From The WSJ, “Verizon Wireless Bars Abortion-Rights Group’s Texting”:
Verizon Wireless is refusing to carry text messages from a prominent abortion-rights group, citing its internal restrictions on content that is “highly controversial,” the carrier said.
Naral Pro-Choice America requested that Verizon Wireless and other carriers distribute its text messages that users sign up for by sending a message to a five- or six-digit number called a “short code.” The program is used by many companies and other groups to distribute short text messages for marketing and other purposes.
Verizon Wireless — owned by Verizon Communications Inc. and the United Kingdom’s Vodafone Group PLC — rejected Naral’s request, citing the carrier’s “code of content,” which prohibits controversial content.
The move sparked outrage from Naral. “Regardless of people’s political views, Verizon customers should be able to decide how to use their phones for political action,” said Ted Miller, a Naral spokesman. “Verizon shouldn’t make that choice for them. Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily censor their activities.”
Can’t say that I agree with Mr Miller here, much as I agree with his sentiment. Because I think it’s perfectly reasonable for Verizon to make its own policies, and to their way of thinking, the “censoring” is, pace Miller, not at all arbitrary.
In fact, it is in keeping with their rules for using their service.
And much as it may chafe Mr Miller (and me), Verizon should not NOT be allowed to censor activities (though I can an envision a legal argument being advanced that raises the question of who “owns” the space through which such messages travel).
None of which is to say that Verizon is right to restrict such usage. Only that they are within their rights to do so — or rather, they should be, not being an arm of government — and Verizon customers unhappy with the policy are free to sign up with a competing service provider who I’m certain would be happy to take up the business.
Major U.S. wireless carriers have strict decency standards for content. Many of the rules for content of partners such as providers of ring tones or mobile video go far beyond limits set by federal regulators for television and radio. A 2006 Verizon Wireless content-guideline document for its media partners, for example, lists restrictions for expletives and how much bare skin models can show and a ban on any derogatory references to Verizon Wireless.
Yesterday, Verizon Wireless hinted it was near loosening its restrictions. “As texting has become so mainstream there has been an opportunity for us to look at our current code of content and consider how that could change to reflect our customers’ great desire to receive and send messaging through text,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon Wireless spokesman.
Or, in other words, we don’t want to lose the business, so we’ll consider making changes.
Which is the way it should work, it seems to me.
And when a political action group like NARAL begins making claims that private businesses with whom they voluntarily align themselves “shouldn’t be allowed” to police their own services in a way they see fit with regard to content, they should be sternly rebuffed.
Or before you know it, the government will be telling us that Victoria’s Secret “shouldn’t be allowed” to hire models based on comeliness and a lack of thigh cheese, or that McDonald’s “shouldn’t be allowed” to display a menu depicting Canadian bacon for fear of offending Muslims, orthodox Jews, or Bryan Adams.
IIRC, censorship is something the government does. Private companies have contracts with users that govern use and access, so free speech does not come into play.
I may not agree with them, but I will fight for their right to express their opinions.
It seems doubly stupid for a ‘communications’ based business to be imposing such restrictions on their customers.
But if freedom protects anything it’s the freedom to be stupid and (hopefully) suffer the consequences.
Does the Verizon policy also restrict right-to-life organizations? If so, then I don’t see where NARAL is likely to gain any purchase from the issue.
I’m a pro-life “wacko” and, as much as Naral getting a finger in the eye makes me giggle, I’m troubled by Verizon’s policy. That being said they are perfectly within the law to set their own boundries for speech on their own system (ownership legal issues aside.)
Naral is free to sue Verizon or choose another service but public whining about “censorship” is not the answer.
and, BTW, neither is abortion (/sneaky political point!)
Note to Trolls (you know who you are!).
This is different from the NYT/MoveOn debacle.
FYI
NARAL is free to sue Verizon.
Yes, by all means, let’s make this a LEGAL issue. Maybe Verizon doesn’t want to be held liable for being the means by which jihadis organize another attack. Which, in a sane world, you wouldn’t be able to hold them liable for in the first place. But because the inmates are in charge of the tort system, everybody is liable for everything except stuff they actually, you know, do.
It would be so cool to be able to get abortion rights messages anytime, anywhere. Like I could be at the grocery store and learn all about some anti-choicer stunt and like totally abandon my cart and go do pro-abortion stuff, right then. Maybe even right there in the store. And people would be like how are you so cutting edge, bro? and I’d be like “Verizon, dude! You gotta get hooked up!”
