Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Facing Lawsuit Over Text Message Censorship
Tootech writes with this quote from Wired:
"A mobile-marketing company claimed Friday it would go out of business unless a federal judge orders T-Mobile to stop blocking its text-messaging service, the first case testing whether wireless providers can block text messages they don't like. EZ Texting claims T-Mobile blocked the company from sending text messages for all of its clients after learning that legalmarijuanadispensary.com, an EZ Texting client, was using its service to send texts about legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California. 'T-Mobile subjectively did not approve of one of the thousands of lawful businesses and non-profits served by EZ Texting,' according to New York federal lawsuit."
It's not really censorship. Besides, I never say anything that needs to be censored.
How is it legal for a carrier to block messages from a legitimate customer unless the messages were spam? If they are offensive or illegal then its up to the police, yes? Isn't there regulations to stop carriers from either spying on or interfering with communications?
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
In Poland, I get daily text messages saying that I won a million or a car, or whatever. For me, this is spam and advertisements that I do not want. I pay for my mobile phone and for every text message I send, call I make and whatnot, but the carrier still insists on sending me spam messages which annoy me. On a bad day it can get to five texts of spam and I can't simply ignore my phone thinking "nah, this is probably just spam" without checking it if it is important.
Explain to me why you file this lawsuit in a federal court in New York and not a state court in California - where a judge just might be a little less hostile to the trade in "medical" marijuana.
I'm all for shutting down marketing firms that depend solely on text messages. In the US, we pay for each text message that we receive (or it counts towards a monthly allotment). Imagine if your ISP allowed only 100 emails per month, unsolicited email would not be tolerated.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Surely this action would remove their common carrier status? Now that they have demonstrated they have the capability to censor content, they can assume responsibility for other content that they allow through?
Also, for those saying it is not censorship because it is not the government....no. Just no.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I don't normally carry a cellphone. but I did for a short while when I had to (life situation) and got a pre-paid cheap unit. it did what I needed it to do, just send and receive phone calls. as it turns out, it was tmobile and there was no way to disable incoming texts. and yes, each one was CHARGED to me. a malicious person could drain down my pre-paid (!) balance and the company would do nothing to help me stop them or even get credit for them (yeah, right, one at a time).
I let my prepaid tmobile run out and I never looked back. they will be the last carrier I ever use, if I do go back to using cellphones again (which I currently do not).
the fact that they charge for INCOMING texts is just beyond reprehensible. when I called to complain they just said 'well, buy a package plan'. yeah, right. NOT the solution I'm looking for, morans.
it may be the same with all carriers, now, though. you can't escape the fees for incoming texts if you are in the US. sucks, big-time!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
T-Mobile will tell you they're a COMMON CARRIER. That means they don't get to pick and choose who uses their service. By your reasoning (they can do anything they please on a private network) they could decide to drop all calls from Blacks, or women, or Republicans. How long would that be tolerated?
That's wonderful news to me.
That means that when my girlfriend calls me on my mobile phone to break up with me, I can sue the mobile phone company for emotional distress! After all, they didn't have to deliver the call and they didn't check to see that the girl was emotionally stable before whitelisting her phone number.
The state of law for phone companies is that they just provide service, they aren't responsible for what goes over their lines as long as the bill is paid on time and they comply with court orders. Bridge operators aren't liable if somebody drives guns over the bridge contrary to state law, and phone companies aren't liable if somebody phones in a bomb threat.
However, once a carrier starts picking and choosing who they let use their service, they are no longer a common carrier. FedEx isn't liable when a misc package blows up. Sears is liable if a Sears truck delivers a package that blows up - since Sears doesn't deliver for the public.
Try to get removed, and they don't.
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
Now if they had to pay every recipient - even a penny - spam would almost disappear. So don't tax email or spam - just make it a micro-transaction from one party to the other, and allow for me to white-list people who can send me stuff for free, and blacklist others who will have to pay a buck.
"Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting’s customers upon request."
You text a request and it sends you a response, that's how EZ Text works. But don't read the article or anything.
It wouldn't be censorship. That was my only point. I didn't say anything about it being a problem. There are plenty of problematic things that don't fall under the label of censorship.
Also, there is no requirement that TMobile actually deliver *any* sms message - read your contract. the big print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
as soon as any of those text messages cross state lines, and T-Mobile is aware of it, they can get screwed for it.
