Free Speech is more important than Free iPhones
Last week was an interesting week for open access. Sprint re-affirmed that their new WiMax network will support any device and that customers will not be forced into long-term contracts. Sprint shared location information with a third-party mobile web site for the first time. (There would be many more location-based services in the US if cell phone companies allowed developers to get at the data.) And Cubic Telecom, an Irish startup, launched a low-cost international dialing service that would not be possible without open access.
On the other hand, another high-profile MVNO failed. There was an attempt to rewrite the rules of the 700 MHz auction without public debate. And of course Apple fought back against the iPhone hackers, as we predicted.
But while the fanboys devoted all their attention to the iPhone again, I believe that the most important story last week was about a simple text messaging campaign on Verizon Wireless.
Naral Pro-choice America wanted to send text messages to its own members. Every cell phone company agreed except Verizon Wireless, who declined on the grounds that the subject matter, abortion, was too controversial. The New York times broke the story, and before the day was out Verizon had reversed course, claiming that someone internally had misread a policy designed to block adult content. But they reserved the right to block any content on their network in the future.
It doesn’t matter what you think about abortion, or whether Verizon or the other carriers made the ‘right’ decision in this case. The decision should not be theirs to make. If I want to get emails from Naral Pro-Choice, or Focus on the Family, from Barack Obama’s campaign, or Sam Brownback’s, those organizations don’t have to ask my ISP Comcast for permission to communicate with me. Why should they have to ask my cell phone company’s permission to send me a text message – not an unsolicited message, but one that I explicitly requested?
Competition doesn’t help because consumers only have one cell phone at a time. Suppose the postal service refused to deliver pro-life literature to my home, but FedEx did not. I wouldn’t have to sever my relationship with USPS, pay a termination fee, and sign a contract with FedEx before I could get my mail.
Even if my cell phone company always tries to do the right thing, there is still a problem. So long as they have the discretion to block content going over their network, they can be held liable for that content. If a parent finds the content on their kids’ cell phones objectionable, and Verizon Wireless had to approve that content, then Verizon can be sued.
The only way to protect free speech without exposing the cell phone companies to lawsuits is to take their discretion away: guarantee that we can all receive any content and download any application, on any phone.
Picture by mellowbox.
I think verizon is a great company and too me they are good reliable service. Just my opinion
[...] tied to a specific device. Echoing some of the Sprint news mentioned by Abhishek, Jason Devitt from Skydeck tells us about Verizon Wireless (almost) declining to allow Pro-Choice America send messages, [...]
I thought that being a common carrier meant that the content of the message was not subject to editorial policies.
@PrivateGuy: With respect to text messaging, email, and Internet communications in general, the cell phone companies are not subject to common carrier rules.