AT&T retracts new terms of service, apologizes

Looks like the uproar over AT&T's recently-tweaked wireless terms of service banning video streaming and p2p activity caused some hasty rethinking in Dallas -- the company just sent us this statement:

The language added on March 30 to AT&T's wireless data service Terms and Conditions was done in error. It was brought to our attention and we have since removed it. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Well, that settles that, at least for now -- high fives all around, Internet friends.

[munir @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:12PM]

score 1 for the little guy

[pito189 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:39PM]

Score 1 for now but this just let's us know they are thinking about it enough to right up terms for it. Which is quite lame.

[Steve Miller @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:54PM]

i still say get friggin lasers....

[neodorian @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:01PM]

Yeah score one for the little guy getting his phone tapped by NSAT&T. I won't do business with these assholes and it has little to do with their shitty prices, network, or terms. It's all about the treason, baby.

http://www.eff.org/nsa/faq#37

[DirtyVegas @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:40PM]

"in error" as in we erred in assuming how big of douches we could be.

[Shank @ Apr 3rd 2009 10:23PM]

130,000 att employees going on strike Saturday night in 22 states!!!!!!

[Sebastian @ Apr 3rd 2009 10:27PM]

For now yes. But I have absolutely no hope for the future: They will just try it again when not as many people are watching.

Why can't Internet provider just do what they should do? Provide us the Internet access, don't 'traffic shape', 'filter', 'deep packed inspect', 'censor' or 'spy' on us. It shouldn't be that hard should it?

[Mobile Phone Diva @ Apr 4th 2009 12:05AM]

Sebastian, they can't effectively try again, otherwise they have to ban lots of apps people use from the App Store and risk pissing off iPhone users. Not only that but many of their TV phones stream video, although likely through only their servers. They also allow streaming radio apps in their branded ROMs. Their own apps violate their new "terms of service".

Someone else mentioned that there may even have been a problem with Google Maps due to that telemetry device part. I don't know if that's true or not, but you do have to start questioning what kind of data IS allowed under those new terms. Those terms said they would mainly allow only surfing, email and download of "legal" media(meaning their crap or stuff from iTunes likely), but that seriously limits the usage of a device you paid for that has data. Those restrictions were just out of hand!!

[Mobile Phone Diva @ Apr 4th 2009 12:45AM]

I did just realized they could rewrite the terms to exclude all their and Apple approved apps, but ban all others. We'll see. Keep an eye on them.

[Ryujin @ Apr 4th 2009 3:27PM]

they didn't change anything.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/plan-terms.jsp

This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans(unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/PDA-to computer accessories, Bluetooth® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose

[dimension7623 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:12PM]

Oh wow?

[Nathan @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:13PM]

lol error

[Temo @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:34PM]

Error my rear.

They just wanted money... They couldn't handle the amount of people droping there contracts or reducing there plans to Minutes and Texting.

[alexmueller @ Apr 3rd 2009 10:45PM]

Loosely translated thousands of angry customers did not like our new terms so it is therefore an error. I mean who accidentally adds a few paragraphs to a terms of service?

[BigD145 @ Apr 3rd 2009 11:16PM]

There are no errors in contracts. They can spend years hammering them out to their liking.

[kizmet86 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:12PM]

lol internet friends? lame

[Hector Ibarra @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:13PM]

*high fives imaginary friend sitting next to me because i dont have any real friends because I read engadget*

[bandigolo @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:29PM]

You do not lack friends because you read Engadget. You read Engadget because you lack friends.

[Cheetah @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:18PM]

Well I read engadget and I have friends and I give them high fives as well as you guys lol. We will win AT&T.

[Luigi193 @ Apr 3rd 2009 8:46PM]

My imaginary friend left me because I read Engadget too much...

[HektikLyfe @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:13PM]

What uproar? E-mails? Would they really cave or was it honestly a mistake I wonder.

[Brad @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:23PM]

Might've had something to do with the anti-competitive practices investigation by the FCC...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/162593/fcc_asked_to_investigate_skype_for_iphone_restriction.html

Maybe they decided this wasn't the best moment to run around trying to limit what you can do with an internet connection MORE, just because it comes through a cellphone rather than a wireline.

