text. A wise choice.
Congratulations!
Your compliance message is so funny. The lack of human discretion and reasonable exceptions is maddening. It reminds me of local food regulations, where every tiny art gallery or music venue that wants to serve muffins has to have a full kitchen and inspection.
I am also not able to text my clients for reminders of appointments and I can read their texts, but cannot reply to them. I run a small pet grooming shop. I use an app called Line 2 to have a separate number on my cell phone to communicate with clients. I started the "verification process," on February 3rd. Line 2 told me they are using a 3rd party verifier, and it would take 4-14 business days. I was at the 14 business days yesterday, and my "campaign is awaiting approval" still. It is very frustrating. I have to use my personal cell phone number to text them, (at least I have that capability), but I have a copy and pasted spiel that says something like, " This is Kim on my personal cell phone because there is maintenance happening on my shop phone." Now I have muddied the waters with personal and business texts mixed up on my phone, and for someone who thrives in organization, I am struggling. The funny thing is, all this time I'm waiting to be verified to be able to send my actual clients who gave me their cell phone numbers a text, I continue to receive spam texts from fake USPS numbers saying that my package is held up and I need to input some information in order to receive my package. 🤣🤣
TCR has a Sole Proprietor 'brand' option which does not 'require' a website/social presence or an EIN...Zoom may not support this brand level because it's more work for the provider to support it, as TCR requires providers to submit a report on usage, and TCR doesn't make the submission process easy. But there are providers out there that do.
As TCR/carriers change their mind on how they want to do things, we've had to stop offering sole proprietor level brands, but we're working to implement them again very soon.
Oh that's interesting to know, I figure each carrier has their own compliance implementation. It's not feasible to hope from carrier to carrier to find out which one has the easiest process. Zoom's procedures caught me completely off-guard.
Yeah, the 'major' carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) have all formed an alliance of sorts and all agree on using TCR to manage the process, then Zoom and other providers have to abide by the process to stay in compliance.
TCR is the brand reputation authority that the carriers have agreed on, so TCR is sort of the first line of defense, if they say the brand (or you) are reliable then the carriers will decide how much throughput they want to give you.
Often, the provider (Zoom, in this case) will review the information at the different steps in the vetting process to 'help' alleviate time and vetting fees by offering up the 'suggestions' like they have to help things move along more quickly. But if they are trying to force you into a box that doesn't fit, their suggestions are just wasting time.
I'm guessing they've put you in the 'low-volume mixed' category, which does require all of the things they have 'suggested'. The next step smaller is the 'sole proprietor', but they might see it as too small or risky to mess with.
I'm also guessing you've read enough stuff about 10dlc regulations that one more thing might put you over the edge, but just in case, here's what's required of a brand when registering for one of the standard categories like the one it sounds like they're cramming you into: https://redoxygen.com/blog/what-will-i-need-to-provide-for-10dlc-registration/
Your frustration put into words, was spot on for many, I'm sure. Hopefully someone within TCR has their Google Alerts set for this topic like I did. Good luck!
This insider knowledge is fascinating! I understand the inane procedures better now that I know TCR tries to calculate a "reputation score" for each brand.
I guess they have no reason to care how this would affect small businesses, but it seems like the better solution would have been to impose a slow throughput as a default, but allow registration to lift the brakes. If the concern is then over spammers spreading texts across multiple numbers, smart filtering seems like a better fix.
I'm also annoyed at having to append every thread I ever start with REPLY STOP and other automated messages. I'm really tempted to just find a less-than-scrutable VOIP provider to avoid dealing with this nonsense, but then I'm worried about when they'll too succumb to 10DLC.
The typical journey of an SMS is from you > VoIP number provider (like Zoom) > mobile carrier > recipient.
It's often the mobile carrier, in an effort to 'protect' their customers from receiving spam/scam messages that would ultimately block the message.
A less-than-scrutable VoIP provider is just trying to hand the message off to the carrier...they may not care if it actually makes it all the way to the recipient.
As Zoom is a very reputable company, they are doing their best to keep it that way, by scrutinizing what gets passed through their network to the carrier. Being such a large company, their review process is likely different than smaller providers that may give more personalized attention.
