Wonderful, ATT ( nee SBC ) admits tracking net usage and taking action on their discoveries. This said, they have publicly said net neutrality does Not exist in their domain.
1) We can now hold them responsible for libelous posts through their service
2) Child Porn on their service can now be said to be there With their consent
3) DRM downloads may now subject ATT as a co-conspirator
4) 5) 6) ...
Lawyers this is invitation, enjoy yourselves !!!

If you do not agree to the terms and conditions in the Agreement, do not register for or use the Service and return all equipment, software and associated materials to AT&T. By completing the registration and using the Service, you signify your agreement with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the AT&T Acceptable Use Policy.

What part of that don't you people understand?
If you don't agree with it, don't get the service, simple!

It's not quite that simple when the company in question has rebuilt it's monopoly and may people have no choice in carrier.

Making derogatory comments and "Freedom Of Speech"

In the National Basketball Association, if a player or coach makes derogatory comments in public about the referees after a game, (exercising their constitutional right to "free speech") that player or coach will be punished by the NBA with a fine and/or suspension.

If you work for someone other than yourself, and you choose to use your right to "free speech" by publicly calling your boss an a s s h o l e, you'll probably be fired in short order.

If your friend invites you to his family's Thanksgiving dinner, and after they say "grace" and give thanks by reading a passage from The Bible, you take advantage of your right to "freedom of speech" by expressing your strong atheist feelings, you probably will not be invited again, and could even be asked to leave right there and then. (Or they might exercise THEIR right and try to convert you.)

In each of the above scenarios, nobody has made any attempt whatsoever in any way, shape or form to impede your right to "free speech"; however having spoken, the speaker must now be willing to accept responsibility for the repercussions of their
words and for the other persons' right to disagree and choose not to hear what you have to say anymore.

Excellent points.

Your analogies do not apply to this article.

On the other hand, if AT&T provided free DSL to people as a courtesy, then the people using the free service cannot bite the hand that feeds it.

If AT&T paid a wage to people to use the DSL, then those persons would be considered as employees and companies are not obligated to pay money for detractors.

If AT&T is receiving payment for a service and the service is a tool for communications and for free speech that is protected under law, then AT&T simply needs to bite the bullet if it hears unfavorable comments about itself. Time to make lemonade.

If AT&T did alter it's service agreement as this article suggests, then AT&T has a duty to inform it's customer of the change rather than concealing the facts about it. Sooner or later such information will get exposure in the Free Press and only adds to the issue at hand.

Frankly, AT&T is a company so large and powerful, I seriously doubt that detractors have any impact on it's operation and expansion. Whomever decided to include a statemet about "detractors" in the service agreement may have "belittled" themselves and their own company.

http://wordnet.princeton.../perl/webwn?s=detractor

Silly just plain silly. But also if you're attacking it so much then why do you HAVE the service in the first place?

Freedom of speech anyone? Always been a nasty organisation, AT&T - heavily involved in the CIA backed overthrow of DEMOCRATIC Chile.

*laughs*

Another one who thinks the 1st Amendment applies to the private sector. Sorry.

Just incredible...

This is an example of the power of BigBusiness.

BigBusiness are self contained governments and practice absolute rule within thier organization.

In this particular case, this BigBusiness may believe that it has the same authority over its customers as it has with it's employees.

If this company has a concern with customers who are "excercising" their free speech and as a result brings due (or undue) attention to the business, then it needs to take the complaint to a "Court of Law" before violating the "Constitutional Rights" of its customer base.

If this article is "true/accurate" then this company needs to take action against it's employee(s) that modified the service agreement in a manner that appears to violate the rights bestowed to its customer by the government.

Hopefully, this company can use the critism to make improvements. Unfortunately, they may be in denial or oblivious or simply unconcerned.

"Eliminating the competition is American but eliminating opposing views is not."

Maybe the FCC can shed some light upon this controversy before the ACLU does.

Hey, I wonder if I'd get on AT&T's forums and scream about their lousy cell service they'd cancel my contract?

Well, I guess everyone that is working in their complaint department will be laid off now.

I think that AT&T's competition has a few smiles for this service agreement.

