AT&T Makes New TOS Clear As Mud
AT&T Recently revised their Terms of Service (TOS) for their DSL broadband service to include a clause which more or less seems put there to let AT&T disconnect a user who they believe is using their broadband access to "damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."
Obviously this has been interpreted by many to mean 'if I go on a forum and badmouth AT&T for poor service, they'll disconnect me', and that'd certainly seem to be a potential civil rights violation in the making. So what does AT&T have to say about this?
"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. This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T."
We have to call 'em like we see 'em and say that it seems quite suspect that any company would put such a thing in writing, especially given the easily 'misinterpreted' meaning and the serious legal implications that spring of such a misunderstanding.
What's your take? Did AT&T just word this in a strange way and then try to get away with it, or are they just out and out fibbing after trying to be too authoritative with their customers? Would you sign such a contract?
Obviously this has been interpreted by many to mean 'if I go on a forum and badmouth AT&T for poor service, they'll disconnect me', and that'd certainly seem to be a potential civil rights violation in the making. So what does AT&T have to say about this?
"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. This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T."
We have to call 'em like we see 'em and say that it seems quite suspect that any company would put such a thing in writing, especially given the easily 'misinterpreted' meaning and the serious legal implications that spring of such a misunderstanding.
What's your take? Did AT&T just word this in a strange way and then try to get away with it, or are they just out and out fibbing after trying to be too authoritative with their customers? Would you sign such a contract?