Carriers have been known to fine providers greatly if they catch them not following the rules, even if it's accidental. This then damages their own reputation score hurting their relationship with that carrier even further. It's a cat and mouse game, for sure.
This explains so much! I guess I would be gambling with a risk of not having text messages getting delivered.
Here some more AI slop for ya from chatGPT. It's actually sympathetic to your plight!
---------------------------------------------------------
You're stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare designed for businesses that don't resemble yours at all. The fact that their rejection responses are basically AI-generated corporate fluff only makes it worse.
Here are some options you might consider:
1. **Push Back with Precision**
- Since Zoom is rejecting your campaign based on an "insufficient" website, try submitting a slightly more detailed one without going overboard. Add a simple paragraph explaining your practice (e.g., "This firm exclusively handles court-appointed indigent defense cases. We do not accept private clients."). This might satisfy the arbitrary requirement without giving them more than they deserve.
- If you haven't already, try submitting with a static PDF of your privacy policy instead of a webpage link. Some providers accept that.
2. **Try a Different Provider**
- Vonage and Zoom are notorious for rigid and arbitrary enforcement of 10DLC. Some alternative VoIP providers, like OpenPhone, Dialpad, or Twilio, might be easier to work with.
- There are also smaller, niche providers that cater to businesses like law firms. It might be worth calling a few directly and explaining your situation before signing up.
3. **Consider a Personal Number Workaround**
- If the main reason for using VoIP is having a separate business number, another approach is getting a second SIM card or a dual-SIM phone and using a carrier that still allows Person-to-Person (P2P) texting instead of A2P.
- Google Voice still allows some level of texting without 10DLC compliance, though it's unclear how long that will last.
4. **Legal / Regulatory Pressure**
- This system is inherently biased against small businesses and sole proprietors, especially those in public service roles. If you have any connections to a legal association or a state bar committee on technology/communications, this might be worth flagging as an unfair barrier to practicing law.
Your frustration is completely justified. You’re being treated like a marketing firm instead of an attorney handling confidential, court-appointed work. If none of the above works, you might even consider reaching out to a journalist or legal tech writer—this is exactly the kind of red tape nightmare that gets attention when framed the right way.
Want me to help draft a response to Zoom or refine your website to just barely meet their arbitrary nonsense?
Robot buddy has been helping me throughout this saga and it absolutely shared my outrage.
I actually used to have Google Voice Workspace and was texting just fine with it, but I switched last month because Voice bizarrely still lacks very very basic critical features, like three-way calling. It's so baffling! I'm tempted to switch providers yet again but there are so many options out there, and porting numbers takes so long that it's all overwhelming having to sift through it.
My firm uses Dialpad and I don't have any complaints about it - it has all the features I want/need and very few others. Might be worth a look!
Email their legal contact. That'll probably get you a real person, probably one of the last places where the person answering your emails actually draws breath.
theoretically it should be possible to purchase a voip number for p2p (person 2 person) rather than a2p (application 2 person) but idk if in practice it's possible
afaik there's one org — zipwhip/twilio — that handles verification and they can behave however they want without consequences when dealing with any org that isn't huge
FYI, I've used Google Voice for the past ten years, and haven't had any problems. I have a robust online presence, but no privacy policy or anything
That's what I had for a few months (the Workspace edition) but then found out it didn't support conference calls! I often have to put investigators, attorneys, witnesses, etc on the same call and I just cannot understand why Google would neglect to implement something so critical, especially when the basic Android Phone app has that feature!
If you're in the Apple ecosystem, call and SMS forwarding give you the talk/text from any device benefit of VoIP from a normal cell phone number, plus iMessage and RCS on top. Get a dual SIM phone and a cheap calling plan from a prepaid service like Mint or Ultra.
If you aren't an Apple man or would rather stick to VoIP, try ViaTalk.com, I had them years ago and they were excellent; their CEO would often personally reply to trouble tickets. (Alas, it doesn't look like they offer SMS,)
SMS is non-negotiable! I used to be in the Apple ecosystem a decade ago and I'm never ever going back