dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon, AT&T: We Don't Silence Criticism
Provision in customer AUP 'has never been invoked'

Over 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:

quote:
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:
quote:
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.

Most recommended from 36 comments



swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

2 recommendations

swhx7

Premium Member

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.