US Telco Support > AT&T > AT&T Midwest > WARNING: AT&T will cut off your Internet connection if...

WARNING: AT&T will cut off your Internet connection if...

quote:

---

AT&T has brought down new Terms of Service for its network customers. From now on, AT&T can terminate your connection for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." So AT&T customers aren't allowed to write/podcast/vlog critical things about AT&T, its billing-practices, or its cooperation with illegal NSA wiretapping, on pain of having their connections disconnected.

---

Good question. I don't see how they are going to enforce this though. Your trampling on freedom of speech rights. Slander though is a different situation.

reply to XBL2009
I doubt they would cut you off for criticism.

My guess is that they want the ability to cut you off if you set up a kiddie-porn site on your DSL line.

reply to XBL2009
Agreed.

The text doesn't say comments. It says conduct. So a site hosted on an AT&T IP address featuring dog fights, kiddie porn, etc, hosted on an AT&T line? I've got no problems with them shutting something like that down.

Here's a perfect example. As a member of this forum, I happen to find your subject and your assumption of a yellow journalistic mentality. You're jumping to a conclusion that you can't back up with anything better than "Well... they would if they could!"

I'm going to give you a perfect example of ability to modify content. As a moderator, I have the ability to alter your subject line to more appropriately reflect the truth. I often weigh my dislike for doing that against my responsibility to see that people who scan the subjects or who don't read a message entirely aren't misinformed.

I should alter it for that very reason, but given your position and attitude, I also have to deal with the possibility that you'd just accuse me of being a fanboy on AT&T's dole, which isn't the case. I walk the line between AT&T's occasional corporate BS and the all-too-often end-user over-reactions. I just want people to know and see the truth.

What I'd really like is for you to see that there's a difference between conduct and comments, and edit your first message so that the subject and message more appropriately reflect the facts.

Sure, AT&T would LIKE to be able to shut down any negative comments about them. Most corporations would. Luckily, we still live in a country where that's usually heavily frowned upon, so something better sometimes happen. Valid customer complaints and criticism get addressed.

It's been my goal, and that of all of the other mods here before me, to make this forum more than just "My ISP sucks". The attitude here has been "Here are the problems. Let's fix them".

I don't have a problem with the that particular TOS wording. Given a chance to rethink it, do you?

I don't think it is quite that simple.

In the end what matters is AT&T's interpretation of the legal term "conduct."

If they choose to interpret negative comments as "conduct," they can do so until a court tells them they can't.

That said, other than secret eavesdropping at the Bush administration's request, AT&T has not been particularly obnoxious about this sort of thing in the past. My guess is that you are correct, but that doesn't mean that AT&T won't cut someone off for making negative comments. If they do, it would probably end up in court, and it would be likely that the courts would rule in favor of the 1st amendment.

My point is that there are many illegal clauses put into contracts and TOS statements all the time. For example, many standard leases state that the lessor (landlord) has the right to evict the lessee five days after the delivery of a "Five Day Notice;" this is illegal and cannot be done - a court hearing must be held and the lessee has a further 30 days to meet the terms of the contract (lease) - but the leases still have that clause in them.

IMO, the term "conduct," as opposed to illegal activity is overly broad and can mean anything AT&T decides it means until a court defines it for them, or (more likely) there is already precedent that defines this sort of thing.

Is that bad? Yes. Is it uncommon? No. It pretty much goes under what you called "occasional corporate BS."

So it is worth pointing out, and even pointing out that the term "conduct" could be interpreted to include negative comments, but that doesn't mean that AT&T interprets it that way, or that the courts will, if it ever gets to that point.

Hey, over at Comcrap they cut folks off for downloading too much stuff, and then deny they have caps - an ISP can do pretty much anything it wants to until (again) the courts define what the contract allows them to do or not do.

Finally, regarding the 1st amendment, and whether an ISP is a "common carrier" there is lots of wiggle-room on both sides.

Example: AT&T cannot be held libel for hosting a dog fighting website any more than the mailman can be arrested for delivering illegal materials to an addressee, but it certainly can be considered "negative conduct" that hurts AT&T. And as you point out, that is very different from someone ranting about AT&T in this forum.

But that doesn't mean that someone at AT&T wont see it as the same thing. Look at the Verizon/NARAL situation of a couple of days ago. Verizon didn't have to not carry the text messages, they said they weren't because they didn't have to because the contract talks about "controversial content." Of course they backtracked quickly, but they did try to police content that was not illegal but (according to Verizon) "controversial" and therefore in violation of their TOS. So it does happen.

