Last week an embarrassed Verizon Corp. dropped plans to block text messages from an abortion rights group after the New York Times wrote about it in a front-page article.

Through its actions, Verizon made an unassailable case for net neutrality -- the idea that Internet providers should be prohibited from blocking, speeding up or slowing down content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Here's what happened.

Verizon Wireless rejected a request by NARAL Pro-Choice America to sign up members to get text messages supporting abortion rights legislation, telling the group it violated a company policy prohibiting the transmission of "controversial" or "unsavory" content over its network. After the New York Times broke the story, Verizon immediately said it had all been a big misunderstanding and that it would allow NARAL to send its text messages over the company's network.

It should be noted that Verizon was the only company to reject NARAL's text messages. It should also be noted that NARAL only wants to send the text messages to people who have said they would like to receive them.

Verizon has been one of the loudest critics of net neutrality, arguing that it and other Internet providers should be trusted to do the right thing. To date, those weak arguments and the overwhelming political influence of the communications industry have successfully staved off any sort of net neutrality legislation or regulation.

That might be changing, however.

Two powerful members of Congress who have major influence on communication issues are hopping mad at Verizon's actions.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell issued a statement saying Verizon's actions "raise troubling questions about a network operator's ability to determine what its customers receive and from whom. I am particularly concerned by its ability and apparent willingness to interfere when customers choose to receive legitimate and legal communications from an organization."

Rep. Ed Markey, chairman of the House Internet & Telecommunications Subcommittee, issued a statement saying Verizon's "decision to block legal content from users of its service raised serious questions about whether it was adhering to basic network neutrality principles. Wireless text messages are ones that consumers themselves elect to receive, so the blocking of such messages by a corporate gatekeeper was deeply concerning."

Both legislators said they were pleased Verizon reversed itself, but Dingell said Verizon needs to do a lot more.

"Its latest statement does not identify any substantive change in policy," stated Dingell. "I ask Verizon to decisively state that it will no longer discriminate against any legal content its customers request from any organization.”

Such a statement from Verizon would be nice, but what is really needed are legislation and regulations prohibiting Internet providers from taking such actions.

Verizon showed last week that it can't be trusted and that an honor system is woefully inadequate to safeguard against such actions by it and other Internet providers. The First Amendment right of free speech deserves better.

But perhaps the worst thing about the whole incident is that Verizon probably didn't violate any laws or regulations with its actions, as objectionable as they were. It was obvious that Verizon reversed itself because it got caught and exposed on the front page of the New York Times, not because it thought it had done anything wrong.

It is long past time for Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strong net neutrality legislation and regulations that establish stiff penalties for actions like those Verizon took last week.

________________________________________________________________________________
NEW ON www.hearusnow.org

Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on www.hearusnow.org