They can now. They couldn't before, as they were just a carrier.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
The definition of the word "censorship" says nothing about the Government. Just because those text messages don't get first amendment protection here doesn't mean they're not being censored.
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
You do realize that these are just messages about legally available marijuna, not the actual substance itself, traveling through their switches and communications gear don't you?
Should common carriers be allowed to examine your text messages and decide what to block? Your email? Your voice communications?
Should we all be prohibited from talking or texting about things or activities which are illegal in some places but not necessarily where we live?
Censorship is a free for all game, anyone can join in.
Or can you point me to some definition of censorship that required a government to do the actual censoring?
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Run by Shane Neman, who also runs "Club Texting," both companies are known for sending out unsolicited text spam, which is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (because the recipient has to pay to receive the message). When not avoiding disclosure of legal liabilities to their customers, they're quietly lobbying the FCC to get the same odious protections Congress gave junk faxers.
http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/club-texting/
EZ Texting makes sure to send their messages from obfuscated domains with "private" registration information (spammers apparently don't like being spammed, or being served lawsuits).
I doubt this is less about the content of the advertising and more about T-Mobile responding to customer complaints and attempting to cut off an unlawful advertiser who's trespassing on their networks. A spammer is a spammer is a spammer.
why can't there be free incoming and 1-800 like numbers that are free to to text (they pay the costs) and 1-900 like ones where you don't pay the base rate + there own rate (you just pay there rate)
yes, it was (maybe still is) different. I was NOT on contract, I was on pay-as-you-go mode.
they hope to lose you in the noise; tell you to buy a bulk plan so that the 'one or two' (yeah right) spams dont' really cost you anything since you had extra messages in your bulk plan (their sales pitch).
but you can't do that on prepaid. their prepaid 'story' had holes larger than swiss cheese.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
That means that when my girlfriend calls me on my mobile phone to break up with me
look, if you want to be believable here, you have to avoid outright lies.
this is slashdot.
come on.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Dont we already have telephone neutrality?
I'm not sure how long ago that actually was.
I've been with tmobile for a few years and as long as I remember there has been the ability to block messages.
I just looked to confirm and it's actually more fine grained now. Email, Text, Picture, Content Downloads....or just block them all.
Every carrier I have been with also charged for incoming texts, but I also admit I have only used three in my lifetime. Myself, I rarely use text messages and active discourage anyone from sending me a message. It's far more economical to operate without a plan then to commit to even a base plan for any period of time.
My experience with their phone support is also completely backwards from yours. I have never once encountered a situation in which they acted as you described. Now ATT I have had very similar experiences with.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Sucker texts BUZZ420, gets the "Sorry you didn't win, btw did you know that yadda yadda yadda."
He gets the spam after sending the short code. They will claim a pre-existing relationship from some email he may or may not have clicked on 5 years ago from some other place that included crap about sending offers from their "partners".
No, because I either have access to the "spam folder" where the messages tagged as spam go, or the filter is under my own control.
No, because an anti-virus program is installed by me, and when it finds a virus it tells me what was blocked, why, and how to access the blocked content if I want to.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Let customers opt in/out of spam text blocking.
Really, I suspect this is far more simple than that. Medical Marijuana is illegal. In EVERY state. Period. We all already know that Interstate Commerce laws trump any state law. Do we have to agree with that? No. Can the states decide to continue to ignore that fact? Sure. But the fact is, in Federal Court, such things dont matter. It is still illegal at the federal level.
As a company, T-Mobile cannot allow the use of their services to knowingly allow such drug transactions or discussions related to such transactions. In addition, them blocking a company that's violating such Interstate Commerce Laws is also a wise thing (in legal terms). Kinda like if you have a friend who wants to keep borrowing your car to go buy drugs. You stop letting your friend borrow your car at all - even though much of the time it might not to buy drugs, that way ensuring you distance yourself from his activities so no one can make claims that you're knowingly a part of it. This is a LOT different than Joe texting Jim for a dime bag.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, and though IANAL, I think it makes sense.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Really? That's why it was broken up? It was too socialist? Wow. Thanks for that informative info Mr. AC. And here I was thinking because they were horribly abusing their monopoly power. Why, I guess I didn't realize that and I really should have loved having to pay rent on every phone in my house because you weren't allowed to own your own phone. You had to rent ALL your equipment from them.