Comments on: Cell Phone Gag Rule

By: gnomchik

gnomchik — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:25:30 +0000

Verizon big wigs have claimed this was a low-level error based on outdated company protocols & have given NARAL the requested short code. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092700823.html

By: hans peter

hans peter — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:48:12 +0000

In the European Union, the upcoming amendments to the current legal framework might include sort of a reference to net neutrality - but it's basically a (different kind of) "pro choice"-concept: regulatory authorities will be required "to promote the interests of the citizens of the European Union by inter alia … being guided by the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and run any lawful applications and/or services of their choice" - for details see here.

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:20:30 +0000

Frank, my primary points were: (1) skepticism that this news involves text message “blocking” (I should note: maybe it has that *effect*, but I don’t think we can just assume that); and (2) to the extent we’re talking about something other than filtering of messages, e.g., filtering of business partners, that seems to me to be down the slope a ways from “net neutrality.”

I don’t believe either of those points commits me to your propositions (1)-(3).

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:30:23 +0000

For Bruce:

In response to your:

“are we now moving from “net neutrality” (or rather “text neutrality”) to “short code neutrality”? Where does that slope end? “Business partner neutrality”?”

Yes, with the next steps being nationalization and the gulag.

Seriously, I don’t understand whether you want to commit to the following points:

1) Wireless carriers get absolute freedom to discriminate among the messages they carrier. Throw out any common carrier rules applied to them.

2) Yoo’s view that “market competition” will solve the problem.

3) An “inevitable capture” perspective: whatever the FCC does will be compromised by pro-incumbent lobbying.

I can understand 3 as a reason to oppose net neutrality, though I don’t share it.

I think 2 is wrong because I just don’t see a good reason to add “ideology” into the price mix. Do we really want a world where people have to say “hmm, I’ll go for the $10 extra per month ‘free speech plan’ where I get to hear from people about abortion or anti-war activism.”?

As for 1: Why cede this power to them?

By: Jack S.

Jack S. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:26:17 +0000

Great artcile by Brett Frischmann and Barbara von Schewick, I found it very inciteful and useful in this debate.

Though both disturbing and unsurprising that Verizon would engage in such practices (they have before and lost in court when filtering supposed spam e-mails) I’m less concerned than if this was the internet. The wireless market is more likely defined as national and not local whereas Frischmann and Schewick demonstrate that fixed broadband is very much local (something the FCC, FTC and DOJ disagree with). So, NARAL does have some flexibility of network to use to get to everyone. Now, if Verizon continues this practice to their broadband service, yes very disturbing indeed and ample fodder for the pro net neutrality folks.

And Yoo is right, competition would correct it, but that requires competition in the first place.

By: Jack S.

Jack S. — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:25:32 +0000

Great artcile by Brett Frischmann and Barbara von Schewick, I found it very inciteful and useful in this debate.

And Yoo is right, competition would correct it, but that requires competition in the first place.

By: Bruce Boyden

Bruce Boyden — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:49:16 +0000

Frank, I understand the excitement of seeming to find a data point in your favor, but this one is mushier than you or the Times are giving it credit for. I don’t see anything in the original story saying NARAL’s messages are being blocked — and that seems unlikely given that I can get regular e-mails from who knows where on my Verizon cell, indicating that no special permission is necessary. Rather, the Times story (not the headline — the Times seems caught up by the whole “blocked” meme too) says that Verizon wouldn’t sell NARAL a “short code.” I don’t know enough about “short codes” to say whether Verizon has a credible fear of being seen as a sponsor or affiliate of short-code holders, but I’d want to know more before dismissing that possibility. And in any event, are we now moving from “net neutrality” (or rather “text neutrality”) to “short code neutrality”? Where does that slope end? “Business partner neutrality”?