 
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, 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 | Re: dangerous precedent They'r not getting any kind of kickback. | |
|
| | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | Re: dangerous precedent The hell they're not getting a kickback. It's absolutely insane how much wireless companies charge for text messages. | |
|
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: dangerous precedent Its one of the highest profit margin items that a wireless company can provide.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service
quote:
Commercially SMS is a massive industry in 2006 worth over 80 Billion dollars globally.[17] SMS has an average global price of 11 cents and maintains a near 90% profit margin.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | 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. | |
|
| | |
| matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT
1 edit | I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance).
EDIT: Looks like this story is now obsolete. Apparently Verizon has already reversed its position. »www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21011328/ | |
|
| | 
nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
| Re: dangerous precedent said by matrix3D  :I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them.
--
for all your Linux questions | |
|
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: dangerous precedent said by nklb :said by matrix3D :I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them. Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS! | |
|
| | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Re: dangerous precedent said by ross :said by nklb :said by matrix3D :I agree. I don't give a crap what kind of BS clause Verizon puts in its contracts -- nothing should take precedence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the First Amendment in this instance). Verizon is not a government organization and therefore the first amendment is not applicable to them. Horseshit! They are a common carrier and content is NONE OF THEIR G-D BUSINESS! For those who care,
My layman's understanding of 1st Amendment vs. Common Carrier is that they must be different because I've never heard of them being derived from the same thing, but both have similar effects. If my layman's understanding is correct, then stating "nonsense!" to an accusation that 1st amendment has nothing to do with Common Carrier and then equating the two interchangeably in conversation simply shows the stupidity of the person doing it. Most people would realize the *potential* for the two items to be different regardless of whether or not they actually are, and would be cautious enough not to use them as equivilent as well. Mixing those two items up shows some sort of mental incapacity, disease, and/or instability.
It was bloody stupid of VW to deny the "pro-lifers" -- verify side -- oh it was the "pro-choicers" -- hm -- well, I personally have a much darker attitude toward them, but the principles are the same -- it was (not bloody but at least a little bit) stupid of VW to deny the "pro-choicers" their forum if they are behaving properly with respect to everything technical (although not necessarily with respect to prudent procreational activities) since VW likes the protections of being a common carrier. | |
|
| BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | Kripes... why don't they just get out of the business completely?
--
---Barney | |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Cromwell, CT
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
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL 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 | |
|
| | 
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT | Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL Agreed. I'm amazed at how many people forget that little thing called "the Bill of Rights" and think that their own personal 15th-century opinion is law. | |
|
| | | | 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
·Cox HSI
| Um, what?
I'm all for our Constitution and agree that our country's population is starting to loose sight of what the country was founded on. One thing people forget and this is probably the worst, as this country was built on Capitalism and the means to gain rewards for hard work and being proud of that. What does this have to do with Verizon filtering service? Well, for starters it's their network, not the peoples network. They paid for it, they built it and they maintain it. So long as they abid by their policy to their customers, they can do whatever they want with their own property whether physical or intellectual as long as it doesn't break any laws.
This is no different than Walmart offering censored only versions of music or choosing not to sell certain types of music.
Please make sure that as a Constitution loving citizen of the US you don't forget that Capitalism drives our country's companies and work ethics. Lets not try to force companies to act like socialist entities of the government because we don't like something. Instead, BUY service from somewhere else and force the market to change.
This is probably not more than a soap box rant but jez, people here so often forget that net neutrality battles will be one with the paying customer's decisions. If at the end of the day you don't like something don't pay for it, suggest an alternative and wait for the company that sees the light to offer the service you want. The worst thing that can happen is any kind of government control, they always fail... the only thing it's been somewhat good at for the last 200 plus years is enforcing our constitutional rights, and I'm ok with that.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| | | | | 
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL Lumber Jack:
Our country may have been built on Captialism but it was founded on the notion of freedom and liberty for all.
In regards to your example, if I didn't like the censored version sold by Walmart, i could go to a thousand different stores and buy it elsewhere (Target, K-Mart, Sam Goodies, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, buy.com, etc) -- however we have very few telecommunications companies. They wanted to merge and grow in size, then they have to need to be fair and uphold thier end of their agreement to thier customers which is to provide an unfettered service. | |
|
| | | | | SylphFi
Premium
join:2007-06-07
Moses Lake, WA
 ·Spectrum Communica..
| quote:
Instead, BUY service from somewhere else and force the market to change.
