Shifting Out of Neutral

Obsidian Wings:

Nah, There's No Need for Net Neutrality After All, by publius: ...Verizon has apparently decided that pro-choice text messages are simply too controversial to ride over their wireless networks:

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 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.

Don't know about you, but I'm pretty psyched to hand over control of the Internet to Verizon and Comcast (or, here in Texas, AT&T and Comcast).

In other news, the highway department banned trucks that carry condoms from federal interstate highways. ...

Comments

[ken melvin]

Reminds me of why I was so glad to quit AOL. during the 2000 election they were tripping all over themselves to portray Bush in the best light and tear down Gore. Guess it's all right of AOL, Verizon, ... to editorialize, but not OK for Truthout, Naral, ... to even speak to certain subjects.

[calmo]

Thanks for that note, ken. The "omissions" (outright banning, not to mention the editing) of the media players, rarely gets noticed...because the plaintiffs cannot get their hands on the microphone.
Tis a miracle we even hear this little fragment.
Tis.

[Alex Tolley]

This makes a mockery of the claim (by AT&T?) that competition will prevent any carrier from blocking access.

Once this was publicized, Verizon spun it as increasing demand for texting will bring forward their content policy re-evaluation. Riiiiight.

At least they are reviewing policy in the light of this.

says...

On the same note, Truthout was having similar issues.:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307Z.shtml
"Thursday 13 September 2007

Currently, AOL- and Microsoft-related email providers, including Hotmail, are preventing delivery of a range of Truthout communications to thousands of our subscribers. Such communications include Truthout's regular newsletters and notifications to our subscribers from individual workstations of Truthout administrators informing those subscribers that they are affected."

"UPDATE: 09.20.07:12:noon:pdt:

It looks like AOL has lifted their ban. While it's still pretty early, it looks like we convinced AOL that you do have the right to read what you want.

Microsoft and Yahoo are still interfering.

Microsoft is dug in and blatantly refusing to deliver messages, that's Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and who knows what else. Yahoo too while not communicating any position to us is sending a large portion of our communications to you to your junk mail folders, apparently according to complaints, even though readers are attempting to designate the newsletters as acceptable in the Yahoo mail interface."

[robertdfeinman]

I'll throw in my related concern - the gateway effect of search engines.

Since most pages are found via search engines and since three firms control almost all of the market (Google, MS and Yahoo), the ability to make a site "disappear" is very real. If these firms decline to index a site or misindex it, it is effectively invisible. We already see how these firms are willing to cooperate with restrictive governments (China) by omitting or blocking access to material the government wants suppressed. The ease with which they complied should give people pause in the west as well. The next step beyond classifying material is removing it from the public space.

I layout my argument more fully here:
Google and the Dissemination of Knowledge

[calmo]

This escaped my notice robert, thank you.
(Have I told you recently what an asset you are?
This B it.)