do not speak bad about AT&T - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

squeeeb · 09-29-2007, 06:12 AM

i should be careful posting this, since i have AT&T cellphones...

according to the AT&T terms of service agreement here:

http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsout...tt.htm&leg=tos

para 5 5.1, "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 ....(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

i am sure they are somehow covering their butts on something, but doesn't this sound a bit...censorship-y to you?

Ustwo · 09-29-2007, 06:16 AM

I think censorship is a rather hard term for it.

Its more 'don't use our resources to damage our company.'

If this were say a sign company and they refused to print signs saying 'Sign Company sucks', it would be a bit more clear but the intent is the same.

Now if you want to get philosophical on who owns 'information' technology I'm too tired for that aspect

MSD · 09-29-2007, 06:46 AM

If you walked into an electronics store and started setting every screensaver on a computer to "This store sucks," would you really expect them to allow you to remain in the store? Try walking into Radio Shack and talking shit about the store on one of the display bullhorns (actually, as a former employee I can say that if no manager is in, most employees hate working there enough that they might let you continue.)

RenaissanceII · 09-29-2007, 08:30 AM

I do not have that problem....Where I live, I use the services of a competitor of
AT&T (Nee SBC, Nee Ameritech, Nee Michigan Bell)....

Cynthetiq · 09-29-2007, 10:27 AM

we won't tolerate that kind of behavior here, nor would you allow it in your own house. Doesn't seem like big of a deal if you hate AT&T beacause they suck the big donke...... >click<

Shauk · 09-29-2007, 11:04 AM

TFP SUCKS

like so?

Tophat665 · 09-29-2007, 11:43 AM

I think the issue is that AT&T is selling the ability to communicate. That said, I would have a reasonable expectation that they would not be able to limit the content of that communication except insofar as it were already limited (ie. If you use our phone to plot blowing up national monuments, we're going to cut you off.)

So yeah, kind of like Shauk said, but with the difference is that TFP is not functionally a public utility, nor has it ever been anything but Hal's house where he lets us write on the walls.

squeeeb · 09-29-2007, 11:50 AM

i guess another part of my question is...how would they know? are they listening? if i use my att cellphone to call a bunch of people and say "do not use att, they suck" would i get cut off? according to the TOS, i might.

so how would they know?

albania · 09-29-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

So yeah, kind of like Shauk said, but with the difference is that TFP is not functionally a public utility, nor has it ever been anything but Hal's house where he lets us write on the walls.

*albania steps out of walk-in closet*

Hal your elevator only goes to the basement and somebody left an awful mess down there.

orionnebula · 09-29-2007, 04:01 PM

I understand them to do that, it is probably more to protect themselves.
But with all usage the contract we sign everywhere (cable,satelite,internet,phone, cell phone)

How many close that we agree upon which are technically illegal.... I wonder

The_Jazz · 09-29-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i guess another part of my question is...how would they know? are they listening? if i use my att cellphone to call a bunch of people and say "do not use att, they suck" would i get cut off? according to the TOS, i might.

so how would they know?

That's really the rub of it, isn't it. For phones, I don't see how they can justify monitoring your calls. If they stumble across your blog, that is probably something different.

Plan9 · 09-29-2007, 04:28 PM

Aaah, this is okay... doesn't the iPod / iTunes EULA have something about not using your iPod product to design, create, or manufacture WMDs?

buu2 · 09-30-2007, 07:16 PM

Great. Now they are taking away freedom of speech. They just keep getting worse. And now they are bringing down apple's reputation with them.

The_Jazz · 10-01-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buu2

Great. Now they are taking away freedom of speech. They just keep getting worse. And now they are bringing down apple's reputation with them.

Heh. Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations have to allow you to say anything?

The First Amendment ONLY applies to governments, state, local or federal. No one else.

This is boilerplate language. It's interesting, I suppose, but it doesn't mean a damn thing until they try to enforce it. They could have put in language that required the customer to insert a carrot into their ass ever 3rd Thursday and sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" naked on their front lawn while balancing an egg on their head, but until they actually started trying to make people do it, it's a waste of ink.

Contractual law is all about what part of the wording is enforced. If no one bothers to enforce provisions of the contract, they become wastes of paper. And contractual law has as much to do with free speech as it does with voting rights.