That would be just fine, if not for the fact that many, more likely most, people have been yoked into a 2-year contract, and would face stiff penalties for switching carriers. Walmart, on the other hand, does not post guards at the door demanding $200 before they will let you leave the store. | |
|
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | When your business is built on and assets reside on public property (wireline or frequency) then you're subject to the will of the public. For that subjection you get the exclusive right to use the public's asset in a for-profit venture. | |
|
| | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
·VOIPo
2 edits | 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 | |
|
| | | |
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!!
See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL.
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. | |
|
| | | | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL said by Placebo :I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!! See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL. Dude, you are clueless... You are using an analogy for something that Dish doesn't even offer.
Debating with people like you is useless because you will constantly use information that has no bearing on what is being discussed.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | | | |
Placebo
Premium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL
·Comcast
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL For NARAL to send the messages, it requires Verizon to provide access to thier network. Verizon chooses not to provide access. Would you expect Verizon to provide access to ANY organization?
I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". Dish Network offers local HD channels throughout the country--I'm pretty sure they offer over 100 channels throughout the country. I can't get all 100. Is my analogy so off base?
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL said by Placebo :F I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". I'd argue that your brain fell out of your right ear. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Yes, common carrier -- I expect them to provide opt-in access to their network, for their customers, for any legal content. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
|
| | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL So? If you opt-in, then the content is irrelevant to Verizon (or should be) | |
|
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL I agree... I should be able to receive messages from whoever I want (assuming they're not terrorists).
Whether its abortion, p0rn, warez, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc.
If VZW or any carrier decides for me that I shouldn't receive a message that I expect to see, then there is an issue.
What happens if I set up my travel plans with American Airlines (worst airlines out there), to SMS me my flight schedule changes, and Verizon decides to block them.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA
| 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? Uhh, yeah. What is the next step, Verizon Wireless won't let you accept calls from an organization it doesn't agree with? No difference between that and an SMS that you sign up for.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | |
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Cromwell, CT
clubs:
| 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? as long as its legal what would be the harm since I am requesting the information, its not spam that was sent.
besides this might not be how the majority of verizon users feel, but the 10 man board of directors, or the 3 man policy board, ect...
i feel the Catholic church is an evil orginization that is corupted to its core, from years of killing, wars and molestation of children. so if i was the one making the decisions on the filtering on verizon then would you then have NO problem with anything from them being filtered, how about i kick them off and not allow ANY call traffic that originates from a church or catholic orginization.
start to see the problem here yet?
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
|
| | | datreic
join:2007-03-03
| My issue with this, and thankfully I am no longer a Verizon customer, is not that they are running their business as they see fit (though I disagree with how they are doing it). My problem is that if I was a customer and I didn't agree with these business practices I cannot terminate my contract without penalty AND if enough businesses (at least the major providers, such as Verizon, Sprint, etc) chose to follow this, I would be left with few options.
This is similar to Walmart not selling products (cds/dvds) that they do not find "fitting" of their image. Spend your money somewhere else, if you can. | |
|
| | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by Placebo :Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? With the customer's permission, of course. That's what you pay them for.
What universe are you from? | |
|
| | | eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE
| Of course they should. From the New York Times article on the subject:
"Professor Wu pointed to a historical analogy. In the 19th century, he said, Western Union, the telegraph company, engaged in discrimination, based on the political views of people who sought to send telegrams. “One of the eventual reactions was the common carrier rule,†Professor Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics."
This is the exact same issue, except now the text is on a cell phone screen instead of a piece of paper. | |
|
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| 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? Absolutely. Should they ban me from calling you if I know you just because I am calling from a t-mobile or us cellular cell phone? a land line? a voip provider?
In either case, for bulk text messaging, rules are already laid out:
Express Prior Authorization
Under the FCC’s rules, commercial e-mail messages may only be sent to your wireless device via the Internet if you have provided your “express prior authorization.” Commercial e-mail senders may request that you provide this authorization orally or in writing (e-mail or letter). They must tell you the name of the entity that will be sending the messages and, if different, the name of the entity advertising products or services. All commercial e-mail messages sent to you after you’ve given your authorization must allow you to revoke your authorization, or “opt out” of receiving future messages. You must be allowed to opt out the same way you “opted in,” including by dialing a short code. Senders have 10 days to honor requests to opt out.
FWIW
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html | |
|
| stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
| This is murder of a child pure and simple, who will stand up for the rights of the children? We expend more effort to save the whales and Owls then we do to save our own children, no wonder we have so many disturbed kids running amok.
There are better ways of accomplishing birth control then killing a child.
