Slashdot Log In
AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Sep 29, 2007 08:03 AM
from the say-no-evil dept.
from the say-no-evil dept.
marco13185 writes "AT&T's new Terms of Service give AT&T the right to suspend your account and all service "for conduct that AT&T believes"..."(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." After cooperating with the government's violations of privacy and liberties, I guess AT&T wants their fair share. AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service."
Related Stories
[+]
AT&T Denies Censorship, Won't Change Contract 170 comments
Vox writes "As we discussed here a few days back, AT&T's Terms of Service has very broad language giving them the right to terminate the account of any AT&T Internet service customer who criticizes the company. Ars Technica notes that such broad language is not unusual in ISPs' terms of service, and that AT&T told them they won't be changing the contract. A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions and says that the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs. As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first amemndment does not protect you from consequences for saying something, it protects your right to say something.
What the hell is it with people on the net (Score:4, Informative)
The way I like to put it is "The right to freedom of speech does not imply the right to be heard." In other words you are free to scream all you want about whatever you want, but you aren't free to do it in my living room, I can kick you out if I want. You are free to write whatever you want, but you aren't free to do so on my web forums, I can kick you off. You are free to express your self as you want, but you aren't free to do so at work, they are free to fire you.
That's what people mean. Your free expression can have consequences with other private citizens, and the first amendment does not protect you from that. It can't as to do so would be to infringe on those other citizen's rights. What it protects you from is the government. The constitution is a document relating to the government. It lays out what powers the government gets to have, and places limitations on those powers. So it does say that the government can't come and arrest you for saying something they don't like.
Your rights are not unlimited, you are not king. Your rights end where mine (and everyone else's) begin. You'd do well to learn that concept, or you are in for some real nasty surprises later in life.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:4, Informative)
You apparently share a common misunderstanding about our Constitution. The Constitution is a document which limits the powers of our government only. Thus the protections for citizens only cover government intervention into the lives of its citizens. The Constitution has no authority over, and does not regulate, the behavior between private citizens. Only the laws that the government passes (within the powers granted by the Constitution) can regulate that.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution gives you no rights. The founding fathers clearly state that your rights inalienable [wikipedia.org]. The Constitution is there to limit government and protect you from the government.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I kinda agree that this isn't "censoring" in the common carrier terminology. They are shutting down accounts, so while *really* stupid and *really* scummy, I don't think it would concern their common carrier status. PS: I have ATT (Used to be bellsouth), they'
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Insightful)
So in an area where they have the only service available they are silencing their critics, how is that not censoring? Isn't part of the common carrier status a requirement to not deny service to someone because of stated ideological/political beliefs? My political beliefs include ideals about how global companies should act, and thus should be protected speech in the common carrier sense.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 for net neutrality... (Score:5, Informative)
In general, telco divisions/companies/business units are common carriers; ISP divisions/companies/business units are not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Value AT&T? (Score:3, Funny)
Love it or Leave it! (Score:4, Insightful)
(/sarcasm)
How does your line of reasoning deal with the "or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries" language? If you continue using AT&T "service" you obviously shouldn't be allowed to express negative things about any of the other companies they do business with.
Parent
Let them try disconnecting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Laws exist that prevent disconnecting landline AND electricity which is used to power heat to any house in New England states which has an elder or an infant in it.
Let AT&T just try it.
You would see the full weight of law and the CT Supreme Court falling upon it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its called "technical difficulties." Any lineworker wanting extra bonus points may climb the pole down the street and find a loose connection on your line. Might be days until they trace it down, but they fixed the wrong connection. Too bad you can't use your phone to complain and get the run-around anymore.
Been there, done that, but with Bell South.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When that language is included, somebody's going to use it. I'll agree that lawyers tend to push the bounds, but here we're talking about the company that once said "We're the phone company. We don't HAVE to care."*
* Admittedly, this was before the prior breakup...but you'll notice that that's been undone, and now they have less regulation.
Re:Let them try disconnecting... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.
We don't care.
