Verizon, AT&T: We Don't Silence CriticismProvision in customer AUP 'has never been invoked' ( old news - 10:35AM Tuesday Oct 02 2007) tags: legal · business · telco · AT&T DSL Service · Verizon Online DSLOver the weekend, AT&T received some heat for some fine print in their acceptable use policy. The policy states that AT&T reserves the right to terminate your services with the telco should you engage in activity that would "damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."AT&T tells us that the company's policy is not new, nor is not exclusive to AT&T: 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. Verizon also has a similar clause in their AUP, which states that you "may NOT use the Service as follows: ...(j) to damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties." According to the folks at Verizon, it has been in their AUP for nearly a decade, though it has never been used: We’re not aware that this provision has ever been invoked for any reason.
The provision is meant to cover clearly illegal acts that would include things such as impersonating Verizon to conduct phishing scams or to sell services using our name, or the intentional spreading inaccurate information that significantly harms Verizon.
If you browse any public forum such as Broadbandreports.com and others (including on our own PolicyBlog), it’s obvious that we do not disconnect the service of people who criticize us or our services. Of course, what Verizon considers "accurate information" could probably be a bone of contention, but it's pretty clear that neither company is using these AUP provisions to stifle legitimate criticism. That doesn't mean you aren't losing your rights due to AUP mouseprint on other fronts, but you should be able to get away with calling Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg names without having your DSL line disconnected.
Related:- AT&T Consolidating BellSouth Website, TOS
- Verizon Changes Their TOS Too
- Baby Bells To Get Surveillance Suit Immunity
- Effort To Scuttle Telecom Immunity Push Fails
- Verizon, Unions Reach Agreement
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
|
 |  | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: THEY Never Publish "Accurate Information"... "...damage the name or reputation of AT&T..."
"...damage the name or reputation of Verizon..."
I wonder if there is an exception clause for their crappy customer service. | |
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: THEY Never Publish "Accurate Information"... theres not enough time in the day to write about crappy customer service these days, and they know it. What works is the volume of complaints,and that my friends, is alive and well at BBR!
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset! | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs: | nice Nice little shout out to BBR 
Seriously, I think it's an overblown concern. Looks to me like a little CYA on their part, that's all. | |
| | kcblack
Premium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL | Never been invoked... ...Never been invoked....
I bet the NARAL people could tell a different story...at least until the press got ahold of the story 
Kevin | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Never been invoked... said by kcblack  :...Never been invoked.... I bet the NARAL people could tell a different story... How? NARAL wasn't criticizing Verizon.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Never been invoked... said by pnh102 :NARAL wasn't criticizing Verizon. No, but NARAL did try to use RICO to stifle their opposition...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | 
Greg Ohio
@bridgenetworks.net
| Re: Never been invoked... Sorry, they tried to use RICO to sue protesters who blockaded the clinics illegally. There was never any attempt to apply RICO to otherwise legal behavior. The Supreme Court did rule that RICO doesn't apply because anti-abortion groups are not mobsters. They did not rule that their actions are legal.
"There is no dispute that [the protesters] interfered with, disrupted, and in some instances completely deprived [women and clinic workers] of their property rights," writes Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the majority. "[The protesters'] counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients' conduct were criminal."
»www.csmonitor.com/2003/0227/p03s01-usju.html | |
| 
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
 ·Comcast
edit:
October 2nd, @03:35PM
| necessary? I understand their concern that such acts could be committed, and it's legitimate. Their explanation makes it sound like the presence of these clauses in the AUP is benign.
However. Aren't these acts already covered in criminal/civil law? Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal/civil offenses already. Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP? It seems unnecessary if that is their concern.
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
| | 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC
| Re: necessary? said by Sabre :...Aren't these acts already covered in criminal law? Impersonation, scamming, or "intentionally spreading inaccurate information" (i.e. slander/libel) are criminal offenses already. Do they really need to repeat this in the AUP? It seems unnecessary if that is their concern. I'm no law expert, but I imagine that the reason they feel it is necessary is because criminal punishments resulting from law violations would differ greatly from civil penalties incurred from a lawsuit brought by Verizon for breach of contract.
It basically gives them the tool to sue the pants off off offenders in addition to whatever criminal sanctions are imposed.
