You may have heard the hubbub in the last 24 hours about AT&T's new Terms of Service for its DSL accounts, and its apparent hardline approach to customers who may criticize the company. For those of you not up to speed, the long and short of it is that the TOS stipulates that AT&T can and does reserve the right to disconnect any user's account if the telco believes said user is utilizing the connection to "damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." Sounds doomy and gloomy, doesn't it? Well, AT&T issued a statement in response to the backlash it's been getting, making it explicitly clear that it is not the company's policy to axe users who take it to task. Here's what they had to say:
"AT&T respects its subscribers' rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish. However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation). We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T. This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T."
So, according to The Man, you can talk all the smack you want about AT&T and its screwball policies / high prices / use of dental implants to monitor your conversations -- without the fear of having the lines snipped...
or so they say.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Todd @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:04PM
Please, allow me…
AT&T is the worst telecommunications company currently in business. Their product offerings are overpriced. Their customer service is deplorable. And they are using the Death Star, from George Lucas’ Star Wars films, as their logo.
Love and Kisses,
Todd - current AT&T customer
NHAnimator @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:06PM
Great shot kid! That was one in a million!
DickHardknocks @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:29PM
-Their product offerings are overpriced. Their customer service is deplorable. -
They can't be all that bad.
After all they do business with APPLE Computers right?
Jake @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:03PM
That logo is based on a logo created by Saul Bass one of the greatest designers in history. And frankly its a great update.
I wonder what company any of you like? Verizon? Sprint? They all have the same agenda. Make money. You pay for a service. If you think you are paying too much dont use them.
As a PRIVATE company you are allowed to refuse service to people who you believe are doing reputable harm to others. If you were in a restaurant and paying for food that doesn't give you the right to scream racial slurs at people. If you were in a bar and you bought a drink that doesn't give you the right to pick fights with people.
Lets say AT&T knew that a group was using its services to peddle child pornography and didn't do anything about it... everyone here would be up in arms about that.
Could this article even be up because AOL is a competitor to AT&T? and AOL owns this site.... and AOL is a under the TimeWarner banner who owns RoadRunner Hi-Speed Internet? Because I mean AOL has the ToS that whatever you send through AIM or their service is appilcable to be used in whatever fashion they deem fit.... whether it is copyrighted or not...
Todd @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:27PM
Dear "Jake"
It's good to see that AT&T employees monitor Engadget comments. And as an employee, please address the following:
1 - When I call for service, why do you ask for my phone number?
2 - I often see AT&T company vehicles parked in the parking lots of strip clubs during business hours. Why?
3 - Why do you "double dip" by charging both the call maker and the call recipient when I use my mobile phone to call a family member?
Again, thank you for bringing your employer's "spin" here to Engadget and expanding on what we all know to be true - you are the biggest bunch of crooks in the history of business and your near 100 year long swindle of the consumer could not exists without collusion from your bribed government puppets ( a.k.a the FCC )
Signed, Your most dissatisfied customer,
Todd
IndiaTech @ Oct 2nd 2007 3:15PM
@Todd: You will be dearly missed here on Engadget...
Jake @ Oct 2nd 2007 4:06PM
Dear "Todd",
I do not work for AT&T. I know who Saul Bass is because I am a graphic designer.
Next it is kinda funny that you do not actually have anything of merit to say about the actual substance of my arguments but are rather left with cynical sarcastic jokes. (I laughed at #2).
All I am saying... if you do not like em don't use em. I have had AT&T before they were Cingular... while they were Cingular and now that they are AT&T again. Back then in the rural area where I lived they were the only game in town. Now I live in a large metropolitan area there are choices... but I stay with AT&T... why? Because A) they have the products I like (the iPhone) and B) I have had no real grievances with their services. Its kinda funny because currently have ComCast High Speed Internet because thats what was cheapest in my area... I made a CHOICE! Wow who thought we would have that!
Again if you do not like their practices do not use them. That is what makes FREE MARKET economies work. People make choices... if you want T-Mobile go for it.... if everyone goes there then they go the way of Amp'd... they go out of business.
Hung @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:22PM
Dear "Guy who doesn't get it:"
This is where I decided that you are not fit to argue any position, ever.
