It has long been a staple of telecom law that telcos could not decide what went through the tube. According to the article below, this principle does not apply to text messages. One academic apologist goes as far as claiming that competition will look after the problem. He misses the point that under present arrangements there is only one way to reach a mobile user with a text message, though his/her operator (an equivalent condition does not exist in the Internet). Until that changes, the common-carrier principle must applied, be it for text or voice.
Verizon Rejects Messages of Abortion Rights Group – New York Times
Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters.
But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.
Powered by ScribeFire.
2 Comments
Amy
Would common carriage doctrine continue to apply to mass text messages sent from the internet to groups – using txtmob or twitter or other texting broadcast applications? Does the one to many, rather than one to one, alter the principle?
samarajiva
The content provisions of the common carrier doctrine apply to point-to-point messages. It is important to distinguish between point-to-point and point-to-multipoint (or broadcast).
Here, the messages are actually point-to-point, in that the recipient has registered. The fact that they are sent simultaneously and not sequentially does not make them broadcasts. When point-to-point messages are transmitted without consent they used to be called nuisance calls; many countries have laws against them.
In broadcast (including cell broadcast, a mobile functionality that we are studying for disaster warnings), there is no consent.
If I want to receive a message and the only way to receive it is through the use of the number that I use, the phone company has no business getting in the middle.
Distinguished from this are broadcast messages, where the recipient has not requested them. There, it is important that the phone company provide the recipient with the means to prevent undesirable messages from coming in.
Missed opportunities in Philippine data governance
Even though the Constitution of the Philippines protects citizens’ right to access official records and research data used in policymaking, the absence of a comprehensive right-to-information law has left implementation subject to executive discretion. In a recent article published in InsiderPH on April 6, 2026, J.
Rethinking Sri Lanka’s Data Centre Hub Ambition
The idea of turning Sri Lanka into a regional data centre hub is an attractive one, particularly in the context of growing global demand for digital infrastructure and AI-driven services. However, it raises important economic questions, especially whether this is a viable and high-return investment strategy for a small, fiscally constrained economy like Sri Lanka.
Nepal’s digital crossroads: building a transparent data governance framework
Nepal’s evolving digital landscape highlights a growing tension between constitutional guarantees of privacy and access to information, and a fragmented, outdated data governance framework. In a recent article published in Republica on March 17, 2026, Avash Mainali, Country Researcher for Nepal for LIRNEasia’s D4D Asia project, argues that while the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Policy, 2082 (2025), marks a positive step, its impact will depend on whether it can move beyond aspirational language to enforceable rights.
Links
User Login
Themes
Social
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Contact
9A 1/1, Balcombe Place
Colombo 08
Sri Lanka
+94 (0)11 267 1160
+94 (0)11 267 5212
info [at] lirneasia [dot] net
Copyright © 2026 LIRNEasia
a regional ICT policy and regulation think tank active across the Asia Pacific