Well now you all know why AT&T's logo looks like the deathstar :)

What should happen is AT&T should pay a heavy price for doing something so anti-democratic, it's customers should been banning together telling AT&T in one very loud voice what they think by canceling their subscriptions/services etc.
That would wake up AT&T and force them to change their attitude, very quickly.
Unfortunately I think all that will happen is a lot of people will complain and that's about it, nothing a good pr firm can't handle.

What about lawsuits, maybe I could see that happening, especially if they make good on their threats.

Man AT&T will be busy suspending accounts lol

And I want to look at the good side, since I don't see one I'll polish the dull side :) Here goes. At least AT&T is not like the borg :)

I find your lack of faith in our service disturbing.... *deathgrip*

Darth Vader sleeps with a teddy wookie, how bad can he be :)

So... anyone want Net Neutrality yet?

As long as there are options available that aren't this stupid-- no.

Besides, this will backlash against AT&T and they'll change their policy.

Sounds like their TOS is a contract of adhesion. If they ever get taken to court, the clause could be turned on it's head (recently the Second Life TOS was deemed a contract of adhesion).

Wow At&T is China now? interesting. Free speech be dammed, talk badly about us or our affiliates service or company policies we kill your service regardless of contract.

Well I suppose its a little better then China. At least At&T does not give you a bill for the bullet in the head to your family. Or will they? hummmm...

Personally I feel the violation is more associated with the 4th amendment then the 1st as been prior mentions the 1st does not apply to companies. but the 4th certainly does to every American Citizen, Corporation, and other such entities.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place, to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Can you spell class action lawsuit?

???

Maybe I'm missing something: How does search and seizure relate at all to suspension of service?

Thank you for pointing out that the 1st doesn't apply. That first paragraph had me worried there for a bit.

Does anyone know if there is any specifics given as to "where" the detractions are published? Are they looking only on their own forums and hosted web sites or are they scouring the web and trolling the packets?

Lol... You know what's really sad? The fact that they even needed to consider something like this. They must know people really hate them.

You know what is ironic......there has to be some employees that also use their service and think it stinks as well.

I am picturing their boardroom like that commercial with all the monkeys. There is one guy working and the monkeys are throwing things, making prank calls....etc. It goes to show you that they are not in touch with their customers, services, and their future.

Sounds like a good company to avoid doing business with, but then, they always were.

LOL

Um, at&t... WTF?

For many years I hated AT&T, because I never liked their way of doing business. They have high rates and very poor customer service.
Now they proved that they su*k big time.
I have held up from saying this to them, but I can't hold it anymore.
F*CK you AT&T, and go to H*LL.
I hate you with all my heart.

I was mad because my iPhone with ATT keeps dropping while I drive down the road and ATT canceled my account!!! They better refund me for the iPhone I can't use on another network!!

OK, I call BS. Your situation sounds way too conveniently anti-AT&T.

1. The terms say "suspend" not cancel.

2. These terms are for DSL - not cellular service.

Oops - guess you missed that.

How gullible do you think people on the Internet are? Wait, don't answer that.

Ok your right.. Wait didn't M$ have something in it's Frontpage acceptance and had to remove it pretty quick. (You can not make anti-m$ web pages with frontpage??)

Someday congress will be pro-consumer? (Na.. companies have too much money to pay them off)

Pro Consumer != Pro idiot.

Sorry, inability to accept terms of use does not constitute a right to abuse said terms. If you disagree with them don't use them.

As for your example, anyone using FrontPage to create Anti-MS websites(or any website, for that matter) needs some serious mental help.

As for your example, anyone using FrontPage to create Anti-MS websites(or any website, for that matter) needs some serious mental help.

Nevermind...missed your statement in parenthesis...so true!

Heh...would have loved to have seen to original response. :p But then again, I'm a glutton for punishment.

I didn't have a problem with AT&T until I heard about this... and I was considering switching from Comcast to their new naked DSL offering here in the southeast... oh well screw AT&T.

I see www.attsucks.com no longer exist also.

Because Comcast has never been known for randomly shutting off service for "content abuse"...

