Verizon Blocks Pro-Choice Messages

[Pangloss]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?em&ex=1191038400&en=31869ac289f98a57&ei=5087

 

In a nutshell, Verizon rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to implement an opt-in messaging system whereby users send an instant message to a five-digit code and Naral then updates them with periodic news, information, etc. The system has been implemented by other cellphone carriers.

 

Note that the system does not involve advertising to non-participants. It's purely an opt-in system. But Verizon rejected it anyway, on the following grounds:

 

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.” Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times.

 

I think this is a mistake. Why would it be unsavory to users who asked to hear the information?

 

This seems to get back to the ongoing "net neutrality" debate. Carriers are forbidden by law to interfere with the content of voice calls, but when it comes to text messaging not only are they not forbidden, but some analysts feel they're actually responsible for that content (such as when it's used to break the law, ala terrorism).

 

What do you all think?

[lovejunkie02]

seems to me (and i couldn't quite decipher from the article) that it depends on the level of participation by verizon. meaning, when you sign up for the messages, is it via a program run by or through verizon? if so, i could understand that they have the right (though i think it's ridiculous) to say that they don't want to be involved in that sort of controversial program. but if the program is run by naral pro-choice america, and all that is happening is the messages are being sent via verizon service, then this is absolutely wrong.

if i sent a text to a friend of mine about abortion, would they censor that?

[Realitycheck]

People hate spam, in general. Sounds like a good selling point for Verizon's marketing department.

[lovejunkie02]

People hate spam, in general. Sounds like a good selling point for Verizon's marketing department.

 

except that it's not spam.

[DrDNA]

Good.

Are you denying that the group has an agenda and/or that it is controversial?

 

Now I just wish Verizon would stop sending their own "free text messages" to my cell phone marketing their stuff.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

They've reversed their position, apparently.

[iNow]

I guess I am a bit of an elitist snob on this issue, but what kind of dumbshit would sign up for such a thing?

[DrDNA]

Good grief. Information overload [DrDNA throws his hated cell phone into the toilet]

How long until people start crashing their cars relaying and reading *these* dumb messages?

[Pangloss]

Yeah they changed their minds pretty quick. Lots of attention will do that sometimes.

 

Some of you guys didn't read the OP/article carefully enough. There's no spam involved in this case.

[Realitycheck]

That makes a lot of sense. What is the world coming to?

[ParanoiA]

I'm a firm believer in net neutrality. They should not be looking at those text messages and certainly should not be held accountable for any content - should be no different than voice calls.

 

That said, I do think it was a mistake to initially deny the service to Naral, from a business perspective. Obviously, legally they can deny it all they want, but I'm glad they changed their position. I understand they were trying to avoid bad publicity and so forth, but I don't think it ever would have been associated with Verizon. I don't see how their brand was in any danger.

[Sisyphus]

I think somebody high up in Verizon probably heard about these messages and (stupidly) tried to block them to avoid controversy. Not that they believed they were responsible or were trying to make a political statement (quite the opposite), but more of a "why would we have anything to do with this when we don't have to" kind of thing. Obviously, that has backfired tremendously.

[pcollins]

I think this is a mistake. Why would it be unsavory to users who asked to hear the information?

 

Because Verizon, unlike the Internet, is an easily identifiable entity.

 

This seems to get back to the ongoing "net neutrality" debate.

 

It does, but it goes to highlight that there's lightyears difference between the notion of "end-to-end" in data networks and that in mobile phone communications. OSI greatly diminishes service provider responsibility by spreading it out from the carriers to anyone adding value at any layer. Can you imagine how different things would've been in the walled garden model of AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve triumped in the mid-1990s?

 

I think somebody high up in Verizon probably heard about these messages and (stupidly) tried to block them to avoid controversy.

 

The idea isn't to avoid controversy; Verizon would run into that wall no matter what. The question is whether or not it's better for the bottom line to be portrayed as a victim of bullying rather than a champion for some cause. Verizon calculated the former was less expensive.

[Sisyphus]

 

 

 

The idea isn't to avoid controversy; Verizon would run into that wall no matter what. The question is whether or not it's better for the bottom line to be portrayed as a victim of bullying rather than a champion for some cause. Verizon calculated the former was less expensive.

 

I don't understand what you mean. You're saying they knowingly set themselves up as a bully rather than have people mistakenly think they're endorsing a cause?

[pcollins]

I don't understand what you mean. You're saying they knowingly set themselves up as a bully rather than have people mistakenly think they're endorsing a cause?

 

No. I'm saying Verizon would rather be portrayed as caving in than championing a controversial cause. The bullies, in this case, would be pro-life interests. This way, they don't have to rock the boat while decreasing their exposure to pro-choice anger.

[Sisyphus]

Ah. That makes sense. Of course, it was still a stupid move...

[pcollins]

Ah. That makes sense. Of course, it was still a stupid move...

 

For who? Abortion rights isn't Verizon's fight, they're just being dragged into it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't--the question is whether its less costly to take a stand or not.

[Sisyphus]

But that's just it. They did take a stand, and they didn't have to. We're talking about private communications to individuals who asked to receive them. On what grounds could anyone accuse them of anything if they hadn't blocked the messages? As is, they took the active role, and have therefore effectively claimed responsibility for what people say to one another over their network. Not only that, but they started doing so on just about the most controversial subject there is. Really stupid.