Watch this.. [ she hits buttons maniacally ]
You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string?
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
The scary thing is that Lily Tomlin pretty much nailed it. It's a lot less funny knowing they're *really* like that.
Parent
My service is shit ! (Score:3, Funny)
Not censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not censorship (Score:5, Funny)
I can't see how anyone could complain about it.
You only say that because you want to keep your Internet connection.
Parent
Re:Not censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean you haven't seen anybody complaining about it, right?
Parent
They wouldn't dare. (Score:4, Insightful)
So to get this rebate I have to wait 3 months, call AT&T customer support then wait an additional 3 to 4 months for the rebate to arrive. Thats seven whole months before they have to give the rebate back. And you know what would suck even more? If they canceled my service I wouldn't ever get [error: connection to host lost]
This should end well (Score:4, Interesting)
So, now the fun begins, since they have proven they can police their network, they now have to respond to any illegal activities or risk a lawsuit.
Re:This should end well (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Corporate dickishness (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T cooperates in wholesale spying on the American public without a warrant, then goes back to Congress and asks for immunity from lawsuits. Now they slip a "no criticize" clause in their user agreement. Reminds me of Microsoft, only worse. When did dickish corporate behavior become the new standard? I must have missed that memo.
The interesting question is whether corporate behavior is just a more visible mirror of the increasing lack of civility in every day relationships? Because when I think back to times when even corporations still behaved with a modicum of civility and tended to err on the side of the customer, I realized that the general level of decency at all levels of interaction was higher.
When it comes to AT&T a whole new generation is learning why we broke them up in the first place.
Re:Corporate dickishness (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, for the love of god, stop calling the US economic system capitalism, it isn't, at least not in the way Adam Smith, or even Friedman talked about it. Capitalism assumes that the government limit regulation only to account for externalities ( pollution, healthcare, education etc... ) while simultaneously ensuring that you don't get coercive monopolies. Does this sound like the US today? AT&T is a problem precisely BECAUSE you don't have any meaningful competition. Virtually all of the problems in the US are caused by corrupt decisions that run directly against the idea of utilizing competition in a free market to balance prices. Copyright , Patents, Farmer Subsidies, Trade barriers... you name it.
It appears to me that you have two very common naive interpretations of capitalism. The first is the "libertarian" viewpoint in which the free market is a magical solution to all problems and government intervention is the source of all evil. The second is what I like to call the "hippie" interpretation which blames all problems on capitalism no matter what. I've heard people seriously trying to argue that capitalism is the root cause of homophobia, apparently due to how corporations favor "the nuclear family" or something (I was tempted to suggest that the nuclear family should be banned on environmental concerns because radiation causes cancer, but I figured it was a bad idea. ).
Really, stop blaming every single problem on capitalism ( or communism for that matter ). Reality is that the government is corrupt, which will cause you trouble in a planned economy as well as a market based one. Much of this is the consequence of a bad electoral system which favors only two very similar parties, but thinking that the problem would somehow go away if the US had a more socialistic system is naive at best. It would merely substitute government agencies for corporations. To really deal with it you would have to overhaul the electoral system, but that is not going to happen any time soon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just insanity in the guise of an authoritative-sounding quote. How did the "state" give Microsoft its monopoly power to force PC vendors not to carry competitors' OS products?
Maybe NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a practical matter, I would expect to see these terms on business accounts (where free speech is arguable) and less on home accounts (where it is not).
Yes, it is bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
If history has taught us anything, it is that companies - regardless of original intent - always construe the meaning of contracts in the manner most advantageous to the company.
This clause may not be intended to be enforced against individual users, but as soon as a customer becomes critical of AT&T and starts costing them money, the company lawyers will find this clause and silence them.
Those are unconscionable terms! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if you read the ToS, they already have that covered a thousand times over.
> They ought to have developed less-inflammatory wording.
Not to mention terms that haven't been ruled unconscionable before!