"...they are using the Death Star, from George Lucas’ Star Wars films, as their logo." -statement
"That logo is based on a logo created by Saul Bass one of the greatest designers in history. And frankly its a great update." -a serious response
Satire is used to underline follies, often by sarcastically and outrageously ridiculing subjects without even a hint of evidence to support any and all claims. "Not getting it" is common among social r-tards and wholly non-English speakers, who both possess legitimate reasons for "not getting it."
Love, your mother (OH SNAP!)
P.S. Lessons in "no-duh" economics: unnecessary. Lessons in choosing the right cell phone—*ahem*—to worship: probably.
P.P.S. I seriously do not believe you did not recognize the satire. Am I getting punk'd? I really hope I am.
Bob @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:46PM
Death Star is watching you ...
Bob @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:05PM
How would they know who I am .......... ?
FireFox @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:08PM
Your ip is registered at your isp at anytime ( yes there are watching you ;p)
RijilV @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:12PM
Uh, if you're at home on an AT&T connection, they know what you're doing - all of your data is going over their equipment. Unless you're using encryption (Engadget staff: enable SSL please) everything is sent in cleartext over the wire. Emails, instant messages, webpages, its all there for anyone who is between you and your final destination to read and look at. All AT&T has to do is look at the source address, go cross reference that in their customer database, and bam, all the sudden the gestapo shows up at your house to haul you away. Live free or die eh? Well too bad we're on the merry road to death.
Gee, I can't wait until AT&T manages to get rid of net neutrality - if they're going to treat their own customers like that I bet they're gonna be real good to others.
imacmatt09 @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:08PM
Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with AT&T? Seriously its not that bad.
imacmatt09 @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:14PM
Opps. Should have read the article. Well if they are talking about DSL then yes it sucks!
Bob @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:12PM
Luke Skywalker lining up ..........aim aim ...n....fire ...yeah baby////
paul34 @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:14PM
It is ATT. Your world destroyed!
jilie @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:17PM
the engadget's comment system is really poor!
noisia @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:50PM
you suck. just dont take that too personal, but when you criticize someone without telling him why, its just stupid. your personal comment system is poor too.
but hey, i agree with you, the comment system of engadget is not perfect. i would love to see a system like the one of digg.com where the low ranked comments are faded out, so would be yours.
thanks for thinking before posting
jilie @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:12PM
it's poor, how to tell.. something like... the iphone features!?
David Clark @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:38PM
The guys on TWiT talked about this for a little bit and had an interesting spin on the situation. For instance, maybe this would make AT&T a publisher (since they control the content) and would be held responsible and sued under certain circumstances if anyone out there wanted to make a hobby out of screwing with AT&T.
simon @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:44PM
A couple years ago up here in Western Canuckistan when a labour union was on strike Telus (the local telco) shut down access to their website. They did such a sloppy job that other unrelated sites, including i think a children's charity, got blocked as collateral damage. Expecting my conecction to be pulled in 5...4...3...2...
Natia @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:48PM
Cingular (AT&T now) screwd me up so badly years back that I swore I will never go back to them NO MATTER WHAT! And I keep my word, even though I want iPhone so much, I'm still not giving up on my principals. They were charging me roaming charges even after I switched to Nationwide plan and payed extra whatever extra it was. They said my request for roaming didn't go through, because probably costumer service person didn't put it right, but they were still charging this extra for roaming... I had to pay for their mistakes!!!!!! so after $600 bill I told them to go screw themselves.
Now they switched their name to AT&T, so in our mind they're different company... hmmmm... when a woman changes her maiden name to her husbands' she's still the same person just with different last name... no?
p.s. still gonna get an iPhone in 2008 and unlock it... oh yeah!
Wwhat @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:53PM
That 'explanation' of AT&T is of course total spin and facesaving.
They don't need to put stuff in a ToS that's covered by the law, this ToS as described is clearly saying they can disconnect you arbitrarily for stuff THEY don't like to be associated with for their own reasons, which might be anti-AT&T stuff, but also stuff people they suck up to doesn't like, and didn't AT&T partner with mediadefender/RIAA.MPAA and the like?...
Keith @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:56PM
Several weeks ago, ATT sent a notice to all users indicating changes in their customer agreemment (including dial-up customer's like me). Basically, they stated by continued use of their service, you agree to all terms and conditions. I clicked on the link and actually read the Agreement. Frankly it was the most biased, one sided Agreement that I have ever read. After being a loyal ATT Internet customer for over 12 years; I terminated my service with ATT.