Bryan Adams? Ya mean the Canadian singer?
He’s ham, not back bacon.
Wait, wait! My outrage is diminishing! Text me again!
dicentra:
Just to clarify; I wasn’t advocating that Naral sue Verizon. I’m unsure that they would even have a case. Whining about censorship when it’s a company policy is par for the course.
I’m in agreement with the rest of your comment.
Happyfeet:
Duuuuude! You should, like, protest the wireless imperialism of Verizon, dude! You bring the picket signs and giant puppet heads. I’ll score some Panama Red. Awesome!
I was just using my imagination, bro. It’s not like that in my personal head.
If Bryan Adams had to slice Canadian bacon, would he cut it with a knife?
I have another question: What’s a text message?
Hoe the hell are you supposed to organize a Two Minute Hate without text messages?
No, he’d use something that cuts like a knife, which may be a hot chick.
Owwww!
Why would I want to sign up for text messages from an organization? I don’t want them calling me at home during dinner, or spamming my email inbox, but somehow I’m supposed to be okay with them making my cellphone burble at inopportune times with propaganda?
GET OFFA MY LAWN!
I AM SO SICK of seeing those svelte, big firm- breasted Victoria’s Secret models with their Cottage Cheeseless, curvaceous butts and long gazellish legs everyplace I look…
Heh heh.. right.. =)
If you decide you don’t want the messages, McGehee, you can always abort. It’s your choice.
Oh, Pablo! He’d be cutting that ham with a killer chord progression on the Gee-tar!
Played over and over and over and over and….
Thus; Spiral sliced ham! Groovy!
If they send spam to my e-mail, I can set the filter and it’s never a problem again. If they spam my phone, I have to delete each one manually, and what is worse, each message received costs me money $0.15.
I am happy to have Verizon block this spam for me.
I got no thought on the Verizon thing but can you freakin believe that Kiran Chetry jumped ship at the Fox News Network and went to CNN???
Faaaaauckkk! Now I have to listen to that CNN crap just to drool over her…
After the deal had been inked, Chetry stated, “CNN is the gold standard when it comes to journalism, and I am thrilled to be part of the team.”
Ouroboros–
See this at Wuzzadem, if you haven’t.
“Does the Verizon policy also restrict right-to-life organizations?”
Living babies are *so* controversial!
Easy there Kyle.
I’m anti-abortion, but even I recognize that being pro-life is perceived by some as a controversial intrusion into their personal autonomy. I do not have to agree with their opinion in order to acknowledge it.
So
The question to Verizon is not ‘where do you stand on this issue?’
Instead it is ‘do you acknowledge that there are at least two sides to every ‘controversial issue’ (sin qua non) and unless the policy is applied to all sides equally is it not a de facto admission of support for the unsuppressed side(s)?’
1) CNN is the gold-painted plastic standard of journalism. Well, the paint doesn’t have any gold in it, but it’s gold colored.
2) So, Verizon is, by argument, required to carry controversial messages. Think about it.
3) Wait, Bryan Adams cuts Canadian bacon with hot chicks? Man, what a life!
Yeah this can’t be censorship because its not government. It’s just a poor business decision.
No, it is censorship. It just doesn’t violate the First Amendment, by which only government is bound.
The law is not the world.
“…Which is the way it should work, it seems to me….”
– No, coprporate policy should not be decided by pressure from activist groups directly. If any such group doesn’t like a companies policies they are free to take their business elsewhere. A corp. has a perfect ruight to decide its own policies, and the public has a perfect right not to purchase their services.
– If a company chooses to stay out of the politics business, that is their right, and it is not any such question of “right or wrong”. I mean wtf, next we’ll have interest groups demanding to have acess to company books. Bullshit. Talk about slippery slopes.
– Personally I think more companies should take this position. As an owner I have a perfect right to refuse to get enbroiled in your political agenda/special interests, which by the way, could very possible lead to additional legal tangles, and activities that are all outside the perview of operating a business. If my business is mainly of a political nature, fine. Otherwise this is simply political activism against busnesses with no legal or moral basis. The market, as always, is the only viable voice any business should have to deal with, other than providing a safe, usable, fairly priced product. Period.