I hope AT&T doesn't buy Dish Network as has been rumored. Cuzz I hate AT&T. They can rot in he** for all I care. I'll switch to DirecTV.

Um... AT&T... ever hear of a little document called the Constitution?

Our own president apparently doesn't know what that is, so how can you expect them to?

They probably have but, have you? There is nowhere in that hallow document that forbids this. This is the problem with people that assume the 1st Amendment applies without any consequence. The Constitution plainly states: the federal legislature shall make no laws that infringe the freedom of speech. I must have missed that lecture in my Constitutional History class about what branch of the government is AT&T part of. Now the courts have interpreted this more broadly but not to the extent you are implying by your comment.

In fact, you can yell all you want, about anything you want but doesn't mean they have to have you as an employee or keep you as a customer. In any case of free speech they don't have the right to stop your actions (save for the "clear and present danger" doctrine) neither is the right without consequence.

This all being said, I personally think this a very bad move by AT&T and will result in lost customers and possibly their ability to expand into more markets.

That's alright though. The liberal congress has also decided it ignore it as well. Apparently the division of powers (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) was simply too much of a roadblock for them.

WOW...

Exhibit A: average uneducated U.S. Citizen.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

No, No - It's in there. Right under the part about free health care.

Wow, toolie's a repub, but yet he won't fight in Dubya's war/s. Can you say 'chickenhawk'? C'mon toolie, tell us why you won't fight for your country. Girls like you and Jenna and Barbara truly believe what you say, don't you? Are you also writing a children's book on how to get drunk and fall down and fail up?

Amendment 1: ****CONGRESS**** shall...

Yeah, says nothing about AT&T...

They must have added that in the Clinton 2.0 draft...

He won't fight in Bush's war? How do you know? You think the military doesn't have Internet access? Or do you not realize that PC_Tool is possibly older than early 20's?

I'm 28, but I'd sign up in a heartbeat if my country needed me.

You are by far the biggest prick I've ever encountered online. Congratulations, dumba**.

Fourth time you've asked without bothering to check back for an answer.

This raises the question of why you ask if you apparently aren't the least bit interested in the answer.

I've got a few guesses, mostly revolving around your maturity level and what you hope to accomplish by implying that I am hypocritical in my views and my actions.

Bite me. I've answered it once already, if you *really* want to know the answer, do a search. Otherwise, F-off, jackass.

Not that you'll read this one either. You're becoming famous for your 'Hit and Run' trolls.

*laughs*

free health care

Ain't spin grand? :p

I smell lawsuit right around the corner. Service providers should not be in the bussiness of censorship of any kind.

How is it censorship? Don't get me wrong: I think this move is retarded. But they're not censoring anything. They're just denying service.

You can (and probably will - exceedingly) still say anything you want about AT&T on another service, the Web, e-mail, or in a face-to-face conversation with anyone.

Well, the more funny thing is...How are they going to monitor it? Read your e-mail, listen in on your phone calls, hire peope to sit in coffe shops with a list of customer names.

I think that burden of proof for them will be exceedingly difficult in that when they are taken to court(let's say a business) and the business can document how the loss of the service has hurt revenues and they(AT&T) state that they read an email, overheard a conversation, or might have an employee taddle on you.

I can hear it now that things will be taken out of context, or chaulked up to hear-say - were is the legal prescendent that they are going to stand on? What will stick in a court of law?

Censorship is perfectly legal unless it is done by the government.

Hopefully Crapcast.net doesn't follow suit.

AT&T sucks.

BAM! Suspended account. =p

Home internet connections will always have problems. It is so difficult and troublesome to get that service to the "last mile" (customers home) that only a few will be able to do it and they get to be AHoles about it. I'm glad i don't have a consumer grade connection at my house, however most don't have a choice but to get dsl or cable. Pick the lesser of the 2 evils i suppose.

Careful, respond to this negatively and you may find your DSL suspended.

Service with a snear.

The new AT&T: you still get the cattle prod, but we have dropped the vaseline.

Didn't Sprint do the same thing not too long ago?

I switched from Comcast to AT&T DSL a while ago. Other than a few short periods of no service, they have been rock solid.

"Thank you for calling Customer Disservice.

