Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban

fermion writes "Verizon has reacted to an NYT report filed earlier today on their decision to ban text message news clips from a pro-choice group, reversing the ban on that content. 'Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.'"

Comments

Re:Law Needs To Catch Up...Again

[camusflage]

This isn't about screening or monitoring general messages. This is about allowing a specific group to have access to the company's subscribers, through a subscription mechanism.

If the IGRA wanted to have its members sign up for updates by texting "cowboy up" to 57565, they would need to obtain a short code (the "57565") and obtain carrier approval to send and receive messages. It's the carrier approval that Verizon initially denied.

Re:A pro-life competitor...

[quasius]

"I'd be more incline to be pro-life if they'd show an inclination to support the people who seek abortions but many of the pro-life camp aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve." This is simply wrong. The pro-life movement is intimately connected with crisis pregnancy centers and charities. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard someone at an abortion mill talking about "sex in a fashion they don't approve." You're much more likely to hear offers of help and alternatives. Which is good, since many women who get abortions don't really want them; but feel trapped by financial situations, "boyfriends," worry about family's reaction, etc. Have you ever seen what goes on in the pro-life movement or do you just assume we "aren't concerned so much about the actual abortion but the fact that someone had sex in a fashion they don't approve?" Because I don't think you could be much more wrong.

Re:Great plan.

[PopeRatzo]

NARAL isn't for more abortions.

NARAL is for letting women choose for themselves whether or not they're going to have an abortion. Not the government, not the church, but the person who is actually, ultimately responsible for the fetus.

There is a big difference.

Messages weren't actually blocked

[xeromist]

One thing that seems to have shot over the heads of most of the previous posters was that this was essentially about an opt-in "short code", not "blocking". People have latched onto the words block, ban, and censor when they don't seem to apply. Although Verizon may have said it reserved the right to filter/block/whatever messages, that wasn't what actually happened here.

It's difficult to filter through the NYT's FUD but apparently this group tried to get a short code where you can text 'join' to 55555 or some such. A short code is not required to send text messages. Without a short code you could still compile a mailing list via alternate means and use an automated system to send your messages. I'm not sure about difficulty or cost but it's possible. At no point in either article was there a complaint that Verizon had actually blocked text messages. In fact, the group in question said that they had already been sending text messages. It does not indicate which networks were getting the text messages but it's a safe bet that this included Verizon since Naral would have been sure to mention actual messages being dropped.

For those talking about SPAM, you're off the mark as well. As I mentioned above, short codes are for opt-in services. Verizon wouldn't have been refusing short codes in an effort to protect customers from SPAM.

Verizon's policy of blocking messages doesn't sit well with me. If they ever used it to block messages between two consenting parties I'd be the first in line to string them up. In this case it looks like they were just sticking to a (really stupid) policy. I guess I could see where such a policy might partially apply to message SPAM but in that case it shouldn't really matter what the content of the message is. SPAM should be blocked as soon as it's confirmed to be unsolicited mass mailing.

So, if anyone can point me to where Verizon actually blocked any messages, that would be great. I'd love for Verizon to take as much rope as possible so it can hang itself properly.