As long as you’re clear on which lawyer made up the policy so you can give him shit about it when it doesn’t work out and a pro-abortion group drags your ass into the newspaper, it’s all good. These people are just doing the best they can and getting home by dinnertime. It’s not like anyone thinks these things through, really.
I thought the phone companies were considered “common carriers” which means that they can’t be held liable for communications on their systems, provided that they do not restrict the content of such communications in any way. Do cellphone companies not have common carrier status? Is there a law talkin’ guy hereabouts who can address this?
It’s a problem I guess cause they are running the service whereby people opt-in to messages from various companies and groups. I’d assume there’s a fee to be one of the groups, and there’s revenue from the messages, though I’m not clear on who pays the freight on that. Point is, they didn’t want an open-architecture system handling this stuff that they didn’t control. It’s all proprietary this way.
– Common carrier questions open up a completely different bucket of worms, and if you propose to come at the debate from that angle then you have to go back to “Federalized” businesses such as the postal service.
– From that standpoint, it could be argued that any business, critical for basic survival and services should be on the list of Federalized. Bell, Wells Fargo, essential to the early development of the country were allowed to exist as is, simply by adhering to all Frderal legislation religiously, but the problem quickly becomes which business would, or would not qualify. Oil companies, Food sources, Medical sources, ect. The other approach has been to apply “Public utilities” controls and regulation.
– Cell phone systems would be even more of a problem, since they use a complex mix of public rightaway/airwaves and none-public facilities.
– Then, assuming you can come to some viable consensus, technology changes everything repeatidly. The entire subject is a massive under-taking, and something the Gov. has such a spotty track record on its problematical at best.
Food sources…
“None of which is to say that Verizon is right to restrict such usage. Only that they are within their rights to do so  or rather, they should be, not being an arm of government  and Verizon customers unhappy with the policy are free to sign up with a competing service provider who I’m certain would be happy to take up the business.”
Are they really “free” when there is a penalty for signing up for a competing service, based on a decision that Verizon made AFTER one signed up for Verizon? A decision to not be a common carrier and not deliver a message that someone has asked for? Sure. It’s what they contracted for when they signed up for the service at the Verizon store. Thats what the western vision of contract is all about. The stuff the lawyers wrote and you didnt read.
– Again you sound confused andy. Its not what they thought they signed up for. They thought they signed up for another platform they could use to spread the “wonders of infanticide”, but they didn’t bother to read the company policy first. So who exactly has a reading problem again?
“Again you sound confused andy.”
Wasn’t there some picture you wanted me to see?
But I agree with you. Since back in the day, contract is about agreement. Of course they agreed to all the things the lawyers wrote and they didn’t read.
– I provided the link to the article and the “some picture” you seem to be incapable of locating. I draw the line at coming over to your house and clicking your mouse for you.
“Of course they agreed to all the things the lawyers wrote and they didn’t read.
– Seems to imply you question the companies right to indemnify itself against feckless lawsuits. By which reasoning I would then have to think you have no car insurance, assuming you have a car, even given that you could save a bunch of money by going with Geico.
“I provided the link to the article and the “some picture†you seem to be incapable of locating.”
Was it this one?
“Seems to imply you question the companies right to indemnify itself against feckless lawsuits.”
This sentence best read in a southern accent. In-dem-ni-faih
– Re the photo. Exactly. In a turn of phrase so familiar to you and your Komrads: “Fake but accurate”. One stoning just last month if I recall. Which personal trait do you find most appealing about the Iranian Neopoleon, the stonings of rape victims, or the hangings of Gays?
– When you get done rolling “indemnify” around on yor tongue, I missed your response to the question.
“Which personal trait do you find most appealing about the Iranian Neopoleon, the stonings of rape victims, or the hangings of Gays?”
I like the tie-less look. Sport it all the time. But i hear its not really a trait thats personal to him. That and how unlike kruschev he is.
“When you get done rolling “indemnify†around on yor tongue, I missed your response to the question.”
There’s nothing about indemnification going on. Its about contract. Which means what hte lawyers wrote and the consumer’s didn’t read. Thats what the agreement is.
– Apparently we have other areas of agreement. Jimmijammies has his radiance, Khruschev had his Hsu, Adplph had his neice, Stalin had his Lenin monkey, Fidel had chickens in the hotel, and Mao his 12 year old girls. The only difference between any of them is degree.