Cynthetiq · 10-01-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Quote:

Originally Posted by buu2

Great. Now they are taking away freedom of speech. They just keep getting worse. And now they are bringing down apple's reputation with them.

Heh. Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations have to allow you to say anything?

The First Amendment ONLY applies to governments, state, local or federal. No one else.

This is boilerplate language. It's interesting, I suppose, but it doesn't mean a damn thing until they try to enforce it. They could have put in language that required the customer to insert a carrot into their ass ever 3rd Thursday and sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" naked on their front lawn while balancing an egg on their head, but until they actually started trying to make people do it, it's a waste of ink.

Contractual law is all about what part of the wording is enforced. If no one bothers to enforce provisions of the contract, they become wastes of paper. And contractual law has as much to do with free speech as it does with voting rights.

I thought exactly the same thing. It is amazing to me just how misinformed or ill-informed people are just about small fundamental things like this. I am allowed by my own rights to suppress your First Amendment and Second Amendment rights on my own property. To think otherwise is very ill informed and the very notion of LACK of freedom if I have allow YOUR rights to trump my own on my own property.

Ustwo · 10-01-2007, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I thought exactly the same thing. It is amazing to me just how misinformed or ill-informed people are just about small fundamental things like this. I am allowed by my own rights to suppress your First Amendment and Second Amendment rights on my own property. To think otherwise is very ill informed and the very notion of LACK of freedom if I have allow YOUR rights to trump my own on my own property.

Sadly I'm not surprised surprised anymore.

Its a product of the 'entitlement' generation.

Plan9 · 10-01-2007, 05:51 AM

You mean the Iggy Pop / "I Got A Right" generation?

flstf · 10-01-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I thought exactly the same thing. It is amazing to me just how misinformed or ill-informed people are just about small fundamental things like this. I am allowed by my own rights to suppress your First Amendment and Second Amendment rights on my own property. To think otherwise is very ill informed and the very notion of LACK of freedom if I have allow YOUR rights to trump my own on my own property.

I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from the controls already put on many businesses as to how they must operate. Can't pick who their customers are based on sex, race, nationality, etc.., must hire x percentage of minorities, must control profanity or risk charges of harassment. It's not too much of a stretch for people to assume they can critisize a business wthout getting kicked out or terminated.

RenaissanceII · 10-01-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The First Amendment ONLY applies to governments, state, local or federal. No one else.

This is boilerplate language. It's interesting, I suppose, but it doesn't mean a damn thing until they try to enforce it. They could have put in language that required the customer to insert a carrot into their ass ever 3rd Thursday and sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" naked on their front lawn while balancing an egg on their head, but until they actually started trying to make people do it, it's a waste of ink.

No, one will have to sing "Reach out and Touch Someone"

pig · 10-01-2007, 07:51 AM

i don't think that is what this clause is about at all squeeb: i don't think it's about you talking shit about at&t...i think that they are putting in a provision that states that if you are engaged in 'unsavory' practices...say, hosting a donkey porn site on www.donkeyinthebutt.att.com or something, they can deny you service. now, as jazz points out, whether or not it's enforceable or not is a different issue...but i think that's what they're out to prevent.

DumberThanPaint · 10-01-2007, 12:44 PM

So we've got the authoritarians who scream loudly that corporations have every right whatsoever because they are only doing what an ordinary person would do. Of course, they blithely ignore the fact that a) this isn't a person we're dealing with and b) contract law doesn't quite work that way.

Then we've got the libertarians who believe anything that chips away at their precious liberties is unconstitutional. Of course, this matter does not involve State action nor does it involve any of the 13th amendment violations that can nail private citizens.

What we've got here is a contract issue plain and simple. In a day to day contract, say I hire a contractor to paint my rooms. He does a shitty job on one of them. I say directly in his face or make a web page saying "contractor did a shitty job painting my room." Can he refuse to perform? Sure, but then he's in breach of contract.

So we've got a slick, multibillion dollar corporation that's wised up to the fact people like to complain about crappy service. So they stick a clause into the contract, called an "adhesion contract", because by its very nature its terms are not bargained for. You sign it or reject it, no ifs ands or buts. So I post a website "ATTreallysucks.com" and they cancel my service. Are they in breach too? Dunno. But the judge is going to look very carefully at that clause and determine (using special scrutiny) whether the term would be outside of the reasonable expectations of the purchaser.

