VERIZON, AT&T CAN CENSOR WEB USE

Verizon, AT&T broadband policies allow for censorship of unfriendly opinions
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday October 10, 2007

Companies insist they don't censor customers
Buried deep within the dense, legalistic agreements two of the country's largest telecommunications carriers force subscribers to accept are provisions that could allow the companies to cut access to subscribers who criticize them online.

Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus uncovered the little-noticed clauses in AT&T and Verizon's service contracts.

In a Wednesday column, Lazarus writes that the companies say they can terminate Internet access "for any behavior that AT&T or Verizon believes might harm its 'name or reputation,' or even the reputation of its business partners."

Both companies told the columnist that they have not enforced the policies, which critics view as an inappropriate corporate check on Americans' freedom of speech.

"Not being able to speak your mind about something is contrary to public policy," University of Wisconsin law professor Frank Tuerkheimer told the LA Times. But Tuerkheimer, a specialist in Internet-related issues, said such corporate blocks are not illegal because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.

more at:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Verizon_ATT_broadband_policies_allow_for_1010.html

Hell, the whole Bill of Rights should apply to people against corporate power if not state power.

... obtain entitlements that effectively insulate individuals acting under such a legal umbrella from liability, both financial and criminal. We've been transformed from a wannabe democracy to a de facto array of colonial fiefdoms - sharecroppers and slaves on corporate plantations.

Government has become subordinate to global corporatism, acting on behalf of such global privateers to enact and enforce, through force of arms and armies, a system of entitlements that treat individual human rights and associated liberties as expendable.

When ANY system of governance becomes almost solely oriented to establishing and empowering privilege, it has lost its moral legitimacy and deserves to be disassembled.

When you're paying for a service, it is not unusual to have conditions apply.

DU, LLC is a privately run message board. DU really doesn't even need a reason to ban a poster or delete a thread because DU, LLC owns the board and it is theirs to what they want. Telecoms, OTOH, are public utilities that are regulated.

You haven't demonstrated that the telecoms cannot do the same.

because they are publicly regulated utilities, IMHO, they cannot legally ban someone for posting something they don't like any more than they can ban someone for talking into a telephone about something they don't like.

I have a feeling, however, that it may be tested in court.

that is being able to carry voice and data across LATA (local access transport area) lines. The ability to do this legally is why the Baby Bells as they are composed now and even before were so hot to get into the long distance service market. They weren't going to make much money, if any selling LD for 10 cents a minute. But they make tons transporting data.

when SBC (now AT&T) first got into long distance in the late 90's they cratered the market with 10 cents a minute service. They didn't care as they were picking up access lines and subscribers, but also they could carry data as well and set things up to get into DSL as they did in late 1999.

My argument is that if they are regulated by the goverment, they cannot deny service based on speech they don't like as that is inherently unconstitutional because they need government approval for whatever they want to do. OTOH, cable tv companies aren't regulated and can pretty much do what they damn well please.

Being regulated goes back to the old monopoly days of the Bell System. Telephone service was considered a necessity just as is water and electricity and gas. Therefore, a monopoly was allowed and was strictly regulated. Telephone companies today (not IP telephony, btw) are still regulated.

In my neighborhood, Verizon owns and installed all the infrastructure to bring the internet to my home. All the fiber optic cable, telephone cables, etc. are owned by Verizon and I am paying a fee to them, a publicly-traded corporation. As per the terms of this business arrangement, I pay them $$ on service that they've placed terms on.

Verizon's version is called FIOS. Whether you still had a copper drop going to a network interface on the outside of your house, or the fiber to the premise you have now, Verizon, or AT&T would still own that part of the infrastructure as they always have. The major difference that occurred in 1984 is that subscribers were given the inside wiring in their homes. (So now you pay a fee for maintenance if you want, but that's another issue.)

Still, in essence, the only thing that has changed is that you now have fiber optics to your house rather than copper. It still carries dial tone, and it's still switched service, which is regulated, which is why I don't think they can abridge free speech.

There's discussions still about how the "last mile" to your house from the central office should be handled and whether or not and how it should be deregulated. One thing none of us want is deregulation or your basicly dealing with an entity no different than the cable TV company which was regulated under the telecommunications act of 1996 but quickly got theirselves out from under it a couple years later.

If they are scrutinizing people's content that use a service (like the phone, etc.), and try to control access to it based on the kind of content that's sent back and forth, then they no longer qualify as a "common carrier". Which means that they can then be sued for what gets sent back and forth.

Though the laws may have changed now with the Patriot Act, etc. from what used to be on the books, companies as common carriers can claim that the responsible for illegal content being sent back and forth between users of its service (whether it be the internet or the phone, etc.), is the users' responsibility and not theirs.

Therefore if they are going to try and control content that they feel damages them going back and forth then I believe that ALSO makes them directly responsible of other content that's deemed illegal (like obscenity and child pornography), and they can be held monetarily responsible for that too.

Perhaps they should be reminded of that, and every instance of child pornography found to have gone through their services should have them being a target of such lawsuits, until they cease and disist having such language about them being able to censor individuals' content for content that isn't kind to them.

There's no quid pro quo at DU. This is a 'club' not a service provider. And therein lies the big difference.

disparaging these companies in voice communications over regular POTS lines. Whether you're using DSL to post messages or speaking into the telephone, all communications are carried over regulated lines and through the companies' switching equipment. Therefore, in essence, free speech is abridged.

I would think one of the cable companies would have a better leg to stand on with their unregulated network.

away to these computer people. These are our airwaves and we can say whatever we want. Who comes up with this outrages nonsense.

:banghead: :argh:

I'd drop them in a heartbeat!:grr:

for DSL, phone, wireless phone, and sattelite TV. We've never had any problems with them and find their service very adequate for what we pay.

personal information with the Federal Government just because the Federal Government thinks you're a TERRORIST.....remember the Hollywood Blacklist? Your name could be put on a terrorist list JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT, PROGRESSIVE. If that doesn't bother you then so be it. It's your life, not mine. Me? I prefer keeping my Civil Liberties and my privacy, Thank You very much. And if you don't think they want this power for SINISTER REASONS...I have a bridge to sell you.:(

I better run and stock up on crosses and holy water. No, wait...that's for vampires.

Government agencies can look up cellphone records for your info no matter what service provider they are.

BTW, I have AT&T becuase sprint doesn't pick up where I work. So far, they've been great!

How long before revolutionary geeks put together a nice DIY Wi-Fi system that circumvents these restrictions?

The hardware and software is available to allow people to install Wi-Fi "hubs" and tie into a "homebuilt" network of users, similar to the old BBS. If we the people owned all the hardware and we the people maintained the software (open source) what would stop us from building out our own public network?

I miss his columns in the SF Chronicle :cry:

Our web access will be restricted and it should no longer be called the World Wide Web.