Remember OJ?
--
Praise be to my Cadillac | |
| | 
Nightshade
My political statement
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR | Slander and libel are civil offenses, not criminal offenses. The rest are criminal offenses however. | |
| | |
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Re: necessary? Oops. Thanks for the correction. Fixed. | |
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| power, not intent is the problem It doesn't matter that it hasn't been used. The fact that it's in there is the problem. The company could invoke it at any time.
Even if it said that it would be applied only in case of false statements or illegal behavior, it would be unacceptable because it would be seeking to substitute the ISP's own judgment in place of law. But there are no such limitations in the text.
I predicted this in an earlier thread about forced-arbitration clauses: I said that once corporations discover they can require consumers to give up access to the courts in order to purchase goods and services, and get away with it, they will expand the list to require customers to bargain away other basic human rights as well, including freedom of speech.
It would be too damaging to business for companies to start using these anti-criticism clauses today, but they will use these and more as soon as they get the opportunity. It will continue until we're all like medieval serfs, if we don't get laws to restrain this kind of abuse. | |
| 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
Levittown, PA | Free plug! Woot! Broadbandreports.com... (um, I thought it was dslreports.com)  | |
| | | garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| Re: Making a mountain out of a molehill When there is no news you have to manufacture it.
Put in plainer terms: You can't badmouth me in my own house. You can badmouth me in YOUR house as much as you want. You run around town telling people I am a child rapist, child molester or such to ruin my reputation and you will have to deal with me.
This is a "Life AUP"! | |
| | bladec59
join:2007-09-24
Alpharetta, GA
edit:
October 2nd, @01:00PM
| Amen, Brother!! | |
| | 
David
Last man standing
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| said by Nightfall :Only on BBR. The first time I read the passage on AT&T's AUP, I thought the same thing. They are merely protecting themselves from people trying to spread information on their behalf and claiming they are speaking on behalf of the company. Users criticizing the company in forums they aren't going to care about. Can you imagine the PR disaster that would happen if AT&T started chopping their broadband base off if a user posted something on a public forum that was critical of their service? That would be tantamount to disaster. Yet, some people here at BBR like to make a mountain out of a molehill. I just don't get it. I didn't get it either, and ironically it's been in there since the legacy SBC days. It was there when I started working on DSL in the year 2000 when I started SBC. So this was nothing new, and not shocking. That just gives you an idea on how old that statement is. The only thing it does is allows the company to protect itself from extremely negative content (hate speech, threats, etc). Ironically I have not heard anyone pulled for this reason in the contract alone. Neither have all my contacts so far. The only time I denied anyone service so far was due to two reasons most times.
-> Service didn't meet their needs
-> Too far for useable or reliable service
Trust me I would love nothing more to have sold some people a backup 192/128kbps plan but we don't have the pkg for it nor the price for it but to know it worked well for them while they had it made them more than happy. I was glad I was able to keep their line going till they found an alternative.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Nightfall :Yet, some people here at BBR like to make a mountain out of a molehill. I disagree. This type of behavior does need to be called out, as it keeps Companies (And Governments) on notice that people (at least sometimes) DO pay attention.... or when it's pointed out to them, at least, they do get pissed off.
Basically, it's standing on principle. Dismissing it as unimportant or no big deal reminds of that "I'm not a terrorist, so I don't care if the government monitors, logs, watches, records, and tracks me at every turn." argument.
I'd say you have to stand up for yourself on principle... even if they are not currently abusing their power, the fact that they reserve the right to do so at any time is wrong.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | hack4fun
pchelpers . lefora . com
Premium
join:2006-08-28
Taylors, SC
| said by Nightfall :Only on BBR. The first time I read the passage on AT&T's AUP, I thought the same thing. They are merely protecting themselves from people trying to spread information on their behalf and claiming they are speaking on behalf of the company. Users criticizing the company in forums they aren't going to care about. Can you imagine the PR disaster that would happen if AT&T started chopping their broadband base off if a user posted something on a public forum that was critical of their service? That would be tantamount to disaster. Yet, some people here at BBR like to make a mountain out of a molehill. I just don't get it. I know right? Read the disclaimer written by the lawyers on most anything today! It allows the company to do whatever they feel like whenever the feel like at anytime. However, I don't see the average Joe posting here saying OMG Verizon might cancel me cause I swore at them over the phone! | |
| 
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Why hello there. It's my house! And if you don't like it, get the f*ck out! | |
| | 
N3OGH
It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Re: Why hello there. LOL | |
| DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| Then why not just say "illegal"? "The provision is meant to cover clearly illegal acts that would include things such as impersonating Verizon to conduct phishing scams or to sell services using our name, or the intentional spreading inaccurate information that significantly harms Verizon."