The_Jazz · 10-01-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumberThanPaint

So we've got the authoritarians who scream loudly that corporations have every right whatsoever because they are only doing what an ordinary person would do. Of course, they blithely ignore the fact that a) this isn't a person we're dealing with and b) contract law doesn't quite work that way.

Are Cynthetiq and I the authoritarians here? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote:

What we've got here is a contract issue plain and simple. In a day to day contract, say I hire a contractor to paint my rooms. He does a shitty job on one of them. I say directly in his face or make a web page saying "contractor did a shitty job painting my room." Can he refuse to perform? Sure, but then he's in breach of contract.

Actually, he's not in breach of contract as described above. He's performed the job. Unless you've written a performance clause into the contract, which won't be there if you signed his, you may not have any cause of action unless he damaged your property, etc.

If, for instance, you asked for a change order that required him (Contractor X) to paint "Contractor X does bad work" on the outside of your house, and he didn't comply, I doubt you'd have any grounds for action either. And that's a part of what this is about.

Quote:

So we've got a slick, multibillion dollar corporation that's wised up to the fact people like to complain about crappy service. So they stick a clause into the contract, called an "adhesion contract", because by its very nature its terms are not bargained for. You sign it or reject it, no ifs ands or buts. So I post a website "ATTreallysucks.com" and they cancel my service. Are they in breach too? Dunno. But the judge is going to look very carefully at that clause and determine (using special scrutiny) whether the term would be outside of the reasonable expectations of the purchaser.

While that's true, it still has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. It's contract law, pure and simple. It all depends on the situation. If AT&T asks to cancel their service to provide you with internet to access your website abouve, then I don't know which way the judge would lean. It would be interesting. If they want to cancel your phone service for that website, I see that as a separate issue and doubt the cancellation could necessarily be upheld.

Ustwo · 10-01-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumberThanPaint

Then we've got the libertarians who believe anything that chips away at their precious liberties is unconstitutional. Of course, this matter does not involve State action nor does it involve any of the 13th amendment violations that can nail private citizens.
.

You have no idea what a libertarian is, do you

Cynthetiq · 10-01-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumberThanPaint

So we've got the authoritarians who scream loudly that corporations have every right whatsoever because they are only doing what an ordinary person would do. Of course, they blithely ignore the fact that a) this isn't a person we're dealing with and b) contract law doesn't quite work that way.

Really? You don't know that coprorations have almost all the same abilities and rights as a human being?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallbusiness.com

The law typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person); United States law recognises this as corporate personhood. Under such a doctrine, a corporation enjoys many of the rights and obligations of individual citizens, such as the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes, have certain constitutional rights, and otherwise participate in society. (Note that corporations do not possess all the rights appertaining to individuals: in most jurisdictions, for example, a corporation cannot vote.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumberThanPaint

Then we've got the libertarians who believe anything that chips away at their precious liberties is unconstitutional. Of course, this matter does not involve State action nor does it involve any of the 13th amendment violations that can nail private citizens.

What we've got here is a contract issue plain and simple. In a day to day contract, say I hire a contractor to paint my rooms. He does a shitty job on one of them. I say directly in his face or make a web page saying "contractor did a shitty job painting my room." Can he refuse to perform? Sure, but then he's in breach of contract.

Did versus Doing. I don't think you know the difference. You could easily post a page that stated he's DOING a crappy job, or DID a crappy job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DumberThanPaint

So we've got a slick, multibillion dollar corporation that's wised up to the fact people like to complain about crappy service. So they stick a clause into the contract, called an "adhesion contract", because by its very nature its terms are not bargained for. You sign it or reject it, no ifs ands or buts. So I post a website "ATTreallysucks.com" and they cancel my service. Are they in breach too? Dunno. But the judge is going to look very carefully at that clause and determine (using special scrutiny) whether the term would be outside of the reasonable expectations of the purchaser.

