I think it depends on the reasons. When Nimbuzz refused business to the people of Egypt and Syria on request of their governments, I'd say it was.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have the right to do so.

I'm assuming that they are making a distinction between refusing to provide telecommunications service and refusing to serve someone at a restaurant.

That is senseless though. Is telecommunications service a basic need? Do they have a monopoly on it?