In an unbelievable move, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request by Naral Pro-Choice America to participate in a text messaging program, according to this great article by The New York Times' Adam Liptak. Saying that it has the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon denied to Naral the very same service available to other political organizations, including the Republican National Committee, Save Darfur, Amnesty International and dozens of other groups.
Naral wanted to set up a short-code messaging account that allows supporters to receive text messages by entering a five-digit code, a very common tool in both politics and commerce for effectively reaching targeted individuals. The group didn't have plans to "blast out" to unsuspecting recipients messages about abortion.
Nevertheless, Verizon Wireless doesn't like the subject matter and rejected Naral's plan. Verizon said it "does not accept programs from any group '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.'"
Promote an agenda? Unsavory content? Verizon is seriously effed up if it thinks Naral is promoting an "agenda" but the Republican National Committee is not. And clearly Verizon believes that a woman's right to choose is somehow "unsavory."
But Verizon's political views are beside the point. What's truly disturbing is that Verizon is imposing its own political views on its wireless customers without their consent, something that the carrier could not do in the landline voice world.
Even more to the point, if Verizon doesn't immediately retract its dangerous and idiotic "controversial and unsavory" policy, and apologize to Naral, then it will have no one else to blame when the thunderous hand of regulation comes and slaps the arrogance right out of the company.
As Columbia's Tim Wu notes in the article, Western Union in the 19th century also rejected messages on the basis of political content, a practice that ultimately gave rise to the common carrier, non-discrimination regulations that dominated communications for so long. And despite the divisive nature of abortion, few politicians will defend a communication company's right to censor on the basis of political content, no matter what side of the aisle they are on.
Too many lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, have felt the pain of what they believe are unfriendly attitudes by the corporate owners of newspapers, TV stations and other outlets of political persuasion. They're not about to give Verizon much leeway in serving as the message gatekeeper today on this issue because they know that tomorrow the telco could turn on them.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:05 PM | Print | Comments (0)As the simmering resentment against the totalitarian government of strategically important Myanmar boils over into outright revolt, bloggers in that nation are invaluable conduits for news and information. And they're fulfilling this public service at great risk to themselves.
The ruling regime in Myanmar (formerly Burma) censors websites that carry Burmese news or information and generally bans access to the Internet. But a steady stream of uncensored photos and reports are flowing out of the country nevertheless, thanks to secret bloggers who risk imprisonment or worse for keeping the world informed.
One particularly helpful blogger, named "Moezack," has gone eerily quiet. Other blogs and sites are up and running, but as Mathew Ingram points out, only a few are written in English, so it's hard for non-Burmese speakers to get an immediate sense of what's going on there.
What's going on, it seems, is escalating violence, with soldiers and police firing bullets over the tops of large crowds of demonstrators, who are violating the government's ban on assembly. Thanks to the bloggers who sneak information out of the nation, the world is watching.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:59 PM | Print | Comments (0)Vonage is in so much trouble that I'm almost rooting for the scrappy VoIP pioneer to turn things around in a big way. The latest set of woes afflicting Vonage are, of course, legal in nature.
Yesterday Vonage lost yet another patent lawsuit, but the victor wasn't Vonage's main antagonist, Verizon, but Sprint-Nextel. A jury found that Vonage infringed six of Sprint-Nextel's patents related to VoIP and ordered the Holmdel, NJ-based company to pay $69.5 million in damages plus 5% royalty on future revenue.
Sprint-Nextel, however, will have to get in line behind Verizon, which won a major victory today when The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld a District Court decision which ruled that Vonage had infringed upon Verizon's VoIP patents. Vonage had been betting it could turn around that disastrous lower court decision in the appeals process, but apparently not. "We are confident in the strength of our appeal," interim CEO and founder of the company Jeffrey Citron said during Vonage's Q2 07 earnings call.
The legal picture isn't completely black for Vonage. The appeals court did remand the decision on one of the patents (related to Wi-Fi phones) back to the district court, which delays the ultimate enforcement of the original $58 million infringement award and 5.5% royalty payment mandate.
This technicality holds little joy for Vonage, which has been accruing for accounting purposes the Verizon patent award expenses ever since the jury verdict and original decision came out last spring.
So, not only are customers fleeing Vonage at an accelerating clip, but now the ailing company has to deal with not one but two major patent infringement case defeats. It's kind of sad to see Vonage soldier on in the face of so much adversity. No wonder TeleGeography analyst Stephan Beckert is willing to go on the record with the following quote: "Poor Vonage, they can't get a break."
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:24 PM | Print | Comments (0)Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) has introduced a bill, called The Family Friendly Flights Act, that would require airlines to install special seating sections for children to block viewing of adult-themed movies on flights. Co-sponsored by Representative Walter Jones (R-NC), the bill would bar airlines from showing in general seating films rated PG-13, R, NC-17 or that are unrated, as well as TV shows that get a "V" for violence rating.
That pretty much leaves only G or PG movies as appropriate in-flight fare. Thankfully, the bill would not apply to planes that offer individual screens in backrests.
The concern, it seems, is that small children are captive audiences on airplanes and are forced to watch films containing "graphic" content. Although it's tough to argue against the idea of protecting children from forced exposure to content that parents don't like, it's probably not a good idea to start forcing content-related regulations on non-communications industries (it's actually not a good idea to restrict even communications providers, such as broadcaster and cable operators, from showing certain kinds of content, but that's water under the bridge.)
It's only a hop, skip and jump from extending this kind of regulation to bars, restaurants and public places. How much better it would be if the proposed rules were content-neutral, say, force airlines to stop showing general seating films or TV shows altogether.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:09 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
