Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Communications Your Rights Online

AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service 298

Posted by CowboyNeal
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service

Comments Filter:
  • by ph4s3 (634087) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:12AM (#20792755)
    ...your ISP does not have the right to censor you or limit your access based on what you have to say so long as it conforms to any applicable laws.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tuoqui (1091447)
      Yeah but clearly this is a first amendment issue. Isnt AT&T subjected to Common Carrier rules for their internet access at the moment?
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Isnt AT&T subjected to Common Carrier rules for their internet access at the moment?

        No. (for the thousandth time. Hopefully someday people will figure this out)
        • by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:38AM (#20792905)
          Then why aren't they liable for every single piece of child porn that goes through their network? Aren't they facilitating the distribution of child pornography? Possibly even accessories?
          • by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:52AM (#20792997)
            They're not liable for what goes through their network because they are a common carrier. However, common carriers by definition do not monitor their network or censor for any reason... once you start down that slippery slope there's no going back.
            • by theshowmecanuck (703852) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @10:20AM (#20793151) Journal
              Well obviously they are censoring no
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by liquidpele (663430)
                I think their argument is that they arn't censoring, they are shutting down accounts altogether. If they only let messages through that didn't have "ATT Sucks" in them, that would be censoring, but this they probably argue is different.

                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'
                • by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @11:58AM (#20793811) Journal
                  this isn't "censoring" in the common carrier terminology. They are shutting down accounts,

                  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.
            • by N7DR (536428) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @12:49PM (#20794197) Homepage
              AT&T the ISP is not a common carrier. AT&T the ISP is not the same thing at all as AT&T the telco.

              In general, telco divisions/companies/business units are common carriers; ISP divisions/companies/business units are not.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Then why aren't they liable for every single piece of child porn that goes through their network? Aren't they facilitating the distribution of child pornography? Possibly even accessories?

            Because there are special laws that exempt them from liability but those are not the standard common carrier laws but special laws for ISPs.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mh1997 (1065630)

        Yeah but clearly this is a first amendment issue.
        They are not stopping you from saying anything to anyone. If after you say something that they do not like or do not agree with, they will use their right to refuse you service.

        The first amemndment does not protect you from consequences for saying something, it protects your right to say something.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          And if the consequence is being beaten with rubber hoses and thrown in jail by the police, the first amendment doesn't protect you from that consequence either, eh? Well, you just lost my nomination to the supreme court.

          • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday September 30, 2007 @12:07AM (#20798671)
            Your right to freedom of speech is NOT unlimited, it can't by. Why? Because if it was, it'd infringe on other rights. I mean lets say you are over at my house, chattering about something. I decide I want to go to bed. However you want to keep exercising your right to free speech and just keep talking to me, refusing to leave, refusing to let me sleep. See why that doesn't work?

            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.
      • by Darren Hiebert (626456) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @11:50AM (#20793763) Homepage

        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.

    • ...your ISP does not have the right to censor you or limit your access based on what you have to say so long as it conforms to any applicable laws.
      don't worry they'll find a way to push a law in to make this legal soon enough.
  • Value AT&T? (Score:3, Funny)

    by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:12AM (#20792759)

    AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service.
    I dunno. The idea of someone valuing AT&T's service while at the same time complaining about it seems a bit strange to me. They wouldn't be complaining after all if they were happy with it.
    • Uhh... Really? So, the American Indians who marched along the trail of tears shouldn't have had any right to complain about it because, at any moment, they could have simply CHOOSEN to stop walking? Just because someone has made a choice, that doesn't necessarily mean they LIKE the thing they've chosen. AT&T may simply be the lesser of two evils.
    • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @11:45AM (#20793729) Homepage
      I agree with you wholeheartedly. Another trend I've noticed is people for some reason keep criticizing Bush, Cheney, and the various other people who run this country. And yet they *still live here! Hopefully Patriot Act 2.0 will take care of this problem.

      (/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.
  • by freedom_india (780002) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:13AM (#20792775) Homepage Journal
    Let them try disconnecting a landline telephone line in mid winter in East Coast to a house which has an infant in it.
    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)

      by dattaway (3088)
      Let them try disconnecting a landline telephone line in mid winter in East Coast to a house which has an infant in it.

