Verizon in the neutral corner

Everybody makes mistakes, and Verizon Wireless made a doozy this week, rejecting [1] a text messaging campaign initiated by abortion rights non-profit Naral Pro-Choice America on the grounds it does 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," according to communications given by Naral to the New York Times. The controversy had all the makings of a full-blown mainstream media debacle: Hot-button subject matter? Check. Nationwide brand visibility? Check. Possible First Amendment infringement? Check. Pundits were already licking their chops at the potential of this thing going nuclear: Columbia law professor Timothy Wu contributed the most memorable sound byte, reminding the New York Times "Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government."

But within hours of the Naral controversy hitting the newswires, Verizon execs strapped on their hazmat suits and contained the situation before it could grow out of control. A press statement [2] issued Thursday morning read in part "The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident. Upon learning about this situation, senior Verizon Wireless executives immediately reviewed the decision and determined it was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy. That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children."

With the 2008 presidential election looming and text services emerging as a vital component of next-gen campaign strategies, it was inevitable the issue of free speech over mobile networks would erupt sooner or later. And while I commend Verizon on its decisive response and reversal of policy, I can't help but recall the July 2007 testimony [3] of Verizon Wireless general counsel Steven E. Zipperstein before a U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet hearing on Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection, in which he said: "As applied to the wireless industry, we believe the quest for open access--or, as some refer to it, network neutrality--is a solution in search of a problem that simply does not exist." In fact, net neutrality is an issue that's very real, and thanks to Verizon's gaffe, it's playing out right this moment in headlines across the world.

Exercise your right to free speech--email and tell me what you think. - Jason [4]