Got AT&T ?

[Grendel]

From the new AT&T Legal Policy:

.. In addition, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

Uhm, ok. Better keep your mouth shut..

[Tunnelcat]

Verizon just got into trouble by trying to block any text messages that it's customers had signed up to receive from NARAL (a pro-choice organization). After a big stink was made about blocking free speech, etc., etc., Verizon relented.

The big telecom companies should only be concerned with providing services, not regulating the content. I hope people are going to wake up and get tired of corporate control creeping into their lives.

[DCrazy]

The big telecom companies should only be concerned with providing services, not regulating the content. I hope people are going to wake up and get tired of corporate control creeping into their lives.

To be fair, that was Verizon Wireless (which is a separate business from Verizon). The distinction actually matters because of this thing called "common carrier status". Verizon is a common carrier, and cannot discriminate among traffic on its telephone lines. Common carrier status does not apply to broadband or wireless, however.

Another argument for net neutrality, I guess.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm still of the opinion that telecom companies should only be there to provide the actual service, whether it's wireless or land line and not to control the actual content.

We're paying them to provide the means of transmission from point A to point B, not to censor and manipulate what we hear or speak.

The only reason to control the content would be to keep the flow of traffic efficient and stable.

[Kilarin]

The only reason to control the content would be to keep the flow of traffic efficient and stable.

While I agree with you, there is an angle to this that you may not have considered. The laws are changing more and more in a direction that holds the providers of information services legally liable for whatever crosses through their service.

[Ferno]

So if I were to have AT&T and I posted a comment about their crappy customer service.. boom, I'm cut off?

that's garbage.

[TIGERassault]

So if I were to have AT&T and I posted a comment about their crappy customer service.. boom, I'm cut off?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, and it's not an excuse to rant as if it was either.

[roid]

i'm confused Tiger,
are you saying that Ferno is not allowed to rant about it because it's not true,
and it's not true because you say so?

[Ferno]

Short answer: No.

Why not?

[Strife]

I guess I'm not as mad at comcast for limiting my bandwidth use anymore

[TIGERassault]

Short answer: No.

Why not?

Because, suffice to say, AT&T is run by regular human beings. They've got the decency not to block out your internet from one or two comments against them. They only added that in for the real extremities that pop up.

[BUBBALOU]

Nothing New Folks - Just New Name on an Existing TOS

OMG the Sky is falling............run run run

AT&T Internet added a clause to the existing TOS that excludes them (AT&T Internet) from being liable for your actions.........weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

And if you do not like it you can hit the road!

Find that one in legalese ... I did.. it's in ALL CAPS TOO!

[Kilarin]

AT&T is run by regular human beings. They've got the decency not to block out your internet from one or two comments against them.

I agree with you that AT&T is unlikely to cancel peoples accounts for one or two online comments, but NOT because they are "decent"

No offense meant here, but have you ever held a job in a major corporation, or had to deal with one? This is NOT meant as a put-down or as an insult in any way, I just think that your statement probably implies you have NOT had any intimate dealings with a large corporation.

I work for a large telecommunication company, and actually, probably one of the nicer ones out there. And trust me, they don't do anything from a sense of "decency". It's all a matter of profit.

My company keeps making me take "ethical training". The training makes it VERY clear that employees are NEVER to violate the ethics rules, not even to save the company money or to keep it from getting sued. BUT, the classes also make it very clear WHY they have these rules. They have determined that the EXPENSE of violating ethics rules costs the company more in the longterm than any short term benefits. It's strictly a cost/benefit analysis.

Large companies are usually NOT "decent", unless decency happens to be profitable. And you have to CONVINCE them it's profitable, which isn't easy to do.

To see some interesting horror stories, visit: http://consumerist.com/

A few specific examples:
Dell Arbitrarily Decides Your 2008 Warranty Ends In 20078
Bank Of America Refuses to Cash Bond Worth $30,000
us airways cancels your flight treats you like dirt
Expedia believes that customer complaints are unimportant.
Sprint Cancels Army Unit's Cellphones For Roaming Too Much

[Grendel]

Like Kilarin says, a rule change like that is NOT put in there w/o reason. Probably AT&T is looking for a way to pull some \"inconvenient\" websites, eg. people publishing about trials against AT&T (remember that AT&T runs THE backbone in the US ? Also remember that there's a small room set aside for some special people w/ the pipe running through it ?). I'm still wondering what AT&Ts reasoning behind that TOS clause is. And Bubba, read that again and try to make it to the end this time

[Ferno]

Short answer: No.

Why not?

Because, suffice to say, AT&T is run by regular human beings. They've got the decency not to block out your internet from one or two comments against them. They only added that in for the real extremities that pop up.

dude, if you believe coporations like AT&T do this sort of thing out of decency.. then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Grendel]

They only added that in for the real extremities that pop up.

Missed that the 1st time 'round -- define extreme in this context. Are you are saying that a customer that is really pissed and bashes AT&T should be pulled ?

Since when can a US corporation decide if something a customer says "tends to damage the name or reputation" of said corporation and pull the customers communication ? What's next, phone ? What happened to freedom of speech ?

[Kilarin]

What happened to freedom of speech ?

"freedom of speech" doesn't (generally) apply to private companies. It means the GOVERNMENT can't make rules that curtail your free speech.

ATT, being a public utility, probably has a lot more governmental restrictions upon them in issues like this though.

The primary issue here is contractual law. They can't break their contract with you, except for reasons laid out within the contract.

[Grendel]

So a corporation that's providing you communication services can restrict your freedom of speech then ?

[Kilarin]

So a corporation that's providing you communication services can restrict your freedom of speech then ?

Yes. But like I said, there are certain restrictions because they are a government regulated utility.

\"Freedom of Speech\" means that the government will not pass laws restricting your freedom to express yourself. So, for example, say you wrote a book saying that G. W. Bush was a tyrant. The government can NOT tell your publisher that they can't publish that book. That would be \"Prior restraint\". He might sue you for libel afterwards, but he can't stop you from publishing it beforehand.

BUT, on the other hand. Say you take it to the publisher and they say \"This is liberal tripe, we don't want to publish that garbage, get out!\". This is NOT a restriction on your \"freedom of speech\". The publisher, a private corporation, can pick and choose what they want to publish based on whatever criteria they wish.

Also, it's not a threat to your \"freedom of speech\" if people refuse to purchase your book even if you do get it published.

Freedom of speech protects you against a government that doesn't want anyone to hear what you have to say. It does NOT guarantee you a forum for your speech, or that anyone wants to listen.

[Grendel]

Thanks for the clarification. Makes me wonder who controls these policies at AT&T and other companies that control information flows..