T-Mobile Claims Right to Censor Text Messages

[Land Shark]

Source: Gizmodo

T-Mobile told a federal judge Wednesday it may pick and choose which text messages to deliver on its network in a case weighing whether wireless carriers have the same "must carry" obligations as wire-line telephone providers.

The Bellevue, Washington-based wireless service is being sued by a texting service claiming T-Mobile stopped servicing its "short code" clients after it signed up a California medical marijuana dispensary. {...} EZ Texting offers a short code service, which works like this: A church could send its schedule to a cell phone user who texted "CHURCH" to 313131. Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting's customers upon request. Each of its clients gets their own special word.

T-Mobile, the company wrote in a filing in New York federal court, "has discretion to require pre-approval for any short-code marketing campaigns run on its network, and to enforce its guidelines by terminating programs for which a content provider failed to obtain the necessary approval."

{...} It's the first federal case testing whether wireless providers may block text messages they don't like.

Read more: http://gizmodo.com/5645446/t+mobile-claims-right-to-censor-text-messages

---

Don't let anybody tell you that the "internet" or wireless bands "shouldn't be regulated" or subject to government "interference." It is already HEAVILY regulated - to the point and beyond of censorship - but the regulation is by private actors - corporations usually - via contracts, terms of service, and "discretion" like that above.

in turn, those contracts, terms of service and discretion they ask government courts to en-Force. CLearly the government has regulatory power regarding the internet and wireless communications, the question is only WHO MAKES THE RULES?

Will corporations be the legislator (via private law called Contracts and laissez faire govt policy) or will government be the legislator (with at least a chance they will do their job and pursue the common good instead of private special interest)?

[Renew Deal]

1. They did this during the 2004 RNC Convention in NY

There were groups sending information about protests and incidents during the RNC convention. T-Mobile blocked the messages on the second or third day. It was wrong.

[Land Shark]

2. Do you happen to have a link for that by any chance?

[Renew Deal]

4. Happened to me

:shrug:

I'm sure there's info out there about this, but it happened to me. I was receiving a flood of text messages about where to be and what to do, then T-Mobile cut them off.

[Land Shark]

6. Did you somehow confirm that they tried to send you those messages? Or...

Did they cut them off at the level of the organizers' connectivity?

[Renew Deal]

7. Yes at the time

And I called T-Mobile. They told me they blocked them. It was a massive amount of messages and I think I had an "unlimited" plan.

[Land Shark]

13. Interesting, thank you. YOU are "the link" (and there may be others) nt

[Land Shark]

22. Here's an Oct 2009 NYT link on protester use of texting and police response (references 2004 RNC)

It doesn't specifically mention T-Mobile but is a good description of the value of texting for First Amendment purposes, and police responses/abuses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyregion/05txt.html?_r=1&bl

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

3. and that made the news too....

not a peep from the MSM

[Drale]

5. Whelp

if they do this full time, they'll lose tons a business and be gone soon enough. Which is one of the merits of capitalism when it works right.

[kristopher]

8. Self regulation by the market is a right wing myth

Thanks for sharing it.

[Drale]

9. Its not "self regulation"

Its people wont want their texts censored so they either will choose a different carrier or they will switch carriers.

[Land Shark]

14. Yet all carriers will reserve overbroad "rights" by contract in order to "protect themselves"

This is just what any normal attorney would do as long as they are drafting a contract that pretty much can't be negotiated with users or vendors -- take as many rights as they can, and then some.

[kristopher]

24. IT is precisely what is meant with the term "self regulating" in reference to unregulated markets.

It doesn't work for far too many problems to be the blanket answer its proponents assert. In this case there are many people affected whoo are not participating in the financial transaction. This has broader implications than the limited relationship between Tmobile and its customers.

[Blandocyte]

28. Phil Valentine, is that you?

Wake up and smell the T-Mobile-GOP alliance, the stench of this prostitution is reeking the country up.

[Exilednight]

31. Yes, just like people won't shop at Wal-Mart because their goods are made in 3rd world .............

countries where the workers are treated like slave labor. Or the fact that people will not pay upwards of $70.00/month just to watch more commercials.

:sarcasm:

[JCMach1]

10. We OWN the spectrum... we can always take it back!

[snooper2]

11. This is probably more complicated than just outright censorship

I would imagine that if the if the service for the short codes wasn't on the contract language then T-Mobile has a case.

We have blocked traffic on our network from customers who do not follow contractual guidlines. For example, you can't just have a customer sending 100calls per second without it being pre-approved.