Anthony @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:00PM
"I terminated my service with ATT"
Oh, yeah- well, we were going to break up with you first. So there.
Signed,
AT&T
------
Actually, I have Yahoo!/ATT & have never had any problems @ all. I also use ATT for wifi hotspots & it's worked great in at least 7 states. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Richie @ Oct 2nd 2007 12:58PM
*looks around cautiously* I hate my AT&T phone service, I bet their internets suck even harder
Why did my iPhone just turn off? o_o
Bob @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:45PM
"Why did my iPhone just turn off? o_o"
.....well this is an ATT blog ......
IPHONE blog
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/28/iphone-update-facts-and-fiction/
martin @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:08PM
It actually sounds like they are saying, "look people, we also terminate subscribers for these other reasons, along with if they talk bad about us, because talking bad about us is as bad as child porn and murder!"
Thats just how I read it though,
Martin: ex-AT&T subscriber
Cory Doctorow @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:10PM
I got the same email from the same PR person, looking for a "correction" on Boing Boing. I told him that if AT&T wanted to demonstrate its sincerity in promising not to disconnect users for criticising it, it should revise its ToS so that it no longer reserves the right to do so.
Paul @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:11PM
And so the slipperly slope begins.
Who can say that it is wrong to disconnect people who advocate violence?
Next:
Who can say that it is wrong to disconnect people who advocate anarchy?
Who can say that it is wrong to disconnect people who talk about political dissent?
And so the ball starts rolling down the hill, and these are the people who say they should be trusted with regulating the internet and Internet neutrality is not needed.
beanspants @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:39PM
Paul,
"net neutrality" has to do with equal access to sites, ie, that google and yahoo get the same quality of service (QOS) in terms of download speed for the same price. it has nothing to do with what is written on the sites or who hosts them.
Paul @ Oct 2nd 2007 3:34PM
@beanspants "It has nothing to do with what is on the sites."
And who is to decide which sites get the better download speed? What will their criteria be for what website downloads faster? What is to stop companies like AT&T from just completely blocking sites they do not agree with?
The internet without network neutrality will resemble your cable plan, $5 / month for YouTube, $2.50 / month for MySpace, ect, then there will just be the sites they dont offer on their plans that will essentially just be blocked.
They already have been caught filtering live concerts, if they are willing to filter something as trivial as that I would imagine they could easily justify blocking more politically controversial information.
Free speech != Politically Correct Speach, Do I like what the KKK stands for? No. So do I think they should be filtered out of the internet? No. However, what if AT&T is suddenly allowed to start blocking things they dont like? First the "Socially Unacceptable" sites will be dropped, and who is to decide what is "socially unacceptable"?
My point is that AT&T in blocking Internet Neutrality has been heard to say, "Trust us, we will not block objectionable material just because we dont like it." Yet here in there TOS we find them already saying, "Well if its just socially abhorrent, we will block them."
I will leave you with this, when has anyone agreed on what is "Socially Abhorrent"?
Bob @ Oct 2nd 2007 1:32PM
This comments section is boring ...........and useless ........no IPHONE ......not even ATT cellphone service .............may this be the last comment ....n....move on .........whats happening on 1.1.1...........anybody
peternj @ Oct 2nd 2007 2:05PM
Apple insists on 14 days only money back ...with a 10% restocking fee!!
This gives me no time to test everything.
AT&T offers 30 days money back, no restocking fee, offer the cheapest data plan outside of Helio and only for the iPhone.
There fees are in line with ripp off Verizon, the guys who want to make sure we keep paying out for the next decade by fencing off the new spectrum... yet AT&T is evil?
AT&T has been very good. They also have set up an I.D. where they auto send you to Apple for tech support.
I nearly returned my iPhone today as some problems with AT&T need 30 days to iron out but Apple forced the return. However I think it's now fixed. I have till Thursday. Thanks Apple for nothing.
01 @ Oct 2nd 2007 3:19PM
Right, just like they won't censor criticism of the Bush administration during concert broadcasts..oh wait. Well, at least they won't give up my personal information without a court order. Wait, what?
