What do I think?
- Verizon is on a slippery slope, just as the FCC was under its "fairness doctrine". I am guessing that they will reverse this policy once they realize this.
- This issue will become the "poster child" for the network neutrality folks, even if Verizon ends up reversing its decision.
- Verizon, whose opposition to network neutrality is on record, made a really boneheaded decision in what is basically a political issue.
Do you think that this is a harbinger of things to come? I build an equivalence between Apple and Verizon ... is this appropriate? If not, what are the differences that are notable?
UPDATE 2007-09-27: On they Cybertelecom Mailing List, Sean Donelan had this to say, which I think adds a bit of nuance:
he article [sic] briefly mentions, but doesn't really explain the difference between standard user-to-user SMS texting and SMS short code campaigns.
For whatever historical reasons, subscribers seem to view user-to-user SMS texting as the wireless company acting as a "common carrier" but subscribers seem to view SMS short code compaigns as the wireless company acting as the "information service" responsible for those messages even those created by third-parties.
Members of the Klu Klux Klan buy wireless phone service and send standard SMS messages to each other; but none of the wireless phone companies will operate SMS short code campaigns on behalf of the Klu Klux Klan.
For example, consider this link to Google's content policy for Google Adwords, which is different than the content policy for Google's basic search index. https://adwords.google.com/select/contentpolicy.html
Here is a link to several SMS carrier policies for SMS short code campaigns, as opposed to standard user-to-user SMS.
Update (2007-09-27): According to this article, Verizon reversed its policy (as I expected they would). Still, from their perspective, I believe that the damage is already done.