Seriously... No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service. Managment reserves the right to refuse service. Seems pretty simple if it isn't about being a protected class, and even then, it's not that easy since one has to PROVE they were discriminated against as a protected class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxNews.com

Sprint Nextel Corp (S), which recently launched an advertising campaign to attract new customers, is disconnecting more than 1,000 subscribers for calling its customer service lines too often and making what the company called unreasonable requests.

So you mean to say that contracts can't be revoke ever? Of course they can, easily and simply ALL the time. You just have to look at what the clauses and penalties are for terminating the contract.

DumberThanPaint · 10-03-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Are Cynthetiq and I the authoritarians here? I'm genuinely curious.

More like ustwo. You can predict what he'll say before he says it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Actually, he's not in breach of contract as described above. He's performed the job. Unless you've written a performance clause into the contract, which won't be there if you signed his, you may not have any cause of action unless he damaged your property, etc.

If he contracted to paint all the rooms and he stopped after he heard you complaining, he'd be in breach. Plain and simple. No clause required. I say to him come paint all my rooms, he agrees, oral contract. If he stops at any time before completion (in most cases), he's in breach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

While that's true, it still has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. It's contract law, pure and simple. It all depends on the situation. If AT&T asks to cancel their service to provide you with internet to access your website abouve, then I don't know which way the judge would lean. It would be interesting. If they want to cancel your phone service for that website, I see that as a separate issue and doubt the cancellation could necessarily be upheld.

I don't quite understand your example, but yes, it would probably be a case by case basis for ignoring the clause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Seriously... No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service. Managment reserves the right to refuse service. Seems pretty simple if it isn't about being a protected class, and even then, it's not that easy since one has to PROVE they were discriminated against as a protected class.

I see your point but I don't think its impact is as wide as you claim. While they may refuse to do business with you in the future, or they may refuse to accept you as a customer for what you've done before contracting with the party, they can't breach currently existing duties. Unless your activities (badmouthing) amount to a breach on contract, the other party has no right to withhold performance.
And protected class has nothing to do with this situation. That's a Constitutional issue, not a contract issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So you mean to say that contracts can't be revoke ever? Of course they can, easily and simply ALL the time. You just have to look at what the clauses and penalties are for terminating the contract.

I don't agree with you at all here. You seem to have your terminology confused. To revoke a contract requires assent of both parties. It makes the contract as if it doesn't exist anymore. That's not what would be happening here.
You can, however, BREACH a contract easily and simply all the time. While a company may spell out the damages in an adhesion contract, these may be limited by the courts as punitive damages (only liquidated damages or contract damages are allowed in a contract case, this is why you sue your doctor in malpractice not breach of contract). The damages don't have to be spelled out in a contract. You can go to court without a damage clause.
So say they terminated my account, the court found them in breach, what would I be entitled to? Probably the cost to get another ISP and any cost incidental to loss of connectivity. Unless they knew about my special needs and still agreed to provide me service, then they may be liable for more (expectation dmgs).

Another thing I don't understand: why aren't conservatives more pissed off about this? This represents a fundamental breakdown in the attractive myths that customer service is of the utmost importance. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right?" Whatever happened to finding out what the customer's problems are and solving them? Hey I'm not saying the companies should bow down to outright fraud, but how about addressing legitimate customer concerns that have been offshored to some foreign company that doesn't have the power to do a damn thing to fix the problem.

For example: when I buy a Sprint Phone from Radioshack Wireless, I don't expect to have to call an Inphonic call center 3 times before they authorize shipping, 2 times to find out why they haven't delivered my phone when promised, then get bounced between Sprint, Radioshack, and Inphonic over a month to get my phone repaired, when they promise on several occasions to replace my phone then keep telling me they are out of stock. (It's still not here. The shipping ordeal lasted 3 weeks, the repair ordeal has lasted 5 weeks and counting).
It's hard to get my dollar to vote when I'm locked into a 2 year contract and my phone will only work with Sprint networks. Where's the service?

09-29-2007, 06:12 AM	#1 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	do not speak bad about AT&T i should be careful posting this, since i have AT&T cellphones... according to the AT&T terms of service agreement here: http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsout...tt.htm&leg=tos para 5 5.1, "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 ....(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries. i am sure they are somehow covering their butts on something, but doesn't this sound a bit...censorship-y to you? __________________ onward to mayhem!