A newspaper does not have to print any old letter to the editor that it receives - that isn't suppressing free speech. But can a newspaper cut off a subscription to a person who sends them an obnoxious letter? I don't know. I doubt it.

There are a lot of gray areas out there. Nothing wrong with bringing it up and discussing it.

--
Illegitimati non carborundum

reply to XBL2009
Since this thread is liable to continue, I thought it might be helpful to have the section of the TOS that the OP seems focused on to view rather than merely referred to:

5.1 Suspension/Termination. Your Service may be suspended or terminated if your payment is past due and such condition continues un-remedied for thirty (30) days. In addition, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries. Termination or suspension by AT&T of Service also constitutes termination or suspension (as applicable) of your license to use any Software. AT&T may also terminate or suspend your Service if you provide false or inaccurate information that is required for the provision of Service or is necessary to allow AT&T to bill you for Service.

reply to nwrickert
I agree with your first point, that's what occurred with the Verizon/NARAL situation, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way - I am talking about what is legal and possible, not what makes good business sense - they are not the same thing.

Are you sure AT&T would not have to wait till they get a court order? I was under the impression that that can cut the pornographer off and he is the one who needs the court order to get back on.

And I wasn't advocating for a change in the TOS to "illegal activity" or something of that nature - I was just pointing out that this stuff is extremely ambiguous and that after only fifteen years of this stuff the law is just beginning to tackle what the ISP and the customer may or may not do under the constitution.

As the Grouch points out, the illegal activity clause is already in there and yes, they can cut you off without a court order. So this has been added as a catch-all CYA deal by AT&T. it won't matter until someone challenges it, which may or may not ever happen.
--
Illegitimati non carborundum

reply to Old_Grouch
So they already include illegal activities, nonpayment (DOH!) AND "conduct that tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

As you say, probably just typical corporate CYA stuff for AT&T.

It's still pretty ambiguous, especially because by implication it doesn't mean any of the financial or illegal stuff mentioned in the earlier clauses, otherwise they wouldn't have added it.

My guess is that it'll stay ambiguous unless/until someone who gets cut off under that clause sues and the courts have to define what it means.

Again, my only worry would be around political speech which is protected by the first amendment.

We will see as time moves on. The clause might exist ofr 20 years before there is a test case, or there may never be one at all.
--
Illegitimati non carborundum

Right - but anyone can sue for anything so if they use the clause to cut someone off they are running that risk - all the other stuff is covered by the other clauses in the TOS.

I guess it is sort of like that line in all job descriptions: "and other duties as necessary." They can go on and on with very specific job duties and obligations, but if it is deemed necessary, the boss can make you shovel the shit and wash the dishes!
--
Illegitimati non carborundum

reply to jsinaiko
Nonpayment isn't illegal, it would be a cival matter not a criminal matter!

And your point is?

Read the post - they are two separate clauses. Nobody said non-payment was illegal and anyhow, how is that relevant to the discussion?
--
Illegitimati non carborundum

In the end, they can cut you off for any or no reason if they really wanted to. What you gonna do? Sue AT&T, go through years of litigation and spend 10s of thousands just to maybe get your $20 a month DSL back?

Of course it is not in their best interest to do so.... but they could do it if they really wanted to.
--
It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990)

reply to jsinaiko

Is there a lawyer in the house?

I'm not sure what the distinction is - the way a landlord (and this is Illinois, it may be different elsewhere) can initiate an eviction is to file an application to evict in housing court - the five-day notice is just BS. It certainly is, as you write unenforceable, but to attempt to enforce it is illegal.

Anyhow, in the case we are discussing, as a previous poster pointed out, the ISP can disconnect you at any time for just about any reason and it is up to you to take them to court or whatever the relevant adjudicating body is to try and get their disconnect order voided.
--
Illegitimati non carborundum

reply to XBL2009

More reality....

28.2 Governing Law. This Agreement and the Service shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York, without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions. If any provision or provisions hereof shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be in any way affected or impaired thereby.

28.5 Assignment. We can assign all or part of our rights or duties under this Agreement without notifying you. If we do that, we have no further obligations to you. You may not assign this Agreement or the Services without prior written consent.

28.6 Separability. If any part of this Agreement is found invalid, the rest of the Agreement will remain valid and enforceable.

reply to jsinaiko

Re: WARNING: AT&T will cut off your Internet connection if...

reply to Old_Grouch

Re: More reality....