      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)

        by Vengie (533896)
        The laws OP is talking about are strict liability. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or by accident.
    • This is a legal agreement ("Agreement" and/or "TOS") between you and the AT&T company providing your Internet Access. FastAccess DSL and FastAccess Business DSL


      I suspect AT&T knows they'll run afoul of the public utilities commission if they try to do this kind of the thing with a POTS telephone line.
    • I suspect that those laws haven't been updated for Internet service, which might be considered emergency critical, high speed Internet is still probably considered a luxury. I would bet that VoIP doesn't count as a "land line" either.
    • by tgd (2822)
      AT&T absolutely can -- the local telco only has to provide a dialtone and the ability to dial 911 in those cases. ATT is not the local telco in CT, so they can do whatever they please.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:14AM (#20792781)
    Come and get me yo +++ carrier lost +++
  • by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:15AM (#20792787)
    This isn't censorship but a value added service on AT&T's behalf. If someone is complaining about AT&T obviously they're unhappy with their service and so AT&T saves them the customer the hassle of calling and cancelling the service by simply cancelling it themselves. This is a great service on AT&T's part (no more having to wait 1 hour on hold to talk to a person) and I can't see how anyone could complain about it.
  • by YojimboJango (978350) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:17AM (#20792797)
    That reminds me of the modem rebate crap that I just had to go through with AT&T last week. Since the special rebate sticker that i'm supposed to affix to a postcard was accidentally left out of the box I have to request one by phone. Unfortunately the tech told me that there was nothing that she could do until my account had been with AT&T for at least 3 months. Something about a grace period to make sure that I'm not just signing up for service to get their crappy dsl modem for free after rebate.
    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)

    by Joe U (443617) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:27AM (#20792841) Homepage Journal
    If AT&T starts policing content, then they have proven they have the ability and resources to police their network.

    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.
    • by frdmfghtr (603968)

      If AT&T starts policing content, then they have proven they have the ability and resources to police their network.

      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.

      I don't think that is the idea here. What the statement in question appears to say is that "If you say anything bad about us, we'll cut you off."

      Do I think AT&T will cut off service if you make a Slashdot post about crappy service? No--it's

    • since they have proven they can police their network, they now have to respond to any illegal activities or risk a lawsuit.

      Either way, they're probably going to regret that. If they respond to illegal activies ... they risk a lawsuit. If they don't respond ... they risk a lawsuit. Why they would even bother to open that can of worms is beyond me, I can't see the entertainment industry paying them enough to cover their losses.

      They day may come when they'll be begging for Common Carrier status for their
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:28AM (#20792845) Homepage

    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.

    • When did dickish corporate behavior become the new standard?
      According to my calculations, 345BC , give or take a millennium or two...
    • by Phil246 (803464)
      ethics was never a component of capitalism, we should not be surprised when companies realize that its more profitable to ignore them.
      • by BlueParrot (965239) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @10:29AM (#20793219)

        ethics was never a component of capitalism, we should not be surprised when companies realize that its more profitable to ignore them.


        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.

         
        • by damburger (981828)

          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.

          Indeed, but you've fallen into the fallacy of believing the only two alternatives are a market based economy, or a government directed one.

          The solution is not to change the boss, but to get rid of the concept of a boss altogether (or at least radically redfine it). Democratic workplaces would eliminate much of the kind of b

    • with their efforts to try to get immunity. Based on the way the FBI under ex-AG Gonzalez treated everyone else, they probably threatened to expose something else AT&T had done in the past and shut down their business. So some manager decided to "follow orders" and let the FBI have their way.

      Then it turns out (oops), that the FBI themselves get busted for the spying activity and AT&T is left holding the civil liabillity bag. I _almost_ have sympathy for them because there were so many other companies
  • Maybe NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by redelm (54142) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:32AM (#20792871) Homepage
    Yes, this _sounds_ bad. But perhaps is is more aimed at net nuisances such as spammers and botnets. Those certainly harm the name of AT&T. Could get its' domains blacklisted. Still, AT&T has no shortage of highly-paid lawyers. They ought to have developed less-inflammatory wording.

    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)

      by gillbates (106458)

      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.

