I Do Believe I Smell a PR Campaign

/in /by

AT&T wants something from you. They want immunity from prosecution for breaking existing laws on customer privacy. They want more bandwidth. They want to eliminate net neutrality. They may well want to suck up another company or two, to return to the good old days of MaBell. They want to be the exclusive provider to iPhone customers. And these are all just the issues on the front burner.

Thing is, we’re beginning to catch onto their plans. It has not escaped our notice that AT&T has been planting its allies in all corners of the Federal government just in time to make policy decisions that will make AT&T rich!

Which is why, I suspect, that AT&T has launched into PR mode. They responded somewhat expeditiously when the tech sites noticed that their Terms of Service prevented you from saying anything mean about them.

T&T has altered the language in its reviled TOS to say it thinks it’s okay for people to speak their mind. Really, they hard-wired thatinto the legalese:

AT&T respects freedom of expression and believes it is afoundation of our free society to express differing points of view.AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because ofthe views you or we express on public policy matters, political issuesor political campaigns.

That’s very sweet of them to say. Really. Though, we’re skeptical ofhow well, "But it says right here, they respect the freedom ofexpression as a foundation of a free society!" would hold up in court…

Thenew language doesn’t seem to fully constitute the "make[ing] clear thatwe do not terminate service because a customer expresses their opinionabout AT&T" they promised last week. The term "Public policy"always refers to government actions. We don’t see where it explicitlysays AT&T will not terminate your contract if you criticize aspectsof AT&T’s service.

And apparently, they dubbed last week customer service week, with posters and daily slogans and the like (a little birdy sent me this).

I hope you will all take advantage of the opportunity created by National Customer Service Week to spend a few minutes thinking about why service excellence is so crucial to our success and the role you play every day in making it happen. Thanks for all you do every day to remind our customers that at AT&T, The Customer Rules!

Next time you’re fighting with AT&T about your bill, just remember, the Customer Rules!

We’re going to win these fights as much on the PR fight as we will in Congress. So remember–not matter whether you rule or not, AT&T is still aiming to get immunity for violating your privacy and to make it harder for you to surf the web.

image_print
  1. William Ockham says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but very significant. Documents released from Nacchio’s trial make it very clear that the warrantless wiretapping started before 9/11. Nacchio told them no in a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001. The documents are available here:

    http://www.rockymountainnews.c…..66,00.html

  2. chrisc says:

    AT&T service sucks. They can’t disconnect me because I already switched to a different provider. They say they want me back. They keep sending offers if I will switch back. These offers come with postage paid return envelopes which my spouse feels should have a purpose in life, and , so…well, I won’t go into it. What made us terminate service was what happened when I called to complain about the 4 days I was without basic phone service. I wanted to record my conversation with the AT&T rep. The rep told me he would hang up if I tried and that he could tell if I was taping the conversation. It is OK for them to record my call, but I could not record them or have access to the tape.
    That was it. We have no regrets.

  3. On the Clock says:

    Yeah, William, that’s a stunning article in the Rocky. They sure as hell aren’t leading with it.

    Stuff like this makes your head spin –

    â€Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

    â€The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

    â€The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.

    â€USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio’s attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn’t think the NSA program had legal standing.

    â€In the documents, Nacchio also asserts Qwest was in line to build a $2 billion private government network called GovNet and do other government business, including a network between the U.S. and South America.

    *** The documents maintain that Nacchio met with top government officials, including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2000 and early 2001 to discuss how to protect the government’s communications network. *** â€

  4. Hep Meout says:

    So do the comments above indicate that the telcos are demanding blanket immunity because not all of them acquiesced to Federal demands that they break the law? Did Qwest suffer damages because it refused to break the law? Does the government owe Qwest damages? Is this where the government, the bought-and-paid-for members of Congress, and the compromised-but-still-standing telcos find their common interest?

  5. sojourner says:

    I have a relatively minor issue that I have been wanting to discuss with AT&T but have been putting it off because of the last experience and time wasted trying to a) find a telephone number to call; b) go through countless â€trees†trying to find the right button to push to get a customer service person on the line; c) waiting on hold for a lengthy time; and then, d) when I was referred to another office or group after speaking to an agent, waiting on hold for another long period or going through other calling trees.

    I have often wondered what would happen if legislation was enacted that would require companies to provide the means to talk to a real person as a first level option. Maybe we would enjoy a lot less frustration…

    In the meantime, I detest AT&T — and I think it is almost evil the way it has reassembled itself and turned back into the behemoth it was before it was broken up. Just the fact that it has that provision in its contract that allows it to censor content critical of it tells me a lot. No, they probably do not use it (much), but who knows? Chances are, any email directed to a regulatory site is monitored because people are complaining so much about poor service…

  6. Teaeopy says:

    I hope there is no way for AT&T to force its disclosure-friendly personal privacy and activity monitoring positions upon phone/ISP companies that contract to use AT&T pipes.

  7. Anonymous says:

    sorta OT – if anyone wants to take a look at at representative holt’s FISA bill (the one the ACLU likes, but appears stuck in committee), i got a copy and posted it here for down load (the text isn’t in thomas yet).

    please download and share widely (i don’t give a rat’s ass about links).