Verizon's 'Discretion' Shouldn't Abort Your Rights

Once upon a time, the law governed what telephone companies could and couldn't do to affect the content of telephone calls sent over the network. The answer, basically, was nothing. The Communications Act provided that it would be "unlawful" for carriers to "subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Over time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has whittled away the protections consumers had from the discrimination the law was supposed to prevent by changing the definitions of the types of calls or uses to which the law applies. Now, Internet traffic is excluded. Cellphone traffic excluded. Text messaging excluded. Any service offered over Digital Subscriber Line, fiber lines or cable were moved out from under the law that allowed consumers to be secure that they could use their telephones, or other devices, in any legal way they chose.

What has replaced a well-known legal standard is the much more amorphous, and much less public, rule of discretion. That is, the carriers do what they want and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

This morning brought the latest example, when the New York Times reported that Verizon turned down the application of NARAL Pro Choice to be set up so that it could send text messages to their members who requested the service. This could not be more clear. This is not spam. NARAL, as other activist and political organizations have done, wanted an effective way of communicating quickly with their members who voluntarily signed up to receive text messages informing them of events or asking them to take some sort of action.

The explanation NARAL's vendor, Mobile Commons, first received, was that "VZW (Verizon Wireless) legal does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war etc.) programs - only basic, general politican-related campaigns (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.)" After further inquiry, NARAL got a fuller explanation: "For now VZW will not accept programs that are issue oriented from lobbyist [sic], PACs or any organization 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. General informational campaigns about candidates are acceptable that the content involved is, in VZW's sole discretion, not issue-oriented or controversial in nature."

Note that word, "discretion." Instead of a legal standard that could be applied by a regulatory body or a court in a public proceeding, we have the vaguest of terms applied by a private company in public.

Activist group that the are, NARAL didn't take it sitting down. They went to the New York Times, which ran the story. By mid-morning, Verizon discovered what had transpired was "an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy," and NARAL's application to send messages to its members was approved.

That's all well and good. But what if NARAL hadn't complained, or if the Times hadn't run a story? Would Verizon be reviewing its policy, as it has stated it now is? As NARAL's president, Nancy Keenan, pointed out in a letter to Verizon, there is nothing illegal about discussing issues like the war or abortion. While many Americans might disagree on those topics, she wrote, most Americans would probably agree that Verizon didn't have the right to keep people, at its discretion, from discussing them or from voluntarily receiving information. She's right, of course, but neither NARAL nor most of the American public, nor the public's representatives, are aware of how those rights have been chipped away, or if they are aware, they aren't going to do anything about it.

Even if Verizon decides to change its policy, who will know what the policy will be, or whether they can change it again as circumstances suit, or what recourse consumers have if they are for some reason deprived of what they think are their rights?

If this scenario appears familiar, it is. Not long ago, the Washington Post ran a story about Comcast cutting off the Internet accounts of customers who downloaded too much material. What standard does Comcast use? Its at their discretion. There are no published standards, no means of measuring, no way a customer can know if he or she is going to get cut off. It's at the discretion of the company.

If that scenario appears familiar, it is. Not long ago, AT&T was webcasting a Pearl Jam concert, and somehow some political lyrics by singer Eddie Vedder didn't make it through the series of tubes. Another misapplied company policy was apparently the culprit.

At some point, responsible leadership is going to have to wake up and realize that a private company's discretion is no substitute for public standards. It might be a good idea for the FCC to spell out what rights they think consumers still have, and for Congress to make its own judgments. Discretion has its limits.

Comments

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Hmm, I've been a Verizon customer for about a decade and never had a single problem with them. I could care less what company you use unlike those that seem to have developed a personal vendetta against a company that has consistently given me better and cheaper service than any other.

As for the NARAL messages - people signed up for them. Enough with the scare tactics people. This is not junk mail but a legitimate organization that supports the rights of more than half of America - the better half by-the-way.

Seriously, what if the dinosaurs came back tomorrow. What if everything turned pink? What if everybody just got along and got over themselves and the idea that they need to be, or think they are, better than everyone else and stop their self-serving, societally undermining behaviors?

Stop scaring yourselves with 'what ifs?' and start living life as ideally as you can conceive for the benefit of all humankind.

[owiseone]

When I start getting text-messa­ging-junk/­spam through my wireless provider, I will change service. Period!

[KerwinMcLaughlin]

Listen, no one has to tell me of the evils that men do, but I can't help wondering what the heck NARAL wants to text people for anyway?

I mean, what are they going to alert you to?

"Still No Word On Roe vs. Wade!"

"It has now been one trimester since your last one night stand."

"We will be meeting at Starbucks tonight at 7 for coffee and civil unrest."

I mean, I think it's dumb that ESPN wants to give you boxscores on your phone at a nickle a pop. (or whatever they are charging) I can wait until morning to find out Jose Reyes went 0 for 4.

[CapedCrusader]

Another tactic is corporate separation. The company that provides the cell service is actually a different company than the one that runs the online store which is a different company than the one that runs the brick-and-mortar stores. So, for instance, if you have a problem at a brick-and-mortar store and then call 611 customer service, they have limited capabilities to do anything about it because "that's a different company". This is from personal experience, as I was a Verizon customer for 10 years (Yes, I know, I know, but the company was called Airtouch when I started with them...). I've been so much happier with another company.

[LightningJoe]

This administration, and all of its officials and functions, exist to promote and enable "free" market capitalist principles. Which means that not only are they offloading government functions and prerogatives onto private interests, but they are doing everything they can to ensure that private enterprise doesn't have to suffer "interference" from government.

And that includes the "interference" of having to abide by the laws of the land.

[PAFirefighter]

I'm a Verizon customer for land line and wireless. Let me be the first to tell the world...

DO NOT do business with Verizon.

I'm stuck with them because my wife sees no reason to bother changing. You folks aren't in my boat, and you don't want to be.

PA Firefighter

[ChristianEcon.com]

Verizon is an incredibly arrogant corporation. They have set up a revenue stream of ripping off customers in minute amounts in various ways, building a wall of insulation including training reps to turn away, berate, and infinitely defer customers who try to straighten things out, counting on the fact most customers will give up and let it go, and that even fewer still will have the wherewithal to take legal action for small sums.

I realize Verizon isn't the only corporation implementing this tactic as a large revenue stream.
Corporations are way out of control and need to be reigned in.

[yaznaioutibia]

And I thought I was going to have to change my phone service.