It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Verizon Rejects Messages of Abortion Rights Group (Update Verizon Backs Off)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Verizon Rejects Messages of Abortion Rights Group


www.nytimes.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
CNET | Blogs
savetheinternet

 


It appears that Verizon has reversed itself in this matter.
Verizon Reverses Decision to Block Text Messages



[edit on 27-9-2007 by goosdawg]

[edit on 9/27/07 by FredT]

[edit on 9/27/07 by FredT]




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   


The dispute over the Naral messages is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

“This is right at the heart of the problem,” said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. “The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Why does Verizon feel it's in their best interest to decide what's in OUR best interest?

As a service provider, should they be permitted to discriminate against a service that ONLY sends messages to people who CHOOSE to participate in that service?



www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 27-9-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I'm surprised you haven't gotten more hits on this one. I was going to post about this one, but you beat me to it. This is an outrage and a huge mistake on their part. I'll be a lot of people will be pulling out of their contracts with them now. I was listening to this on talk radio this morning and even the pro-lifers are ticked off about it. This is a form of censorship and totally wrong. Even though it's their company and they can choose what they want to do, it's still stinks to high heaven.

I do believe that Verizon may have pulled back on that decision though after the huge backlashing they got from the public and then news story.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
How cute these companies can now start to refuse customers because they do not agree with them.

The abortion rights group was attempting to be just that, a customer.
If companies can refuse customers because they do not agree with what said customer feels, where will this stop?

Will all of us be refused service in the future because of who we are, or what our beliefs are??

If the almighty dollar is what pushes them to provide services, how can they justify deciding who to take on as a customer?
Just weird.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by closettrekkie
Even though it's their company and they can choose what they want to do,


Bingo. It's their company and they can make whatever business decisions they want. I hear alot nowadays about people being stunned or displeased by business decisions as of late and it's getting silly, really. People have the ability to choose who they do business with. If you want to regulate a business that is not breaking the law then that seems very anti-American to me. If they don't like a business then they can avoid it and find somewhere else. I realize having a contract can make it difficult to just up and leave, but you signed it and it probably made no mention of their political standings. Next provider you go with make sure to have them put that into their contract before you sign it.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
On second thought, it is often said that Corporate interests are what run America.
Why now, are corporations taking up controversial interests like this?

I fear what could happen in more corporate powers start taking sides on controversial subjects like abortion.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by superheterodyne
 


I completely agree with you, but if it's not something that's stated in your contract do you think they'd let you leave without charging you a fee? Most wireless companies charge you if you break your contract with them, don't they?

I still don't like the idea of a communications company deciding who and what I can communicate with. That would be like my internet provider blocking all of the Republican/Democrate or whatever is their opposition party's websites.

Just for fun, let's take this one step farther. It may be a bit out of bounds, but say for instance you're a Christian and your local phone provider is an atheist. You decide you're going to call your pastor at the church and the phone company won't put you through because they don't agree with Christianity. Where does the line get drawn?

This kind of reminds me of the law where a pharmacist doesn't have to provide you with a drug that goes against their beliefs such as birth control. That's a mighty slippery slope we're going down.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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.


Here is the crucial part of the story. Text messages aren't treated the same as voice calls. That is just sheer idiocy. This isn't about Pro-Choice. This is about Network Neutrality. They are testing the waters and if they get away with this, then expect many more stories like this. First its Text Messages, then it will be EMail, and last but certainly not least they will start filtering the web itself.

How a non-Neutral ISP could work

The above link describes a "Worst Case Scenario" and guess what, it just looks like Network Television....
That is whta they want to turn the web into.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by sardion2000]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
What's the difference between information transmitted by voice or text?

Aren't both forms of communication transmitted over the public airwaves?


The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

Source | About the FCC

Why are text messages exempt from this oversight?


apc

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Difference sardion is phone networks are not Internet networks, so the Net Neutrality argument doesn't really apply. Sometimes the phone networks share a common backbone sure, but there's no actual data crossover (not counting accessing the Internet from your phone or making phone calls from the Internet). And Internet Service Providers don't own the data that passes through their networks. Verizon owns every byte that passes through theirs (within the confines of communications law, naturally).

Some companies feel they have a moral obligation not to do business with those who conflict with their morals. It is entirely within their right. If it pisses off their customer base, they'll lose customers. If it doesn't, who cares?

Verizon sucks anyway. AT&T is where it's at. Sure, you might get bounced through an NSA data mining operation sometimes. But anyone dumb enough to talk on the phone probably deserves to get their door busted down anyway.


[edit on 27-9-2007 by apc]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Sweet!

Thanks for the update, FredT.


apc

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

"And clearly Verizon believes that a woman's right to choose is somehow 'unsavory.'"


I'm fairly certain Verizon has no problem with womens' liberties. That tired old front is... well... tired and old. I consider first trimester abortion a necessary evil, but can we get a grip and call it what it is? Terminating the life of a fetus. That is what Verizon has a problem with.

It's too bad they backed down so fast. It really would have been interesting to see how this played out over a few months.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join