[Saryctos]

Had there been planned 'pro-life' text message groups that were allowed to go through before they said no to the 'pro-choice' messages? If not, then it isn't all that easy to say that they took a stand against a political view, as opposed to seeing an 'abortion anything' message, and saying no thank you.

[pcollins]

Had there been planned 'pro-life' text message groups that were allowed to go through before they said no to the 'pro-choice' messages? If not, then it isn't all that easy to say that they took a stand against a political view, as opposed to seeing an 'abortion anything' message, and saying no thank you.

 

Verizon would've likely responded the same way. Why get dragged deeper into a fight than necessary?

 

But that's just it. They did take a stand, and they didn't have to.

 

This works only if you view Verizon as absolved of the content which crosses its network, which is hardly the case. Verizon brands damn near every point along the way--this should be obvious to anyone who flips open their cell phone. They carry the presumption of responsibility for content that crosses their network as a result. Once again, this is a consequence of the business model mobile phone services have adopted.

 

On what grounds could anyone accuse them of anything if they hadn't blocked the messages?

 

On the same (political) grounds with which we attack radio stations and television broadcasters.

[ParanoiA]

This works only if you view Verizon as absolved of the content which crosses its network, which is hardly the case. Verizon brands damn near every point along the way--this should be obvious to anyone who flips open their cell phone. They carry the presumption of responsibility for content that crosses their network as a result. Once again, this is a consequence of the business model mobile phone services have adopted.

 

How does "branding" effect content? Answer: It doesn't. Granted, it may appear so to the end user, but that's not the reality of the technology. Land line phone companies have dealt with this for years. The Bells brand on all operator services calls, voice mail and tons of other services I don't use, and they're not responsible for me plotting a terror attack over their phone lines. Even public perception agrees with that.

 

I think you have to bring quite a bit of luggage to even make believe Verizon would be responsible for messages sent over its network.

 

On the same (political) grounds with which we attack radio stations and television broadcasters.

 

Radio stations and television broadcasters are delivering broadcast content that all can view. These messages are private. The precedence is land line phone service, not TV and radio.

 

Sisyphus is right on the money here. It was only controversial when they made it that way. Do plain ole telephone service companies decline to offer a phone number to controversial businesses? I'm sure NAMBLA has a phone number and I'll bet they're in the yellow pages <shutters>.

[pcollins]

How does "branding" effect content? Answer: It doesn't.

 

Doesn't it? TBS brands pop up in every other commercial break. You think they don't edit the content of shows and movies they carry?

[ParanoiA]

Doesn't it? TBS brands pop up in every other commercial break. You think they don't edit the content of shows and movies they carry?

 

No it doesn't. You're still trying to compare broadcast services to private ones. One is a conceptual "end-to-end" circuit of private information, the other is a "all can view" information channel. Their priorities and responsibilities couldn't be any more different. One has to be aware of the content, the other had better not.

[pcollins]

I think you have to bring quite a bit of luggage to even make believe Verizon would be responsible for messages sent over its network.

 

Then take it up with America.

 

Radio stations and television broadcasters are delivering broadcast content that all can view.

 

If you buy a radio or a TV, or a package with the necessary stations. This doesn't change the fact that the Verizon brand pops up every time you turn on the phone or stop people from making the association.

 

These messages are private. The precedence is land line phone service, not TV and radio.

 

One, where's the expectation of privacy? Subscription is indiscriminate, and anyone receiving is free to report the content to the rest of the world. Two, bulk SMS finds its business precedent in direct mail--the same goes for email spammers.

 

Sisyphus is right on the money here. It was only controversial when they made it that way. Do plain ole telephone service companies decline to offer a phone number to controversial businesses?

 

Verizon didn't decline to offer phone service to NARAL. They declined to offer SMS services across a network with their brand prominent at the end points.

 

I'm sure NAMBLA has a phone number and I'll bet they're in the yellow pages <shutters>.

 

Can't recall a time in recent history when NAMBLA was listed in the yellow pages.

 

No it doesn't. You're still trying to compare broadcast services to private ones.

 

It is a broadcast service. The only difference is its subscriber-driven. The same goes for any pay cable station.

[ParanoiA]

If you buy a radio or a TV, or a package with the necessary stations. This doesn't change the fact that the Verizon brand pops up every time you turn on the phone or stop people from making the association.

 

I belive a minority will make the association. About as many as the number of people who think the phone company is enabling NAMBLA.

 

One, where's the expectation of privacy? Subscription is indiscriminate, and anyone receiving is free to report the content to the rest of the world. Two, bulk SMS finds its business precedent in direct mail--the same goes for email spammers.

 

And I'm free to share my phone conversation with my neighbor, but it was still a private line during our phone consversation. Bulk SMS, again, is not Verizon's content. People already know this. I don't believe near the number of people will mistake Naral's messages for Verison's endorsement that you seem to. I think they're smarter than that.

 

Verizon didn't decline to offer phone service to NARAL. They declined to offer SMS services across a network with their brand prominent at the end points.

 

Exactly, so if SMS goes with phone service, then why would anyone associate Naral's message with Verizon? They don't associate their own messages with Verizon so why do you suddenly think they'll incorrectly associate Naral's?

 

It is a broadcast service. The only difference is its subscriber-driven. The same goes for any pay cable station.

 

So, if Showtime shows child porn then you're going to blame Directv?

 

The bulk SMS is broadcast, I agree, I didn't realize that was everyone's hangup. Still, I see no precedence to burn the carrier over the intelligence here. The carrier carries whatever intelligence you provide and most people understand that.