Last week Verizon Wireless said they would not accept text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America. The "offending message" was declined because "abortion" is considered "controversial or unsavory".
NARAL provided an example of a recent text message that it had sent to supporters: "End Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for world’s poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice"
Now Verizon has reversed its position. "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," Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.
Is this a rapid response to a backlash from its customers? And does the fact that the story broke on all major wires yesterday have anything to do with the companies about face?
The Verizon spokesperson goes on to state "It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy," Mr. Nelson continues, "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."
In a New York Times article the concept of net neutrality has been raised. The article states:
Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.
But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate. The dispute over the Naral messages was 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.
First Amendment issues may come into play here but private entities like Verizon make their own decisions about what is considered "unsavory". It is not surprising after the Verizon story broke yesterday that the company did an about face as there was an immediate "call to action" which included canceling service if your carrier was Verizon. Here on the Daily Kos a diary appear entitled Prochoice? Cancel your Verizon service.
We should not underestimate the political power "text messaging" can bring to bear. In yesterday's New York Times story the following research reveals there is much to be gained with text messaging:
Texting has proven to be an extraordinarily effective political tool. According to a study released this month by researchers at Princeton and the University of Michigan, young people who received text messages reminding them to vote in the November 2006 were 4.2 percentage points more likely to go to the polls. The cost per vote generated, the study said, was much smaller than other sorts of get-out-the-vote efforts
We can only imagine how many calls came flooding into Verizon today. It is interesting to note that "net root" action can generate such a swift about face in a large company like Verizon. So we can safely assume the answer to the question to "Verizon can you hear us now?" is a resounding YES!