Then NARAL seem to simply be dumb consumers. That, or as usual, an advocacy group gets free pub by whining about something they don’t like (legal niceties aside).
“The only difference between any of them is degree.”
And the amount of blow they did.
Don’t they have lawyers too, andy? You really can’t run a legislative advocacy group without lawyers.
“Don’t they have lawyers too, andy? ”
I’m talking about Joe Texter, the person that walked in to a Verizon store and walked out with a Verizon phone and 2 year service plan.
“Since back in the day, contract is about agreement. Of course they agreed to all the things the lawyers wrote and they didn’t read.“
You keep repeating that phrase. Is there some significance there I am missing? Is it Verizon or the lawyers fault the consumer is ignorant?
If I were NARAL, I’d argue that by virtue of being granted a government monopoly on the spectrum, Verizon is prohibited from censoring speech (and certainly this would seem to fall under the regulatory purview of the FCC at license renewal time).
Note that I don’t agree with NARAL’s position that one cell is a human being (nor do I agree with those who claim that it’s not a human being until it emerges from the vagina). Still, it rankles that they’re not being allowed to speak.
The spam argument doesn’t really apply, as the service apparently only sends the messages to those who explicitly request them. Why would they do that? I don’t know. People do a lot of weird things (a small subset even attends Pauly Shore movies).
“You keep repeating that phrase. Is there some significance there I am missing? Is it Verizon or the lawyers fault the consumer is ignorant?”
What did the consumer agree to? What did Verizon agree to? Clearly they all agreed to the language the lawyers wrote and the consumer didn’t read.
“If I were NARAL, I’d argue that by virtue of being granted a government monopoly on the spectrum, Verizon is prohibited from censoring speech (and certainly this would seem to fall under the regulatory purview of the FCC at license renewal time).”
Old principles of being a common carrier would mean that Verizon has to carry this stuff and is also free from liability for carrying it. It’s a hard concept for some people to grasp without immediately thinking of the victoria’s secret catalogues they have laying around.
– “…I’m talking about Joe Texter…”
– And thus another life lesson: “Never send a Texter to do a lawyers job.”
– “….a small subset…”
– Consisting of the soup Nazi’s satisfied customers.
– “…Old principles of being a common carrier…
– A Progressive that refers to the word Principle, and actually uses it in a declarative sentence? What next, a meteorite hitting downtown LA?
– andy – You’re in danger of becoming a “redundent comments” poster in the fine tradition of all those “Typing Telephone Poles”(tm) that have gone before.
And here I thought we were talking about NARAL.
What did the consumer agree to? What did Verizon agree to? Clearly they all agreed to the language the lawyers wrote and the consumer didn’t read.
The next talking Barbie will replace the phrase “math is hard” with the new NARAL approved phrase “reading phone contracts is hard”. Are you really suggesting that NARAL should be rewarded (by getting what they want) because consumers haven’t read their phone contracts?
“What did the consumer agree to? What did Verizon agree to? Clearly they all agreed to the language the lawyers wrote and the consumer didn’t read.”
So what? It matters as little as your responses to posts you didn’t read, or at least comprehend. Whether the signatory read the contract or not has jackshit to do with its validity.
I think it interesting that the idea there might be people who signed with Verizon specifically because of this policy has been completely overlooked. Do their interests not enter into the discussion at all?
– Hey Moe….have to keep the “victims” straight here. Obviously its the big bad business suppressing the poor NARAL people from their right to spew propeganda. “Rights” as such, only accrue to those brave activists fighting a tireless battle against the evil establishment. Get with the program here. *snort*.
– Of course if you live in Iran and you were to get caught even complaining about the Imam’s cell phone policies, much less expressing an opinion that veered off course in the slightist, you would have your “contract” terminated in a most decisive way. That such a dictatorship would be jiggy with the “Progressives” has the word looking up its own asshole in terms of cognitave dissonance. Oh well.
I believe the significance is that andy is a typing telephone pole.
BB:
Iranians don’t use cell phones as they are too busy with serial kite flying.
Or was that Iraq? I forget. Lemme see if I can pry Michael Moore from the Chow King buffet.
First I’d counter that there are other viable means of communication so the impact of this censorship is not particularly onerous, i.e. NARAL has little trouble getting their message out without the services of Verizon.
