Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Cellphones Communications The Courts

T-Mobile Facing Lawsuit Over Text Message Censorship 181

Tootech writes with this quote from Wired: "A mobile-marketing company claimed Friday it would go out of business unless a federal judge orders T-Mobile to stop blocking its text-messaging service, the first case testing whether wireless providers can block text messages they don't like. EZ Texting claims T-Mobile blocked the company from sending text messages for all of its clients after learning that legalmarijuanadispensary.com, an EZ Texting client, was using its service to send texts about legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California. 'T-Mobile subjectively did not approve of one of the thousands of lawful businesses and non-profits served by EZ Texting,' according to New York federal lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

T-Mobile Facing Lawsuit Over Text Message Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18, 2010 @09:34AM (#33619448)
    It's not really censorship. Besides, I never say anything that needs to be censored.
  • Q&A (Score:4, Interesting)

    by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @09:51AM (#33619530)
    Explain to me why you file this lawsuit in a federal court in New York and not a state court in California - where a judge just might be a little less hostile to the trade in "medical" marijuana.
  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:04AM (#33619626)

    I don't normally carry a cellphone. but I did for a short while when I had to (life situation) and got a pre-paid cheap unit. it did what I needed it to do, just send and receive phone calls. as it turns out, it was tmobile and there was no way to disable incoming texts. and yes, each one was CHARGED to me. a malicious person could drain down my pre-paid (!) balance and the company would do nothing to help me stop them or even get credit for them (yeah, right, one at a time).

    I let my prepaid tmobile run out and I never looked back. they will be the last carrier I ever use, if I do go back to using cellphones again (which I currently do not).

    the fact that they charge for INCOMING texts is just beyond reprehensible. when I called to complain they just said 'well, buy a package plan'. yeah, right. NOT the solution I'm looking for, morans.

    it may be the same with all carriers, now, though. you can't escape the fees for incoming texts if you are in the US. sucks, big-time!

  • by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:15AM (#33619700) Homepage

    That's wonderful news to me.

    That means that when my girlfriend calls me on my mobile phone to break up with me, I can sue the mobile phone company for emotional distress! After all, they didn't have to deliver the call and they didn't check to see that the girl was emotionally stable before whitelisting her phone number.

    The state of law for phone companies is that they just provide service, they aren't responsible for what goes over their lines as long as the bill is paid on time and they comply with court orders. Bridge operators aren't liable if somebody drives guns over the bridge contrary to state law, and phone companies aren't liable if somebody phones in a bomb threat.

    However, once a carrier starts picking and choosing who they let use their service, they are no longer a common carrier. FedEx isn't liable when a misc package blows up. Sears is liable if a Sears truck delivers a package that blows up - since Sears doesn't deliver for the public.

  • by metrix007 ( 200091 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @10:28AM (#33619784)

    What is the possible relevance of your point?

    This is blocking based on message content, not just blacklisting a number.

  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:25AM (#33620082)

    why can't there be free incoming and 1-800 like numbers that are free to to text (they pay the costs) and 1-900 like ones where you don't pay the base rate + there own rate (you just pay there rate)

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:27AM (#33620094)

    I had tmobile on pre-paid. I got a few text spams. I called to complain it was going against my balance. they said there was nothing they could do! not block me on incoming or even disable the sms service.

    I watched my service drain. then I threw the phone away and never renewed with tmobile.

    I will never buy a tmobile phone again, either. that one simple thing turned me off that I now add them to my do-not-buy list. I think they were the only carrier at the time that refused to disable sms on prepaid, upon owner's request.

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:29AM (#33620116)

    yes, it was (maybe still is) different. I was NOT on contract, I was on pay-as-you-go mode.

    they hope to lose you in the noise; tell you to buy a bulk plan so that the 'one or two' (yeah right) spams dont' really cost you anything since you had extra messages in your bulk plan (their sales pitch).

    but you can't do that on prepaid. their prepaid 'story' had holes larger than swiss cheese.

  • by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:45AM (#33620240) Journal
    my net10 phone (and i assume all tracphone systems) only charged sms when you read them
  • by iammani ( 1392285 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:46AM (#33620244)

    Dont we already have telephone neutrality?

  • SMS regulations (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:50AM (#33620258)

    I recall another SMS gateway (again, used by many, many companies to send text messages) had one of its main shortcodes shut down by whatever group regulates SMS because one of its clients was abusing the service. That meant that all the other legitimate clients sharing that shortcode were also shut down.

  • by metrometro ( 1092237 ) on Saturday September 18, 2010 @11:56AM (#33620300)

    Censorship in the West is almost always private-vs-private.

    Often, the courts serve as weapon to enforce private interests (see: libel tourism, CDMA takedowns, Wikileaks vs Bank Julius Baer, etc). This is sometimes called Accidental Censorship, but at the end of the day someone always wants this to happen, and the threat to democratic discourse and political minorities is just as real.

    Here's a discussion of the concept:
    http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/11/accidental-censorship-how-policy.html [globalintegrity.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18, 2010 @12:24PM (#33620504)

    No, we broke it apart in the 70s because it was too socialist, and now the Bells come back home to roost as an unregulated monopoly.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...