Just to prove my point, per the ToS [bellsouth.net], you agree to their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) [att.net] (it's item 13 or something, it's pretty far down the list and the AUP has all the good stuff), which states, among other things:
(Emphasis added.) Not to mention this:
Parent
Frankly, I'm not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
No, they shouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they shouldn't. There are worse things in life than loosing your Internet service, and I expect this to stand up neither in Courts of Law, nor in the Court of Public Opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just like the story from the other day where it costs the guy $7,500 to fight the police for arrest for not showing his license. He obviously had the law on his side and yet it cost him $7,500 to get the charges dropped. Yes you can say he was an idiot for getting to that point in the first place, but the fact is the law did nothing t
On the bright side... (Score:3, Funny)
Even Turkish Telekom is better ! (Score:4, Interesting)
america, land of the free. or was land of the free. why are you people are putting up with this kind of shit there, and not rise up and put an end to that i dont know. you have overthrown the strongest monarchy of the times at 1776. you should be able to topple a bunch of cash greedy bastards.
The Bully Pulpit (Score:4, Interesting)
AT&T, taken apart decades ago because of their abuse of monopoly power, has not learned how to compete in a free marketplace and, thus, must go back to their orginal business model: hateful monopolizing. Perhaps some of you remember or have seen reruns of Lily Tomlin's wonderful ATT operator.
The main problem with having a president who lies and suspends constitutional rights is that the public, by example, are led to believe lying and bullying are OK. "Gee, the president makes it work for him...."
This is the famous Bully Pulpit that the first President Roosevelt talked about.
To give a more specific example of this principle, when former president George Herbert Walker Bush complained publicly that the Japanese government was trading unfairly with the United States (this was before the Tokyo stock crash) several Japanese tourists were attacked and beaten on the streets of US cities.
We need a president who loves truth. Otherwise, the US has more to worry about than Ma Bell.
Of course, Ma Bell is bad enough....
disclaimer: I am an ATT customer in CA. rethinking my subscription to their service.
But wait -- that leaves me with using ComCast....
Re:If you dont like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't live in the states, but aren't they the sole provider in many areas?
Something needs to be done to stop the growing trend of laundry-list TOS agreements that amount to "we can kick you off our network any time we damn well feel like it"; aren't there laws about unfair clauses in these kinds of contracts.
Parent
Re:If you dont like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
People look to me for advice on any range of technical issues. While I rarely, if ever, say "don't do this" I will state factual reasons not to do something. For example: iPhone -- you cannot change your own batteries. I don't say "it's 'restrictive'" or limiting or anything people will not understand. I will tell them things they can easily identify with.
So in this case, I would say, "according to AT&T's TOS, you're not allowed to publicly complain about the quality of your service or the size of your bill!" "Not allowed to complain" is something that will register with anyone. So I plan to just tell people... with AT&T, you lose your right to complain. That will strike HARD against the consumer's heart.
Parent
Re:If you dont like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh right, we busted up the phone monopoly decades ago, now if you don't like your phone service, YOU CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER FUCKING STATE.
But hey, if they cancel my service over this, I can demand phone service back thanks to their franchise contract and universal access laws. If they charge me to turn it back on, I'll have the city council going over that contract to see what can be done about getting some real competition in here.
Parent
Re:If you dont like it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If you dont like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Moderators: you absolutely need to mark this Insightful
.I work on order and billing systems for telcos and have some insight into this... and was just thinking the same damn thing. Colbert makes the point so much better than I could. Glad you posted this.
:) )
Monopoly? We got no steengking monopoly. (apologies to 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The point is not that AT&T is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger picture is that this is yet another one of those corporate slippery slopes.
The technique is straightforward. A huge company with vast legal resources will create terms of contract that are annoying, but just a little bit less annoying than the transaction cost of replacing that company with another one. They've annoyed you, but like a frog being boiled in water, you figure you can live with it. Pretty soon all of the company's competitors are doing the same thing, and now you have no other recourse, even if you wanted to go through the time, expense, and hassle of switching.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad thing is I've heard this phrase from more people inside the company than outside (usually from baby bells "acquired" by SBC).
-nB