    • by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @01:49PM (#20794639) Homepage Journal
      > But perhaps is is more aimed at net nuisances such as spammers and botnets

      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:

      Abuse of Email/Spamming

      The Service(s) you have purchased from AT&T may include the ability to send and receive electronic mail ("Email").

      Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

      * Mass electronic messages and "mail bombings" (sending mass Email or deliberately sending very large attachments to one recipient);
      * Spamming, or sending unsolicited commercial Email (UCE), sending unsolicited Email soliciting charitable donations, or sending chain Email;
      * Forging Email headers (transmission information);
      * Using another computer, without authorization, to send multiple Email messages or to retransmit Email messages for the purpose of misleading recipients as to the origin;
      * Use of electronic mail to harass or intimidate other users;
      * Use of redirect links in unsolicited commercial Email (UCE) to advertise a website or service;
      * Use of an AT&T-provided Email address, Service or website to spam advertise, or collect responses from unsolicited Email

      (Emphasis added.) Not to mention this:

      Network Security

      It is your responsibility to ensure the security of your network and the machines that connect to the Service(s). You are responsible for ensuring that your customers and users use the Service(s) in an appropriate manner. You are required to take all necessary steps to manage the use of the Service(s) obtained from AT&T in such a way that network abuse is minimized. Violations of system or network security are prohibited, and may result in criminal and/or civil liability.

      Examples of system or network security violations include, but are not limited to the following:

      * Failing to secure your system against abuse. You are responsible for configuring and securing your services to prevent damage to the AT&T network and/or the disruption of Service(s) to other customers. You will be held liable if unknown third parties utilize your services at any time for the purpose of illegally distributing licensed software. It is your responsibility to ensure that your network and/or computer are configured in a secure manner, and to take corrective actions on vulnerable or exploited systems to prevent continued abuse. You may not, through action or inaction, allow others to use your network for illegal or inappropriate uses, and/or any other disruptive, provoking, or abusive behavior that is in violation of these guidelines or the agreement for the Service(s) you have purchased;
      * With respect to Dial-up accounts, using any software or device designed to defeat system time-out limits or to allow your account to stay logged on while you are not actively using the AT&T Service(s) or using your account for the purpose of operating a server of any type;
      * Uploading or distributing files that contain viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancel bots, corrupted files, or any other similar software or programs that may damage the operation of another's computer or property of another;

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:37AM (#20792897)
    I mean, the company's logo is the fucking Death Star and even George Lucas is powerless to sue them into not using it. I'm not surprised they're prosecuting thought crime. I'm assuming that they'll be feeding pirates feet-first into industrial shredders and give the pureed results to their slavering army of uruk-lawyers.
  • No, they shouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbone (558574) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @09:39AM (#20792907)
    AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service."

    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)

      by Spiked_Three (626260)
      So many of you are naive that these things will come out 'right' in a court of law. Let me tell you firsthand, they do not. AT&T has complete control over the courts.

      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
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by b96miata (620163)
      Yes, there are things that are much worse. Like failing at basic grammar. Sometimes I think slashdot should change "Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!" to a simple explanation of the difference between the word "lose" and the word "loose"
  • I really don't have a problem with AT&T DSL service since I got it two years ago. Comcast is a different story.

    When I tried to explain to the service rep that the problem was on their end, the service rep "accidentally" deleted the cable modem info from the system and I had to wait two weeks for the system to purge itself before the modem info could be added back in. The technician verified that the problem was on their end. On another service call, it took a month to convince them that I couldn't
    • by jbengt (874751)
      Although I do have a problem with SBC now ATT DSL (it seems to disconnect every once and a while for anywhere from a minute to almost a half hour) Comcast Cable was (perhaps not surprisingly, part owned by ATT for some of that time) terrible for me.

