overheard in providence

Three weeks ago I went on a bit of a rant about why Verizon does worse things than offer subpar phones. Here’s one more item for the list. Last week Verizon denied Naral Pro-Choice America permission to use their network to send text message alerts to Verizon customers who signed up. Today, Verizon decided to reversed their decision.

In the grand scheme of why I dislike Verizon, this incident isn’t particularly important. Unfortunately, there’s a more important issue at stake than selecting the best cellphone provider. When companies like Verizon decide to allow or disallow content (last month AT&T also apologized for some superfluous censorship), they implicitly claim the right to block the content they deem objectionable. Under current law they appear to be correct.

As my favorite full-time blogger points out, however, accidental censorship doesn’t bode well for the future of an unregulated internet. If Verizon is providing your house internet though DSL or FIOS, nothing prevents them from blocking access to websites they find objectionable. I confess that I was going to switch to FIOS when it becomes available on Brown Street, but now I’m having second thoughts. According to CNET I’m unlikely to get the right to an uncensored internet anytime soon.