Ron Jones @ Oct 2nd 2007 4:57PM
"That logo is based on a logo created by Saul Bass one of the greatest designers in history. And frankly its a great update."
There goes any credibility you have as a designer...
Jake @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:42PM
You have to be kidding me. Saul Bass created the modern mark. IBM, AT&T plus some of the greatest movie titles ever created. He was the auteur of minimalist mark, the father of brand recognition.
Knowing that you have no clue how much impact Saul Bass has created on these modern times makes me think twice about any comment coming from YOU about design.
Out of all the corporate brand revivals and reimagines happening in the past few years... AT&T atleast held on to some history. Compared to other updates AT&T is great. The logotype is excellent and far better than all the intercase stuff flying around since the web 2.0 upheaval.
macona @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:15PM
OK, FWIW, AT&T internet is a completely separate entity from the mobile phone division.
Hung @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:19PM
Dear "Guy who doesn't get it:"
This is where I decided that you are not fit to argue any position, ever.
"...they are using the Death Star, from George Lucas’ Star Wars films, as their logo." -statement
"That logo is based on a logo created by Saul Bass one of the greatest designers in history. And frankly its a great update." -a serious response
Satire is used to underline follies, often by sarcastically and outrageously ridiculing subjects without even a hint of evidence to support any and all claims. "Not getting it" is common among social r-tards and wholly non-English speakers, who both possess legitimate reasons for "not getting it."
P.S. Lessons in "no-duh" economics: unnecessary. Lessons in choosing the right cell phone—*ahem*—to worship: probably.
P.P.S. I seriously do not believe you did not recognize the satire. Am I getting punk'd? I really hope I am.
Hung @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:20PM
Oops, I meant to make this a reply. Ignore it.
Jake @ Oct 2nd 2007 5:46PM
Meanwhile you have no clue how to work a comments section on a blog.... riiiight. I will take my lessons from people with a little more know-how.
Meanwhile no one has actually said anything about the bulk of my argument that disagrees with me. Just keep getting cheeky responses... how about some substance.
Is AT&T morally responsible to stop pedophiles from obtaining information and exposing them to the police?
Or because of your thinking that they are "big brother" and there is a conspiracy of "oh no every big company is out to get me!" they shouldn't monitor anyone?
Anyone?
Hung @ Oct 2nd 2007 9:59PM
Yeah, I guess I have to take a hit on that not-knowing-how-to-work-the-comments part. But you seriously still aren't "getting it," are you? No one, and I know this for a fact, ever felt that AT&T shouldn't be allowed to the basic rights of a private corporation. In fact, everyone already encourages them to uphold business ethics in all their business decisions. What everyone, except you, is talking about is that AT&T is not a fair business. Yes, you're right, this is not communist Russia and people are allowed to pick and choose their services. But to you I say: no, this is not communist Russia and people should not be censored for complaining about a big company.
If you leave learning only one thing it's this: no one is arguing this specific business decision from AT&T; they're just constructively (mostly satirically) criticizing the business itself. Seriously, you need to look up satire; I can't stress this enough. There is a reason people are ignoring your argument. It's not an argument.
"I made a CHOICE! Wow who thought we would have that! ... That is what makes FREE MARKET economies work." I seriously can't believe you said that. He closed with "Love and Kisses," for Goodness Sake! How can you think that Todd genuinely means what he writes. When you read this, I would like you to immediately go to Wikipedia and research "irony," specifically verbal, and "satire." I am no longer acknowledging the argument or your stance on it. If you do respond and continue your so-called agenda, I will instead call you several vulgar, though well-worded, profanities that can hardly be conceived. I can only pray that you are not really this oblivious to the stylings of Western civilization, and again, I can't believe it's gone this far.
Billy Beck @ Oct 2nd 2007 9:14PM
Quoth Engadget: "...the long and short of it is that the TOS stipulates that AT&T can and does reserve the right to disconnect any user's account if the telco believes said user is utilizing the connection to 'damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.'"
Hmm. As I read the AT&T TOS, it says: "or conduct that AT&T believes..." "...(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T,", etc. That's a lot more broad than "utilizing the connection". One would not require an AT%T connection in order to meet that stipulation.
Zeev @ Oct 10th 2007 8:58PM
Tha would have been the utimate "Denial of Service Attack" would't it?
mango @ Nov 9th 2007 5:18PM
Power to the people...