Recent Comment
Spotlight
Recent Comments
- J: " Big Hadoop! ..." [go]
- darmowe gry: " Nice article ..." [go]
- Tanie www Rzeszow: " Good job really :) ..." [go]
- Issyk-Kul Karakol: " Not sur eHOW to create Google AdsSense a ..." [go]
- Owen O'Malley: " To a web searcher, it doesn't mean that ..." [go]
- seo tips: " As a webmaster and SEO, I am curious to ..." [go]
- geri: " What does this mean to the web searcher? ..." [go]
- bill Furlong: " John You are spot on about UM-- as a Ch ..." [go]
- Aşk şiirleri: " Google allows free forms searches while ..." [go]
- Chris Parente: " At Mobile World Congress AT&T; claimed th ..." [go]
- Lorraine: " I'm currently trying to find a way to co ..." [go]
- çocuk oyunları: " It's a nice idea in many ways ..." [go]
- komik videolar: " thanks bebiss ..." [go]
- komik videolar: " tskler gülümm ..." [go]
- sohbet: " thanks canımm ..." [go]
- Indo Curry: " I feel the 50-times claim is a bit exage ..." [go]
PERFECT FOR THAT PERSON WITH EVERYTHING
Order 'The Search'
Yup, it makes the perfect gift for that officemate or colleague who you thought had everything....including you! If you order here, I promise to sign it, assuming we can figure out the shipping...
You can also buy the audio version here.
Check my book page for more info.
Blogger's Rights
Top Posts
- The Database of Intentions (or how this all got started)
- From Pull to Point(or the first post where I riff on the "Point-To Economy")
- Google As Builder (or the point at which Google stopped being simply a search engine)
- On Google v. Yahoo
- TV and Search Merge
- On Sell Side Advertising
- Battelle Gets Searchstreams
- Search and Immortality
- Toward the Endemic (on endemic advertising)
More coming soon...
Active Topics
- 24 comments: It's Not Fair, But Google, You Are A Media Company (01.30)
- 21 comments: Google Drops More Than 160 Points (01.22)
- 15 comments: Google Slams Microsoft (02.03)
- 13 comments: Google's Share Drops? Inescapable (02.12)
- 13 comments: I Disagree, Google (01.24)
Monthly Archives
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
About John Battelle
Searchblog Newsletter
Enter email to subscribe to "Re-Find", Searchblog's weekly newsletter:
Calendar
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
Syndicate
Powered by
September 30, 2007 10:43 AM
Customer Policy in the Age of Conversation
AT&T has a TOS for its customers which, implemented strictly, would be an indefensible limitation on freedom of speech (and would create a shitstorm for the company if enforced). I'm very interested to see how long it takes for AT&T to listen to the howling in the blogosphere, and revise that TOS. My take: Companies who don't listen, respond, and iterate are doomed to fail in the conversation economy.
The language:
5.1 Suspension/Termination. Your Service may be suspended or terminated if your payment is past due and such condition continues un-remedied for thirty (30) days. In addition, 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 (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
- Posted by John Battelle on September 30, 2007 10:43 AM
Comments
Irrespective of its customer base, AT&T;'s own conduct tends quite easily to damage the name or reputation of AT&T.; Two great examples include cozying up to the NSA as well as infuriating iPhone owners with its absurd rate policy and insistence (contrary to law) that iPhone owners be locked into AT&T;'s mediocre voice and data services. I for one plan to switch my iPhone service to T-Mobile within a few weeks because of AT&T;'s ongoing Evil Empire behavior. Isn't that why 25 years ago the courts broke up Ma Bell in the first place, for anticompetitive behavior?
This isn't anything new. A lot of companies do this. Take a look at every Microsoft EUL. IIS's EUL specifically says that you cannot use IIS to host information that is derogatory to Microsoft.
That is just their legal staff leaving no stone unturned.
How will AT&T; know who has defamed them? Most Bloggers or Journalists will not divulge their IPhone accounts publicly - so how will they be traced?
Perhaps in a rare extreme case, a high profile persistent controversial activist could get terminated - but 99.999% of the users have nothing to worry about.
You mention "indefensible limitation on freedom of speech." It might be worth noting that the US Bill or Rights protect us against the government limiting our speech. It doesn't protect us against each other, or in this case against a private company. So, it might not be a freedom of speech issue at all. AT&T; may have the right to draft and enforce their TOS as stated above, and we have the right not to do business with them.
I agree with Corey.
Yes, you are right. Though it most likely turns on whether or not ATT's underlying services are considered common carriage, no?
I learned what common carriers were today. Thank you!
It will be interesting to see on which side of the debate telecommunications will fall within definition of common carriers.
Leave a comment