OT: Verizon censors text messages

Coursedesign wrote on 9/27/2007, 8:03 PM
Ny Times reports today that Verizon has admitted to systematically censoring text messages on their network.

In turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation’s two largest wireless carriers, told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group “that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.”

So if you have a Verizon cell phone and your text messages are not delivered, it may be because the company didn't approve of what you wrote.

Legal experts say that...The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

But this situation is not new. When other companies tried the same thing in the past, the courts found that the choice to filter made them responsible for the content, without the liability protection provided common carriers.

This means that if somebody plans a successful huge bank robbery using Verizon text messages, the bank should be able to recover either part of its losses, or all of their losses if the ugly "deep pockets doctrine" applies.

Ditto for a murder: the victim's family should be able to go after Verizon for not advising the victim of his or her impending doom. About $20M per person should take care of that, depending on the earnings projections for the victim.

I have Business DSL through a Verizon reseller (that started providing this before Verizon knew what it was) , and am now beginning to wonder if they will start filtering which web sites I can access.

Probably not until they have bought enough politicians to get rid of Net Neutrality, which requires all content to be treated equally.

I would expect that they would even try to get the Constitution changed, so they can get rid of that pesky Free Speech communist BS.

And access to the web sites of competitive carriers may come only with a special surcharge. Why should Verizon let its customers see competitive information at no extra charge?

If we let them...

There is a lot at stake with Net Neutrality.

Imagine for example Adobe striking a deal with Verizon to slow down Sony Madison's and Apple's NLE web pages to a crawl...

Etc., etc.

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 9/28/2007, 7:44 AM
Verizon buckled.

Public opinion is important, and it appears that somebody inside pointed out that Verizon's political campaign to kill Net Neutrality would be instantly dead in the water if they become arbitrators of content.

Political analysts say this has already happened, affected by the above event as well as AT&T's selectively cutting off audio during online concerts by Pearl Jam and others.

After AT&T got caught several times doing this, they issued an apology.

What did AT&T cut? Political criticism.

Presumably AT&T was trying to curry favor with the administration to gain their support for various very profitable ventures, but didn't realize that the people can be a greater power when they stick together.

So now after their apology they are saying that if Net Neutrality was eliminated, they would of course not use it to selectively punish content they didn't like.

Anyone who believes that, please sign up for AT&T and/or Verizon.

It has actually been discussed internally to charge vendors for delivery of commercial speech.

This means that Sony Madison better set aside some gate keeper money immediately to reach prospective customers, so those NLE users don't get to see only information from deep-pocketed Adobe and Apple.

Every commercial web site would be charged pass-through ad rates by the internet backbone providers.

As Verizon's CEO put it when asked about Net Neutrality and their DSL service, "Why should we pass on somebody else's commercial content for free?

By "for free" he meant of course "without paying EXTRA to Verizon in each case."