Interestingly enough those who call themselves pro-choice actually are not, they only advocate the killing of babies they offer no alternatives of which many are available. Another point lost on most people these days, the original pro-abortion (pro-murder) position came from planned parenthood, which the founders in particular Margaret Sanger, advocated abortion as a means towards reducing the number of babies from minorities, in effect Sanger pushed her abortion agenda in the inner cities, areas inhabited by minorities, this in of its self should be enough to cause people to raise in arms, ridding this country of this very contentious and morally reprehensible organization | |
|
| |
See 18 replies to this post |
|
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! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Non-Story Dude, you should have prefaced your post with 'I am not a lawyer...' | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Not-advertisement. It was opt-in. That's the difference. Advertisements are COMPLETELY selectable. | |
|
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. | |
|
| 
Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| 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 | |
|
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by clickie :...the quickest way to destroy a thread any discussion other than a discussion that's actually about abortion, is by letting it turn into a debate about abortion. Couldn't agree with you more.
This topic (abortion) is the lightning rod supreme for overly emotional displays of opinion. I refuse to debate the topic with anyone, and I never ever reveal my position on it, as you are guaranteed to be berated.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
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. | |
|
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
| Re: Verizon-Blocks-OptIn-ProChoice SMS 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
1 edit | 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 | |
|
| | |
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
·VOIPo
| Re: Verizon-Blocks-OptIn-ProChoice SMS said by Plasticman :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_···HbZbIwgFPlasticman Government has NOTHING to do with this case. This is a corporation that gets paid by customers that may or may not want certain content delivered to them. In this case, it is an opt-in situation where only those that want the content will receive it via SMS.
Verizon is CLEARLY wrong in this situation, no matter what their terms say. As seen in other court cases, just because these companies put things in their term and AUP's, they aren't always legal and binding.
Now, if NARAL gets out of hand and people that have not signed up for this and they just start sending to everyone, yes, then ban them from their network.
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Dude, this is not analagous at all. Get a clue. | |
|
| | 
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me. If I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | 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! | |
|
|
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: That block didn't last long! "The decision not to allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident," said Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffrey Nelson in a statement."
Welcome to Moot Point, VZ. Population, none.....
I guess the drunken lawyer that approved this one went home for the evening, and someone with considerably less crack in their system realized this was a screw up...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY | Am I barking up the wrong tree?? Isn't it hypocritical and counter productive (to the ISP) to filter questionable or objectionable content, but then insist in courts that it shouldn't be held liable for p2p activity? | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Am I barking up the wrong tree?? You sir, are barking up the correct tree, to be sure.
Either it's: #1) Safe harbor, (No position, neutral, block nothing, and have no liability) or #2) Walled Garden, block everything they like, but welcome to my nightmare, 100% FULL LIABILITY for everything that ANYONE takes offense at or deems questionable.
If I was a company, I'd pick #1 everytime. #2 is just plain stupidity.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Cell Providers Should be Deemed Common Carriers What's next, controlling who can call me?
I think internet providers and cell phone providers should be deemed common carriers and have a duty to carry all traffic requested by the customer, whether they like the content or not.
This isn't a case where the recipient would be offended by the message. It is easy to want to blockade the viewpoint you don't agree with, but then you have created a precedent which will kick you in the shins when someone wants to censor you. | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Verizon just reversed their decision »www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21011328/
Verizon wised up a bit. Having the NY Times headline their discriminatory policies was just a HUGE bullet for the advocates of Net Neutrality, and Verizons lawyers probably just realized that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: Verizon just reversed their decision First off abortion for birth control is wrong, enough said on this topic.
As long as this is an Opt-in message service Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. I have a feeling somebody in PR department made a phone call the excutive offices who in turn made a phone call to somebody in the legal offices and did some big time ass-chewing.
--
Eat a BLT for Iran | |
|
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: Verizon just reversed their decision said by Transmaster :First off abortion for birth control is wrong, enough said on this topic. Your divine proclamation is the last word on the subject? What an asshole! You're just as far OFF TOPIC as stevephl, and your head is just as far up your ass as his is up his ass on the subject of abortion. Now that we have opposing opinions expressed, that should be a truly "nuff said" and fitting end to the abortion discussion.
said by Transmaster :As long as this is an Opt-in message service Verizon doesn't have a leg to stand on. However, you at least got it right as far as the original topic goes; Verizon has no right to censure the content its subscribers opt-in to receiving. | |
|
| |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one. | |
|
| | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: Verizon just reversed their decision Aren't you lucky you wheren't aborted....thou royal butt munch.
--
Eat a BLT for Iran | |
|
bud
@sbcglobal.net | verizon way to go verizon. this is definately unsavory and i know of many who would discontinue service had the descision gone the other way | |
|
|
|
|
Verizon Blocks Opt-In Pro-Choice SMS
not good