at&t can cancel service if you criticize them and they don't like it

[sendpaulmailat]

This was posted on slashdot.org:

"AT&T's new Terms of Service give AT&T the right to suspend your account and all service "for conduct that AT&T believes"..."(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." After cooperating with the government's violations of privacy and liberties, I guess AT&T wants their fair share. AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service.

Link: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/29/104252.shtml

EDIT: Okay, I've seen the Terms of Service and it looks like it is just for DSL accounts, which is a bit different, especially if we're talking about a users' web page, but if I were AT&T's lawyer, I could see putting this in their wireless Terms of Service, too. The more tools you can give a client to protect itself, the better it is to threaten customers, even though the client might never want to use it because of the adverse publicity.

[SymbianBlack]

This was posted on slashdot.org:

"AT&T's new Terms of Service give AT&T the right to suspend your account and all service "for conduct that AT&T believes"..."(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." After cooperating with the government's violations of privacy and liberties, I guess AT&T wants their fair share. AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service.

Link: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/29/104252.shtml

well.... goodbye to costumer always being right!!!! Either you eat it or leave it!

[plane]

I don't know what they had in mind, but in my small business, if a customer comes in and acts like an idiot or worse, we ask them to leave. And I tell my employee's they don't have to take crap from someone being as such. I would guess this is att's out if someone say might come into a store and really acts like a jerk, this might occur.

[Shadowless127]

This is a stupid way to word this. IMO, they already state in their TOS that they can at anytime w/o notice terminate your sevice w/o reason. Why you would put that so blunt is beyond me.

As time passes it seems that AT&T is the Nazi of the cell phone industry

[Bentai]

The customer is *never* always right.

[dartworth]

very sad...

[scaredpoet]

What's sad about it? They're a business, not a welfare state. They can choose not to give you service if they so please.

Sprint has certainly made that clear in the past.

[FerneyZan]

WoW,, that is new.. But if someone is having that much carp with ATT, he/she should not mind it that much getting canceled by ATT, and then they can go to another company where they can fill more at home..

[klurfdawg23]

What's sad about it? They're a business, not a welfare state. They can choose not to give you service if they so please.

Sprint has certainly made that clear in the past.

yeh but Sprint's situation is quite different. Thats a violation of terms and conditions of something physical like your minutes and roaming.

This was just an arbitrary terms and conditions add-on, a ridiculous one at that. I personally believe, from studying law, this violates the Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment. You can't regulate/penalize speech because you dont like what the person has to say. I understand what theyre going for here, theres a regulation of "hate speech" in the 1st Amendment which is "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." But i dont see where their basis is besides defamation of character which is really bull anyways and an abuse of the constitution

People go on TV everyday saying how Bush sucks, but they arent getting kicked out of the country or punished, but ATT intends to apply the same principle but boot people from their service? I understnad theyre a private service but wow cmon lets not go to the extreme now.

id be really surprised if someone doesnt challenge this in court.

[walkguru]

Wirelessly posted (Walkguru's: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1716; en; U; ssr))

The customer is *never* always right.

not any more it seams.

[RYOBI]

My motto is;

If any company treats me like an idiot, or talks down to me, they're gonna get a wheelbarrow full back. Now, if they're idiots, just not to me, hey, that's ok, because most, not all, are.

[mulveyr]

yeh but Sprint's situation is quite different. Thats a violation of terms and conditions of something physical like your minutes and roaming.

This was just an arbitrary terms and conditions add-on, a ridiculous one at that. I personally believe, from studying law, this violates the Constitution, particularly the 1st Amendment. You can't regulate/penalize speech because you dont like what the person has to say. I understand what theyre going for here, theres a regulation of "hate speech" in the 1st Amendment which is "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." But i dont see where their basis is besides defamation of character which is really bull anyways and an abuse of the constitution

People go on TV everyday saying how Bush sucks, but they arent getting kicked out of the country or punished, but ATT intends to apply the same principle but boot people from their service? I understnad theyre a private service but wow cmon lets not go to the extreme now.

id be really surprised if someone doesnt challenge this in court.

I hope that when you say you were "studying law", that doesn't mean you wanted to be a lawyer, since you have absolutely no idea what the First Amendment actually says.

<pedant>
The First Amendment says that *the government* cannot penalize you for speaking your mind. Obviously that has been clarified an modified over the years - the ever-popular "You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre" being the most common example.

It does *NOT* say that a private citizen or corporation can't tell you to shut up, or that the corporation has to let you use their own resources to complain about or defame them. It's their equipment, and they get to decide how it's used. If you don't like their policies, you're free to use another business whose rules you like better. They can tell you to go to hell if they like, for any reason you like, and there's nothing that can - or should - prevent them from doing so. They have the freedom to do what they want with their system, just as you undoubtedly want the freedom to do whatever you want with *your* stuff.

</pedant>


- Rich

[zephxiii]

Wirelessly posted (V3XX or E62: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

What's sad about it? They're a business, not a welfare state. They can choose not to give you service if they so please.

Sprint has certainly made that clear in the past.

Because there are some things ATT needs to be criticized about, and we should Be able to speak out about it with the hope for change, not cancelation. Only to make a company we prefer better.

[veriztd]

Wirelessly posted (V3XX or E62: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)



Because there are some things ATT needs to be criticized about, and we should Be able to speak out about it with the hope for change, not cancelation. Only to make a company we prefer better.

The term is "slander" and is not looked favorably by courts (not that At&t would likely prosecute a consumer in court).

[CA]

For me, I don't read my bills, but I follow the changes in carrier terms and have posted some of them like roaming and arbitration, witch as some of you know, came to life as nastygrams and shortly government intervention. They indeed spend a lot of time and money on them so this may be another or new debacle.

I take it to mean that they are declaring that cellular is still a sellers market! Arrogance.