So why don't they just add the word "illegal" to those clauses of the AUP? | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Then why not just say "illegal"? The presumption of innocence would prevent them from taking immediate action to protect their network. By not being so specific they only have to have a reasonable expectation that such an act is illegal. | |
| NightHawke
join:2002-02-28
Rockport, TX
| There is always a first time.. And the last time that clause gets used. They had better have a GOOD reason to execute it or they will get incinerated by the public and by the gov't.
Remember this note folks, businesses have NO extra rights outside of having the ones guaranteed to them by the laws of the land. Even if they claim they do, they don't! They are not above the law, and have to at least have a partial ear for their clients, or they will get burned. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Umm... look at the contract It doesn't matter what they've done or haven't done. It's what the contract says they can do. AT&T hasn't dropped customers complainants either. We're more worried about AT&T because of their past censorship and general attitude, but the issue is really about an unfair (as worded) clause in their contract.
Both companies should clarify the language to match what Verizon says it means. They can say whatever they want, it's the contract that matters. Their track record counts for something, but why not fix the contract to mean what they say? | |
| Asmodeus1
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | get rid of... fine print and these problems won't be hidden for so long... | |
| | | 
SkyBlue
join:2007-03-31
| Re: Here's your sign! said by megatron266 :Seems like this posting is not getting the same attention like the previous posting when this all started. I wonder what is going to be said now. Seems to me that some people jumped the gun a little too to early here LOL. I can almost hear "OHHH THAT IS WHAT THEY MEANT." LOL I go back to education people. Educate yourselves before you start to look like a donkey's behind. Good Day Oh so now ATT says we do have rights.
HMM..... | |
| | | 
ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC
 ·Vonage
| Re: Here's your sign! said by SkyBlue :said by megatron266 :Seems like this posting is not getting the same attention like the previous posting when this all started. I wonder what is going to be said now. Seems to me that some people jumped the gun a little too to early here LOL. I can almost hear "OHHH THAT IS WHAT THEY MEANT." LOL I go back to education people. Educate yourselves before you start to look like a donkey's behind. Good Day Oh so now ATT says we do have rights. HMM..... All they are doing is trying to suck more people into their NSA world.
They must think we all have short memories.
Yes, you have the right to criticize them and then they have the right to cut you off. | |
| | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
edit:
October 2nd, @11:00PM
| Re: Here's your sign! said by megatron266 :Seems like this posting is not getting the same attention like the previous posting when this all started. I wonder what is going to be said now. They're still back in the last one trying to figure out how they can make the word "Congress" mean "AT&T". It was a little rough there for a while but then I got the old "Prove that what I say exists doesn't exist" and all was well.
--
Mooooooo!!! | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Not good for business If I had problems with my service and felt that an ISP was not doing enough to fix the problem then I have a right to complain about the ISP. If I said not to get service from a ISP because of past bad experiences with that ISP then that is not damaging the reputation of the ISP if the statement is true.
AT&T censors so they don't have to let anyone know the problems they have and can just sweep them under the rug. Which in the end is not good for business. | |
| BuzzDar
join:2006-01-28
West Frankfort, IL | Complain about your wireless company i want anyone to come to mywirelessusers.com and complain to there company all they want get noticed. dont let a company like att silence you. | |
|
Yogibear227
@spcsdns.net
| After All we are only paying RENT on the networks.. We don't own anything except our modems or our routers or our Satellite Equipment.
Our "rights" aren't the same as the constitution in this media.
Might be time to get the Government to draw up a "constitution for the Internet".
They made laws for every where else... Space & the Seas.
International Law.
Why not Internet Laws ?
The time has come.
| |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
Here's your sign!