Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX | dangerous precedent
This is a dangerous precedent to set. From the blurb, it looks like only users who sign up for these SMS messages would get them. What's the problem Verizon? |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | They'r not getting any kind of kickback. |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: 
| controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
freaking this is a legal normal surgical procedure.
its only controversial to people who want to ban it, not to the peopl who would have recieved the messages.
freaking insane.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| said by P Ness  :freaking this is a legal normal surgical procedure. its only controversial to people who want to ban it, not to the peopl who would have recieved the messages. freaking insane. I completely agree. Since it is strictly an opt-in situation, then they should not be blocking anything. Now if the organization starts sending people these SMS messages when they did not opt-in, then Verizon should be able to step in and cut them off.
THis is just the first step in moving away from network neutrality and providers starting to censor what they think should be because they don't get anything from it.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Whats so dangerous....
You don't see mediums like TV carrying gun commercials, why does it suprise you when other mediums don't want display other death conduits?
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset! |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: |  not good
this is dangerous. hopefully verizon gets a black eye for this action. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Non-Story
I find it funny how the NY Times is whining that Verizon followed its own advertising policy, when the NY Times itself seems to have a problem with that.
But that aside... I can't blame Verizon for not wanting to involve itself in the abortion debate at all, no matter what they do, someone is going to whine. My guess is that refusing all controversial advertisements results in the least number of people whining.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Here It Comes...
...the quickest way to destroy a thread is by letting it turn into a debate about abortion.
Let's not lose sight of the real argument here; should Verizon be controlling SMS messages of any organization that is operating an opt-in system?
Today, pro-choice advocates. Tomorrow, the Democrats. The day after, Republicans. Next week, people who have dogs.
Telcom should be presented with a choice; you have all the legal protections and monopoly benefits of "common carrier" status if you operate strictly as such and just pipe the messages. If you want to run a walled-garden or control what your customers see, then you're not a common carrier. |
|
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| reply to ropeguru
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here?
So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable.
Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network?
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | Knowledge is power...
And ANY media medium should not have the power to censor or suppress LEGAL information whether they agree with it or not-that is why there needs to be SOME sort of net-neutrality. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to Corona
Re: dangerous precedent
Not only that, if they filter and block content they lose common carrier status and can be held liable for what goes across their network.
Obviously one of the lawyers must not have gotten enough coffee that day. |
|
PAB
join:2007-07-27
Woodridge, IL
| Verizon-Blocks-OptIn-ProChoice SMS
"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."
Verizon is way off base. Why do they get to decide what is controversial? Talk about thought police. Another reason we need a national broadband policy. Companies like this need oversight and huge fines for censorship. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by PAB :Another reason we need a national broadband policy. Companies like this need oversight and huge fines for censorship. Then the government gets to decide what is free speech or not?
And how is it censorship? NARAL has plenty of other mediums by which it can spread its message. Verizon certainly isn't hindering them from communicating using other methods.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| reply to clickie
Re: Here It Comes...
I agree with that. I think Verizon has over stepped their bounds here. I think telecoms do not have the right to censor public information from people. What if a woman was raped and became pregnant and this organization was her only source for information as to her choices. Now verizon has blocked that and she would have to have a child that was not by her choice. I am only using this as an example as to gathering information as to helping with what options are available to you...
Plasticman
--
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| reply to Placebo
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
I believe in the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded. I believe in freedom of speech and as a world leader, I think we are civilized enough to 'agree to disagree' on the topics we may personally feel is against our moral standpoint. Education, not suppression, is the way.
--
{Insert Something Witty Here} |
|
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Re: Verizon-Blocks-OptIn-ProChoice SMS
said by pnh102 :said by PAB :Another reason we need a national broadband policy. Companies like this need oversight and huge fines for censorship. Then the government gets to decide what is free speech or not? The government has already has decided what you can and can not say...... Case in point..... A judge overhearing a case involving a woman that was drunk when she was raped ordered that the words rape and sexual assualt were not allowed to be said. And a Federal Judge upheld the ruling..... »news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_···HbZbIwgF
Plasticman
--
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to pnh102
The government has always decided what is free speech. |
|
rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Difficult situation....
Before I begin, I'm sure many people know my stance on this (and if you don't, just read my signature). I want to try to state my opinion without bias - surely, this could happen to any group in NARAL's place. I want to be neutral to their beliefs and mission in making my point here.
First off, this is why many people want net neutrality regulations. Verizon comes across here as heavy-handed and draconian in their refusal to allow these messages to go through, despite their opt-in nature. Opt-in can sometimes be difficult to opt-out of (case in point: spam, spim, spext).
Anyone who's used email could tell you how difficult it can be sometimes to remove themselves from email lists that they had initially opted-in to. I'm a technician at a major media company - I get calls all the time from people who want spam blocked from coming into their email box, and it's a shot in the dark in terms of getting them to stop coming in. Granted, Verizon is only publicly stating that this one group is being singled out for blockage but I'm sure there are a million others who have suffered the same fate with email.
Verizon is hardly the only national cellular provider in the United States and abroad - last I looked, there were at least four other service providers (I'm counting Alltel here because their service footprint is significant enough that I'm watching their commercials despite being unable to use their services).
For home internet providers, net neutrality in this instance would make perfect sense and I wholly support that because should Verizon DSL or FiOS suddenly block all abortion provider websites, it's not too far outside the realm of possibility for them to block pro-life websites as well. I say it is sensible because home internet is, as has been attested to countless times across these forums, quite often a monopoly or duopoly, with little local competition available. If the same number of services were available to all users (if there were more than two ISPs per any given area at any given time), then I would fall back upon my argument against net neutrality on cellular phones.
I'm sure that other providers will seize upon this news and attempt to draw in all the people who are offended by this, most likely by holding some sort of "we support you" press conference with NARAL. Either that, or this will blow over in a few days time and be quickly forgotten.
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
2 edits | reply to Placebo
Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL
said by Placebo :Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here? So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? If the people that pay for service from Verizon opt-in to receive the SMS messages, then yes, they should be forced to allow such messages. I PAY Verizon to receive the content that I want. They should have no say so, unless illegal, in what content is delivered to my phone.
THis is along the lines as to you paying for cable tv service and the cable company blocking programs on any of the channels that they deem as something you shouldn't watch.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo :So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Verizon just wants to avoid a slippery slope here. If they give any political or ideological organization a platform, then they will eventually have to give them all a platform. Today it would be NARAL, tomorrow it might be NAMBLA, the next day it might be the Westboro Baptist Church ...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
