3 ms·

Absolutely correct. The point many are missing is that phone companies do not ban people from having a telephone based on their conduct. If I use my phone to s

Absolutely correct. The point many are missing is that phone companies do not ban people from having a telephone based on their conduct. If I use my phone to say terrible things or even to commit felony fraud the police will investigate me, arrest me, I'll be tried and convicted and so on. But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service. Fraudsters can get phone service. Murders can get phone service. The court will place limits on the person, but it's unheard of for the phone company to restrict access because of conduct. The problem we're facing is that modern communications platforms (including social media) have very different norms. Some of those norms are imposed because of direct governmental regulatory influence. We're dragging various social media companies to testify before congress and openly pressuring them to censor with overt threats to their business. This destroys the notion that these companies are somehow engaging in censorship entirely of their own volition. This 5th circuit court ruling isn't framed right, but the underlying issue here does need to be addressed.

dtjb 4y ago
>But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service This isn't correct. I work for a tier 2 telco and both CLECs and ILECs regularly cancel accounts known for fraudulent traffic. At first they'll block the originating traffic from routing across their switch, but after review and positive confirmation they will terminate the subscribers account. There is a constant arms race to detect and prevent fraudulent traffic. The idea the LECs would knowingly continue to provide service to these accounts is nonsense.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  I'm distinguishing between the content of the message (wire fraud) and defrauding the telecom itself by exploiting the system itself. I am confident you have absolutely no examples of cancelling a customer because of the voice data they transmitted inside of a call, to another person.
  - dtjb 4y ago
    I'm sure there are outliers, but I suspect you're right from a default policy perspective. I was too dismissive in my earlier comment.

dtjb 4y ago

>But at no point will the phone company cancel my telephone service This isn't correct. I work for a tier 2 telco and both CLECs and ILECs regularly cancel accounts known for fraudulent traffic. At first they'll block the originating traffic from routing across their switch, but after review and positive confirmation they will terminate the subscribers account. There is a constant arms race to detect and prevent fraudulent traffic. The idea the LECs would knowingly continue to provide service to these accounts is nonsense.

throwaway09223 4y ago
I'm distinguishing between the content of the message (wire fraud) and defrauding the telecom itself by exploiting the system itself. I am confident you have absolutely no examples of cancelling a customer because of the voice data they transmitted inside of a call, to another person.
- dtjb 4y ago
  I'm sure there are outliers, but I suspect you're right from a default policy perspective. I was too dismissive in my earlier comment.