Neutrality Isn’t Neutral

Since we’re talking about net neutrality, I should point out that there are calls to extend net neutrality beyond the internet and onto things like wireless telephone networks. As I wrote last year, Columbia law prof Tim Wu has been on the forefront of this movement. Now, other groups are calling for something similar with regards to a narrow (but growing) segment of the wireless market: text messages.

Via Ars, here’s some background:

[Wireless carrier] Verizon initially declined to permit pro-choice abortion activism group NARAL to use an SMS short code for distributing opt-in messages to Verizon customers. Verizon doesn’t monitor or filter individual messages, but does reserve the right to deprive short code holders of access to its networks in cases where the company deems the content too controversial. Verizon was the only carrier to turn down NARAL, and quickly reversed the decision after receiving widespread criticism.

Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon’s turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future.

This seems deeply problematic to me. Cell networks are privately owned and operated; they aren’t public utilities.  No private organization should ever be forced to carry political speech of any kind — regardless of the message — that it’s not comfortable with.

That doesn’t mean that public pressure can’t or shouldn’t be used to push wireless carriers to open up their networks. As this case proves, that works pretty well.  But the government needn’t get involved.

Neutrality ought to mean government not taking a side. But in this case, its supporters seem to think it means putting a regulatory pistol to Verizon’s head and threatening to pull the trigger.