      First, I moved into a house and asked for the cable to be activated. They insisted it already was, which didn't make sense, especially since we weren't getting any picture. After a few rounds of that, and about 10 days later, my son found a cable amplifier in t
      • by creimer (824291)
        With my current apartment, I can't get cable because the previous renter didn't pay his bill. Since I refused to go down to the local Comcast office to prove I'm not the same person, I can't get cable. At one point, they even accused me of being the previous renter. A while later a Comcast technician stopped by to offer to hook up my cable for $200 cash with no monthly billing. Since he wouldn't provide any identification, I closed the door. I was never sure if the technician was freelancing or part of
  • I'm not from the USA, but don't you have something that allows freedom of speech and expression in your constitution or something? Wouldn't this make AT&Ts clause unenforcable?
    • by jasonditz (597385)
      it says "Congress shall make no law..."

      and since AT&T isn't a branch of Congress (more like an unowned subsidiary of the NSA), the Constitution wouldn't apply. If I'm in a restaurant loudly complaining about my lunch, the restaurant isn't required constitutionally to sell me dessert.

      AT&T's disincentive to use this is that if they lose customers they lose money. This isn't the 1970's and even if a handful of people living in the ass-end of Wyoming don't have a lot of competitors to choose from, the v
    • by Pig Hogger (10379)
      It does not apply to big croporations, only governments.
  • This sounds kind of bad, but think about it. If you sold John a box of apples and John then goes around telling everybody that they were rotten. Then he comes back and buys another one. Why should you have to do business with him?

    AT&T isn't restricting your right to say bad things about them, they are simply saying that if you do, they don't want to do business with you anymore.

    Now, perhaps if you can argue that they are a near monopoly, they shouldn't be able to do that. But if you have a choice am
  • Is anyone really surprised? This is the same company which is against Network Neutrality. The simple answer is to simply not to buy or patronize any AT&T or Southwest Bell services if at all possible.
    ]
  • by Leuf (918654) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @10:02AM (#20793057)
    If AOL did this it would finally be possible to end your service over the net.
  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @10:04AM (#20793073) Homepage Journal
    yes they oversell without having the necessary infrastructure, yes most of their services are shitty, but i can curse and swear about them and TO them wherever i want (even on the phone) and even high courts in turkey order turkish telekom to cut uncompetitive practices. hell, even turkish telekom dns'es update themselves like in 30 minute intervals - change a .com domain name's nameservers in enom, voila - not 30 minutes pass before t.telekom dnses pick it up and show site from new place.

    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)

    by Anna Merikin (529843) on Saturday September 29, 2007 @10:09AM (#20793101) Journal

    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....

    • by geekoid (135745)
      Read your contract. Other then the link in this article, I couldn't find a terms od service with that wording from at&t. SO it might only be some division or a hoax.
  • I don't think this would hold up in court. Something about First amendment rights. And something about inhibiting interstate trade... in this case, the trade of ideas...

    "Do you promise to covet propriety prosperity posterity and never hurt the state say what?"

    What?

    "Take the stand..."

    The judge would look at the contract, laugh, and say:

    ATT - get a fucking life you idiots. DISMISSED! NEXT!!!

    "Yes your honour. Next is The case of World v. GW Bush..."

    And the judge smirks - "Another slam dunk...I mi

  • Government pays off telecom with $200bn.(nudge nudge, wink wink. You don't really *have* to roll out the hardware, guys.)
    Government gets telecom to install snoop switches everywhere. Not just when they need a tap, but you know, *proactively*. Telecom has to "want" to do it and they do.
    Government doesn't say anything about bandwidth, universal access, net neutrality or EULAs that go against the Constitution. Meanwhile other countries (all buying U.S. hardware) roll way ahead in phones, fiber, online privacy
  • EDGE sucks!!!! :-D
  • I'll voice whatever valid criticisms I like about AT&T's poor service, corruption, unfair compet342976r*&^*^ &68 *^*&^...

    [NO CARRIER]

  • I'm not sure that's being interpreted correctly, but I think the wording is broad enough that it could be interpreted that way, which is a problem.

    However, the rule says <i>conduct</i>. To me, this means that if your actions (only including, not exclusive to speech) are damaging AT&T's reputation, they can cut you off. What sort of conduct would damage a carrier's reputation? Harassing another person pops into mind immediately. "Why doesn't AT&T do something, are they just scumbags?"...
  • We need to come up with a model which can replace this whole sector of the economy, and we need to shop it around to presidential candidates. Something's structurally wrong when corporations can get this out of control. It's not just a matter of tweaking a regulation here and there. Telecom is as broken as the US healthcare system - which is to say it works in some places for some people, but the major firms involved will happily do any amount of damage to their customers if it serves short-term, short-sigh

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...