[Land Shark]

12. Not really - as private entities technically no one has 1st Am. rights (contracts are "private law")

When you refer to whether or not the T-Mobile contract provides for things or not you gloss over the violations of constitutional values and statutory law that applies to limit these contracts. In any case, whether or not the contract provides for it, it is still censorship, the only question is if it is illegal censorship or not. In other words, the legality of the censorship may vary or be more disputed, but it is censorship regardless.

[snooper2]

17. I'm not glossing over that at all, it is not relevant

and it's not censorship...

Carriers and Mobile operators have a right and responsibility to protect their networks. T-Mobile is in business for one thing, that's to make money. I can guarantee you they could care less that it's a pot dispensary. If a person or company is using the provided service in way that violates any contractual language or that is deemed harmful to the network, they have the right to shut the traffic down.

We don't spend millions of dollars a year to protect our switches from things like denial of service attacks just for grins.

[Land Shark]

18. Because one has to send a code to get text, WHAT are they "protecting" themselves from?

You mention that they have a right and responsibility to protect the network. From consensual, private, non-spamming texting? Keep in mind one has a first amendment right to discuss illegal activity (not that medical marijuana is illegal, either...)

[snooper2]

20. EZ texting is the company T-Mobile is providing service to..

Has nothing to do with the individual end users...

It appears EZ Texting violated their contract...

T-Mobile "has discretion to require pre-approval for any short-code marketing campaigns run on its network, and to enforce its guidelines by terminating programs for which a content provider failed to obtain the necessary approval."

I guess we will see how it plays out in the courts.

[Land Shark]

21. EZ Texting was EXISTING client, going along fine, review demanded only upon new Med marijuana client

This kind of practice will certainly chill any texting service from going anywhere near controversial speech.

[snooper2]

23. I don't have enough details to know the traffic patterns and true contract violations

but again, T-Mobile is in business to make money and I am telling you, somebody at T-Mobile didn't go..

OOOOH LOOOK..texts about Pot..let's SHUT them down! And then that person would have to call and Engineer and have some kind of paper trail justifying why they would take a live customer's traffic down. (Because on the other hand, T-Mobile has to honor their end of the contract as well)


I have taken customers down myself that were singed up for many months. They sneak in then all of a sudden we start seeing massive call attempts (autodialers)...we shut that shit down. Good way to crash a switch and affect our other customers on that tandem.

[alarimer]

27. That's bullshit

They the obligation to send through ANY message anyone wants to send.

Fuck T-Mobile and it's corporate apologists.

[BadgerKid]

15. My thought also.

In other contexts, an unexpected flood of messages might be considered spam or perhaps an inadvertent denial-of-service attack, so to keep the network working, the company cuts off the offending source.

[Land Shark]

19. by definition, "short codes" require a number or text to be sent for a user to receive a text

You can read the brief of T-Mobile and get their side of the story and while there's a bit more detail (as always) it's not all that complicated an issue. They reserve the "discretion" to START reviewing programs. They don't review every program equally. They start monitoring those they have "concerns" about (in their "discretion" of course)

[gauguin57]

16. ttyl tmobl & fk u BTW

u iz crazee

[Starry Messenger]

25. k & r

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. They'd think twice and more if people didn't buy or rent the darned things.

But I think Americans are like us Brits, suckers for corporatist exploitation on the worst of terms, rather than dig our heels in simply as individuals.

[Gman]

29. We need to focus on the wireless end

that is where the carriers have their focus and is where they are going to do and charge what they want. Ultimately, wireless is the future and where we need to focus like we have on the wireline end.

[lib_wit_it]

30. We should all try switching to Credo Mobile. If you don't know about them, check out this info:

http://www.credomobile.com/

A small band of idealists comes together to further the causes of human rights, women's rights, peace, environmentalism and an entire progressive agenda. They have an idea about helping people spend in a socially responsible way, turning everyday purchases into automatic acts of generosity.

So they establish a company called Working Assets. It is 1985.

And then — long before "corporate social responsibility" is a buzzphrase — they develop an innovative long distance service where 1% of your charges goes to progressive nonprofits you vote on, your bill serves as a progressive newsletter and your phone company as a progressive lobby.

And something really clicks with consumers.

This Working Assets movement grows steadily over the next 25 years, providing steadily growing support for a wide range of progressive nonprofits, before taking the natural next step into mobile phones — along with a name that better reflects their current business: CREDO Mobile.

To date, the company and its members have donated more than $65 million to amazing groups — groups that members themselves help select — like the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, Global Fund for Women, Greenpeace and Planned Parenthood. Our members also speak out on the issues they care about, generating millions of letters, e-mails and calls to political and corporate decision-makers each year.