09-29-2007, 06:16 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think censorship is a rather hard term for it. Its more 'don't use our resources to damage our company.' If this were say a sign company and they refused to print signs saying 'Sign Company sucks', it would be a bit more clear but the intent is the same. Now if you want to get philosophical on who owns 'information' technology I'm too tired for that aspect __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-29-2007, 08:30 AM	#4 (permalink)
RenaissanceII Psycho Location: Grand Rapids	I do not have that problem....Where I live, I use the services of a competitor of AT&T (Nee SBC, Nee Ameritech, Nee Michigan Bell).... __________________ *And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.* Anais Nin I Wish *You* Well.

09-29-2007, 10:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	we won't tolerate that kind of behavior here, nor would you allow it in your own house. Doesn't seem like big of a deal if you hate AT&T beacause they suck the big donke...... >click< __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-29-2007, 11:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	I think the issue is that AT&T is selling the ability to communicate. That said, I would have a reasonable expectation that they would not be able to limit the content of that communication except insofar as it were already limited (ie. If you use our phone to plot blowing up national monuments, we're going to cut you off.) So yeah, kind of like Shauk said, but with the difference is that TFP is not functionally a public utility, nor has it ever been anything but Hal's house where he lets us write on the walls. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

09-29-2007, 06:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If you walked into an electronics store and started setting every screensaver on a computer to "This store sucks," would you really expect them to allow you to remain in the store? Try walking into Radio Shack and talking shit about the store on one of the display bullhorns (actually, as a former employee I can say that if no manager is in, most employees hate working there enough that they might let you continue.)

09-29-2007, 11:04 AM	#6 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	TFP SUCKS like so?

09-29-2007, 11:50 AM	#8 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	i guess another part of my question is...how would they know? are they listening? if i use my att cellphone to call a bunch of people and say "do not use att, they suck" would i get cut off? according to the TOS, i might. so how would they know? __________________ onward to mayhem!

09-29-2007, 04:01 PM	#10 (permalink)
orionnebula Tilted	I understand them to do that, it is probably more to protect themselves. But with all usage the contract we sign everywhere (cable,satelite,internet,phone, cell phone) How many close that we agree upon which are technically illegal.... I wonder

09-29-2007, 04:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Aaah, this is okay... doesn't the iPod / iTunes EULA have something about not using your iPod product to design, create, or manufacture WMDs? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-30-2007, 07:16 PM	#13 (permalink)
buu2 Upright	Great. Now they are taking away freedom of speech. They just keep getting worse. And now they are bringing down apple's reputation with them.

10-01-2007, 05:51 AM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	You mean the Iggy Pop / "I Got A Right" generation? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-01-2007, 07:51 AM	#20 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i don't think that is what this clause is about at all squeeb: i don't think it's about you talking shit about at&t...i think that they are putting in a provision that states that if you are engaged in 'unsavory' practices...say, hosting a donkey porn site on www.donkeyinthebutt.att.com or something, they can deny you service. now, as jazz points out, whether or not it's enforceable or not is a different issue...but i think that's what they're out to prevent. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

10-01-2007, 12:44 PM	#21 (permalink)
DumberThanPaint Upright	So we've got the authoritarians who scream loudly that corporations have every right whatsoever because they are only doing what an ordinary person would do. Of course, they blithely ignore the fact that a) this isn't a person we're dealing with and b) contract law doesn't quite work that way. Then we've got the libertarians who believe anything that chips away at their precious liberties is unconstitutional. Of course, this matter does not involve State action nor does it involve any of the 13th amendment violations that can nail private citizens. What we've got here is a contract issue plain and simple. In a day to day contract, say I hire a contractor to paint my rooms. He does a shitty job on one of them. I say directly in his face or make a web page saying "contractor did a shitty job painting my room." Can he refuse to perform? Sure, but then he's in breach of contract. So we've got a slick, multibillion dollar corporation that's wised up to the fact people like to complain about crappy service. So they stick a clause into the contract, called an "adhesion contract", because by its very nature its terms are not bargained for. You sign it or reject it, no ifs ands or buts. So I post a website "ATTreallysucks.com" and they cancel my service. Are they in breach too? Dunno. But the judge is going to look very carefully at that clause and determine (using special scrutiny) whether the term would be outside of the reasonable expectations of the purchaser.