[Pencreus @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:13PM]

Yeah Boy! Burn.... feel the nerd wrath!

[Shawn @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:14PM]

The are no accidents in policy changes

[munir @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:18PM]

seriously. "done in error"?? yeah right

[grabbydad @ Apr 3rd 2009 10:09PM]

They push, we shove, they cave......WTF! Seriously.....can a company just do something because it's good for their customers? I can't stand these crappy policy changes to then just turn around and retract their policies because of customer outrage. *cough*, FaceBook, *cough*. We pay you f-ers for services (or look at ads).....just give us what we want, your making enough $$$$$$. SHIT!

[Juaquin @ Apr 4th 2009 1:58AM]

Exactly. Like something as vital as a TOS for a major carrier just gets changed without the approval of a dozen people. BS excuse. Just say "Our bad. We're listening to our customers and we've decided to reinstate the previous TOS"

[chrismo2001 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:16PM]

niiiice

[MS @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:16PM]

... and this weekend someone who used to work for A&T is looking for a new job...

[weems @ Apr 3rd 2009 11:20PM]

weird... i just left at&t last month, and im looking at jobs....

STALKER!!!

[Hawkman @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:16PM]

How do you do that "in error", apparently without knowing it?

Also: I keep getting sodding cookie errors and having to trash my Engadget cookies before I can view the page. Using Safari 4, but no problems with TUAW...?

[Sizer @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:18PM]

Oh yeah, totally sorry about how (those terms/my hand/my wang) ended up in your (contract/pocket/vagina). I don't know how that could have happened. Just an oversight, I assure you. Won't happen again!

[Hawkman @ Apr 3rd 2009 9:23PM]

Dude, get your wang out of my contract RIGHT NOW

[Madison @ Apr 4th 2009 12:11AM]

WIN!

[Mike @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:19PM]

whew - *wipe away sweat bead*

[Carrie @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:20PM]

Wow! How cool is that? Now if only TWC come out and say that their metered test in Austin, San Antonio, Rochester & Greensboro was a big April Fool's Day prank all would be right with the world...

[Temo @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:36PM]

True true true... I hope you are RIGHT...

[rjspanish @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:20PM]

PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THIS.................Customer initiated will/should not mean using an app approved by apple in the app store. It isn't "customer initiated" it is using a company approved app the way it was meant too. "Customer initiated" would be something that you streamed from a website in the mpeg4/h.264 format. Am I the only one that sees it this way? YouTube, Orb, Pandora ..........none of these will be banned and were not violating the new (now old) TOS. My two cents.

[zephxiii @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:20PM]

PEOPLE FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!! FIGHT THE POWER!!!!

[Ryujin @ Apr 4th 2009 3:19PM]

I say we just pick something else reasonable they have on their TOS and threaten to leave.

Consumer Tyranny FTW!

[Amun @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:21PM]

Now if we can just get them to admit they made a similar error where it says we must pay $0.25 per text message.

[Waveblade @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:22PM]

It's plain robbery

[Josh @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:22PM]

....maybe they fear the pending contract renewals from millions of iphone users??

[acme @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:24PM]

someone just got fired....

[Ethan @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:25PM]

The stupid thing is, the PR fallout will probably be bigger from this than the actual TOS.

[RF9 @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:28PM]

Done in error my ***! At least they've relented.
This goes to show how arbitrary so many of those ToS rules are. They're added just because someone in a conference room decides it's a good idea to cover their butts with excessive rules that they have no intention of enforcing and for actions they know that people are going to do anyway (and they're OK with it.)
It's all just CYA

I think the fear of congress going after them for excessive use limits has them thinking twice.

[bandigolo @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:31PM]

*done in error of judgment

[chris @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:30PM]

i wish sling would learn how to fix a customer relations fiasco like this

[WiiTodd @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:55PM]

My thoughts exactly. I just canceled my DISH today... the whole Sling event has gotten me soooo angry.

[Givemelove @ Apr 3rd 2009 7:33PM]

Pfiuuu, that was really close!