This call may be monitored for damage to the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

How can we trouble you today?"

then don't call.

Or better: don't be a customer. Show them how stupid they are by hitting them where it really hurts: their customer base.

*boop* *bipp* *beep*

"We're sorry. Your account has been suspended due to breach of contract. Please hang up, and go **** yourself."

*LOL*

Customers may find the move somewhat troubling, especially considering the telecom's involvement in the warrantless wiretapping scandal that rocked the Bush adminstration in 2005.

I knew it...here comes another anti-Bush thread...

Why can't society be more pro-solution rather than anti-problem?

I find it much more interesting that the company will suspend the accounts of customers who complain, rather than try to resolve the problems.

Especially since the paying customers are the one's who should have a RIGHT to complain - they are paying for the service after all.

I wonder just how many other companies (telecoms industry or otherwise) will start including such terms and conditions?

Sort of illuminates in floodlights their attitude towards their customers.

As for Bush - what do you expect? Everything that donut does is wrong. The less said about him, the better. Just remember who voted him in. Twice.

The Bush comment is entirely valid, the truth is now companies can apparently suspend service if you disagree with them politically.

Which party or politician doesn't matter, but if a company does something political (ie. go along with illegal wiretapping, or give into China?) you can't disagree, apparently any where, with them or your service goes ... its corporate political blackmail.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

49% didn't as I recall.

quote: "As for Bush - what do you expect? Everything that donut does is wrong. The less said about him, the better. Just remember who voted him in. Twice."

What, you feel Gore & Kerry are not political Mickey Mice / wouldn't've screwed up 10X worse? Please.

I find so disconcerting that, w/ the exception of Reagan, we've kept winding up with such lousy candidates election after election...for over a ½ century.

That's why we have this awesome thing in the U.S. called "choice." Don't like what Company A is doing? Switch to Company B. If everyone expressed their concern this way, Company A wouldn't exist anymore. Problem solved.

ROFL...

So I take it, you haven't bought any green credits this year, have you?

LOL

I actually favor them, stem cell research, gambling... among other things... believe it or not.

Because nobody with an anti-Bush agenda **HAS** a solution, because they're too busy running their mouths without an understanding of what's at stake.

Whoa! You mean to tell me that this groovy little thing called capitalism works to MY advantage?! Far out!

"As for Bush... just remember who voted him in. Twice."

Uhh, that would be a majority of the American people. Now you can call Americans dumb all you want, but if you do, don't let any immigration officials kick your a** on the way out...

Global warming is a hoax... the media finally caught on to the global cooling scare, so they decided to change their tune, lol.

What exactly would prevent Company B from using the same logic as the Company A? I mean, its not like AT&T is doing this and assuming its NOT going to gain something from it.

Your way of thinking is simply too narrow minded, period.

You might have just solved all our problems including world scale food problem. Just give them food, problem solved!

It's not that the candidates suck so badly, it's just that Reagan was that friggen good! :) By comparison to Reagan, everyone sucks.

Ummmm, I'd check that "majority" thing, especially the first time.

They're too busy praising Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

You know, whether it's true or not is kinda moot-- yes it could be a cyclical climatological or standard mathematical statistical deviation...

BUT, it certainly won't hurt to try and lessen that impact AND/OR to prepare for contingencies / worst possible case scenarios... whether for higher ocean levels / prolonged El Niños / Katrinas, Atlantic sunamis, the Big Earthquake(not only in West, but already-occurred in MidWest & East in the past)...

It don't hurt to look both ways before crossing the street-- even on a One-Way-Only...

Okie Dokie... but name just "ONE other single Prez post- WWII" worthy of 'Great' consideration....

My main hope now is not just that we get someone competent, but who will help roll back the present trend towards non-sensical & draconian bureaucracy + eroding of the Constitution... someone who will not target groups of law-abiding Americans 'whose only major sin is thinking outside the bun'.
We are sliding so ever closer and closer to mirroring the Soviet Union that Reagan helped break up.
It's poignant that Reagan was so pilloried for being square & out of touch with the times / common person... yet when we look at each / all successors ever since...

I'm going to be controversial and suggest Clinton was.

At least, from the UK he looked very, very good.