A World Without Net Neutrality
Posted by
Kevin
Verizon thinks it should control what political opinions you should be allowed to express:
Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.
The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.
If there are no Net Neutrality rules, then this is what will eventually happen to the internet. Opinions unpopular with the handful of people who set policy at the handful of companies that control access to the Internet will decide that you aren’t allowed to go places they do not approve of. And don;t blather on about the market, because as the world of cell phone contracts that tie you to one carrier and “end user agreements” that say you can only use your brand new phone on certain networks, the market cannot come close to solving this problem. Unless we want businesses to decide for us what the shape and range of our culture and our politics can be, we need common carrier, open access, and net neutrality provisions on every communications network.
UPDATE: Verizon has backed down.
This isn’t a Net Neutrality issue. Verizon didn’t prevent NARAL from setting up a text messaging service, which they are free to do with a standard 10 digit phonenumber. All Verizon refused to do is to sponsor the service with a Verizon-operated short code.
This would be akin to me claiming you’re censoring me because you fail to provide me space to advocate for conservative candidates on the Lean Left webserver.
Comment 9/27/2007
SD
Technically, you are right, but NN has come to serve as a blanket term for other concepts, like common carrier, which I mentioned.
And that’s the point: I am not a common carrier. If an ISP decided that conservative website could not be visited, then it would be the same issue.
Comment 9/27/2007
Again, Verizon isn’t blocking access to a NARAL’s service. It’s only refusing to provide that service itself. There’s a difference between an ISP blocking access to NARAL’s webserver and refusing to host that website on one of it’s own computers.
Comment 9/27/2007
SD
No, routing is a service, so its the same thing.
And I don’t think Verizon should have that right. They should be a common carrier and that means allowing everyone to use the same services, as long as they can pay.
Comment 9/27/2007
[…] Verizon Wireless will not allow Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make use of its network for a text-message program. Lean Left responds: If there are no Net Neutrality rules, then this is what will eventually happen to the internet. Opinions unpopular with the handful of people who set policy at the handful of companies that control access to the Internet will decide that you aren’t allowed to go places they do not approve of. And don;t blather on about the market, because as the world of cell phone contracts that tie you to one carrier and “end user agreements” that say you can only use your brand new phone on certain networks, the market cannot come close to solving this problem. Unless we want businesses to decide for us what the shape and range of our culture and our politics can be, we need common carrier, open access, and net neutrality provisions on every communications network. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback 9/27/2007
They have a routing service that everyone can use: the one that uses 10 digit phone numbers. The short codes (which only exist within a given provider) require Verizon to provide and maintain custom routing for that specific customer.
You’re also forgetting the fact that there’s only a limited amount of five digit numbers out there. Verizon necessarily has to pick and choose who gets short codes because there’s not enough of them for everyone who might want one.
Comment 9/27/2007
“You’re also forgetting the fact that there’s only a limited amount of five digit numbers out there. Verizon necessarily has to pick and choose who gets short codes because there’s not enough of them for everyone who might want one.”
If this is a fee-based service, and there were still codes available, and NARAL offered to pay the fee for the service, and Verison refused, then I think Kevin is correct, to a degree. Selectively reducing access based on political content is a form of limited censorship. If one or more of the above conditions are not true, then the case for censorship is much weaker - in my opinion.
Comment 9/27/2007
For what it’s worth, Verizon reversed their decision this morning (9/26)
Comment 9/27/2007
[…] Kevin of Lean Left highlights this story about Verizon and Naral. Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program. […]
Pingback 9/27/2007
Verizon reversed their decision by claiming it was a “misinterpretation” of a “dusty internal policy”. The blog Down With Tyranny gets the real story:
Comment 9/27/2007
i thing you are right..
Comment 10/17/2007
For what it’s worth, Verizon reversed their decision this morning
Comment 1/10/2008
thanx for nice share
Comment 8/23/2008