More importantly I’d suggest that this type of imposition really would be the camel’s nose in the tent. Quickly leading to some sort of ‘fairness doctrine’ for the communications spectrum and possibly even more burdensome regulatory regimes further down the road. Because once the government starts dictating any specifics of what can or cannot be carried on the spectrum they can dictate every aspect of how the spectrum gets used.
Imagine if your only service provider was the BBC.
SBP: And this is a PRIME example of why taking government handouts is BAD for you, even when they’re the only player in town (like spectrums). With government grant (even if you paid for it) comes the presumption of government control.
And NARAL isn’t being prevented from speaking, just from purchasing an autoresponder service within Verizon’s network.
As an aside and out of curiousity, how often are public libraries successfully sued for not carrying a particular book?
Were I Verizon and sued by NARAL, I think my own first amendment right of freedom of association might just trump NARAL’s “right” to purchase automated services on my network – at least the former is actually text that resides in the constitution, not just in a “penumbra.”
In any case, I’m not sure how a private company that purchases public use rights is any more required to host a particular viewpoint than, say, a University that takes public funds is required to host Larry Summers or Ward Connerly.
I’m certain the Universities would agree.
– You know Merovign….you keep going around pointing out the brain fried “Re-gressive” quixotic bullshit “causes”, and you will gain yourself a Fatwah…..yessiree
– On the same theme, al Qaeda have named Rosey as their fav entertainer and peacenik. Apparently through some back channel, probably the red phone they have to the DNC, Rosey put out feelers saying she would be glad to meet with them. So far they have declined, probably having a hard time figuring out how they’d be able to explain her head in the box they sent back if they even did that.
– Note to Rosey: You do know what happens to people of a different lifestyle in the ME don’t you? Lets put it this way. You wouldn’t have to worry about sweeps this fall.
No thanks, I’m trying to cut down.
update
Verizon Wireless to allow abortion rights messages
Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:54 PM BST145
ThomasD: First I’d counter that there are other viable means of communication so the impact of this censorship is not particularly onerous
I’m not sure why that’s relevant. The government can’t shut down your newspaper by arguing that you could use radio, a bullhorn, or smoke signals instead. Why should Verizon (essentially a government agent in this situation) be allowed to make that argument?
Quickly leading to some sort of ‘fairness doctrine’ for the communications spectrum
Completely different situation from broadcasters. Broadcasters produce the content. Cell carriers merely carry content produced by others.
Merovign: And this is a PRIME example of why taking government handouts is BAD for you, even when they’re the only player in town (like spectrums).
I couldn’t agree more that leaving this up to the government is risky. The question is, what other entity could possibly do the job?
“And here I thought we were talking about NARAL.”
Oh. You didnt read:
“Verizon customers unhappy with the policy are free to sign up with a competing service provider who I’m certain would be happy to take up the business.”
All true, but we are not talking about the government shutting anyone down. To borrow from your example this issue is more akin to a newspaper (or TV network) declining to carry advertising for ‘controversial’ products or issues, such as not allowing firemarms to be listed in the classifieds, or NAMBLA to list their next meeting time, things that go on all the time. My main point was that if there are other media outlets available then the government lacks a compelling interest to intrude on a private business’ policies and practices.
A somewhat* valid principle and hopefully one the courts would agree with, espeically for liability purposes. But on speech issues I’d prefer it not be allowed to get into their hands in the first place. This simplest way to avoid tossing this to the judicial system is to accept that once a company has bought the spectrum they may employ it any way they see fit.
*I fully agree when the content is private in nature ( e.g. email, telephone communications, etc.) But when there is a high degree of probability that the carrier will become identified or associated with the content (advertising or other broadcast messages – be they A/V or text based, etc) then it is forseable that the carrier does have an interest in controlling what gets carried on their communications network (be it on-dead-tree or electromagnetic) as the association may have adverse consequences for the company.
er, firearms.
I’m not sure what firemarms are, but I suspect they aren’t half as mean as schoolmarms.
as usual, an advocacy group gets free pub by whining about something they don’t like
Pretty much, and I don’t even understand why they get the press.
But when there is a high degree of probability that the carrier will become identified or associated with the content
I’m not sure why you’re drawing a distinction between email, phone calls, and text messages here. It’s all data moving over the same network. I can send email to my cell phone as a text message, and I can send email from my phone as a text message.
If we accept that Verizon can control the political content of text messages, why not phone calls? Why not email?
I don’t find the theory that the carrier might be associated with the controversial communication compelling. Have you ever heard of a threatened boycott based on the fact that (e.g.) AT&T provides email service to the American Nazi Party, or that Verizon apparently* provides phone service to the Socialist Worker’s Party?
Other than the threat of boycott, it’s hard to see how any financial harm could possibly come to the cell phone provider. A television station forced by a “fairness doctrine” to fill up its (limited) airtime with competing material could lose viewers and advertisers. A cell phone network, on the other hand, gets paid just the same regardless of who’s sending the message.
*Possibly the Commie’s number is actually serviced by another carrier due to number portability, but it’s in Verizon-land.
BTW:
Socialist Worker’s Party (212) 244-XXXX (this is actually the number for some rag they publish called “The Militant”).
American Nazi Party: xxxx@att.net
Actual numbers and email id for these scumbags replaced with x’s — Google will turn them up if you’re interested. Now I need to take a shower.
“A somewhat* valid principle and hopefully one the courts would agree with, espeically for liability purposes. But on speech issues I’d prefer it not be allowed to get into their hands in the first place.”
If they’re a common carrier, they’re a common carrier. Simple.
“But when there is a high degree of probability that the carrier will become identified or associated with the content”
There probably is zero degree of probability that the carrier becomes identified with the content that hte consumer requested from NARAL
Phone calls, no, because they’re between two people. But they already restrict bulk email for content, as does everyone else, and doing so with text messages is no stretch.
But they already restrict bulk email for content, as does everyone else
Nope, not solicited bulk email, they don’t.
I’m on several high-traffic mailing lists, and I’ve never heard of an ISP restricting such from their networks (other than by accident, through an overzealous spam filter or the like). The key here is solicited v. unsolicited. According to the article this wasn’t an unsolicited service.
Also, your ISP doesn’t get paid extra for delivering spam emails to you. Cell phone providers *do* get paid for delivering text messages.
Ever been on AOL? Or run a list that tries to send mail to AOL?
Yeah, they do.
Nope, never been on AOL, thank God.
I’ll take your word for it that they do. However, that’s not what you said. You said “as does everyone else”, which is definitely not the case.
Well, yes it is. They all have their restrictions for reasons of their choosing. Unsolicited mail is but one of them that most use. Look up the TOS of any ISP and you’ll find that, while they may not monitor your mail, they may very well terminate your account for sending various types of content across their system.
A certain decision scientist/Nutty Perfessor comes to mind.
I believe you.
But it’s not your business that is at stake. I’d prefer that the business be the one to decide what they consider a compelling interest and no one else.
Again, they’ve paid for the spectrum, let them use it as they see fit.
Do you have even a single shred of market research to back up that assertion?
Are you speaking from any position of knowledge or authority on such matters?
Were you even alive back when newspapers started to carry ads for Planned Parenthood?
“Do you have even a single shred of market research to back up that assertion?”
Its common sense. The person is receiving a message they requested. What does the carrier have to do with that transaction? Other than in this case, get in the way?
Thomas. The marketplace will be final arbiter of what it acceptable and what isn’t.
I’d prefer that the business be the one to decide what they consider a compelling interest and no one else.
Well, I’d prefer that if the government is going to be handing out monopoly power over the electromagnetic spectrum, that they add a stipulation that our constitutional rights apply therein.
It’s odd to see free market arguments made about an area that’s anything but. By design.
newspapers started to carry ads for Planned Parenthood
Way off base. As has already been pointed out, repeatedly, newspapers and TV stations aren’t the same thing as cell phone networks. They’re completely different business models.
Hint: look up the terms “one to many” and “many to many”. Hint #2: Newspapers generate, and are responsible for, their content. Telephone carriers aren’t. Most people understand this.
P.S. I just spent some time prowling around the FCC web site, and it looks like the government reserves the right to change the rules on auctioned spectrum at any time.
Verizon doesn’t like it? Too bad! They should’ve read the fine print before buying it, right?
Isn’t that what you guys are saying about the consumers?
That’s really not what’s happened, though. License to a portion of the spectrum is not a monopoly over the spectrum. And from Verizon’s POV, that license is just one of the costs in providing the service they provide under the terms of their choosing.
I’m confident that they did.