Following our reporting last week, chronicling AT&T’s multiple material changes to their terms of service (and refusal to waive Early Termination Fees stemming from that), we have received a response from AT&T.
AT&T’s position is that the changes to their arbitration clause (which changes how customers can seek arbitration, and further limits their ability to sue AT&T), as well as their Acceptable Use Policy (which now limits the ability to share video and television streams over a device) are not material changes. The CTIA (and all carriers) have agreed to waive termination fees, should they make a material change to their terms of service.
Specifically, Mark Siegel, Director of AT&T Media Relations provided AT&T’s internal policy on what they consider to be a material change:
“Under (AT&T’s) terms of service, there are only two situations in which we would allow you to terminate your agreement because of a change in TOS without having to pay the ETF:Â
- If we increase the price of the service,
- Or if we materially decrease the geographical area in which your airtime rate applies.”
We have been unable to locate where this policy is communicated to customers… before, during, or after they sign their contract. Other carriers, such as Sprint, clearly state what limits they put on material changes in the written terms of the contract.
Mr. Siegel declined to comment on the impact of the FCC’s Comcast/BitTorrent ruling, which appears to state that AT&T (or any other service provider) cannot limit individual usages or protocols on their connection to the internet. If said ruling was applied directly to AT&T, it would render illegal AT&T’s new restrictions on what consumers can do with their internet service. The FCC has thus far avoided application of the new ruling to wireless providers. Advocacy groups such as the EFF, and PhoneNews.com, have begun advocating that the FCC begin uniform application of the Comcast/BitTorrent ruling.
PhoneNews.com will continue to work with AT&T, and begin working directly with the FCC to resolve this matter. If you do not agree with AT&T on this, the federal government requests that you file an FCC complaint online, a one page form that takes only a few minutes to complete.
Previously, when AT&T was providing various conflicting statements, we encouraged you to cancel in protest. Now, you’re going to have to decide what is best for you. It may take the FCC years to achieve a final resolution, so it’s up to you if you want to cancel and dispute the ETF charges. Keep in mind that if your account is in dispute, you won’t be able to sign back up with AT&T until it is resolved. We certainly encourage you to complain to AT&T if you don’t agree with these changes (and, this new policy that limits what a material change to the contract is).
Has AT&T actually blocked Orb, Slingbox, or other sources?
Jeff, to date AT&T has not implemented any technological blockades from either inbound nor outbound traffic on Orb, Slingbox, etc.
However, it has been confirmed that AT&T did insist that Slingbox for iPhone not be approved, at least initially. It is not completely clear if that demand has been withdrawn.
It’s also not clear if AT&T is planning to enforce these AUP changes with further technical restrictions (Sandvine-style interceptions, port blocks, etc), in the future.
This is really troubling. AT&T changes the rules, then changes the rules about changing the rules.
I’m cancelling service tomorrow. I will never pay the ETF. I’ll be happy to tell AT&T where they can take their illegal ETF. BBB and FCC complaints’ here I come!
Chris, you should contact the folks at http://www.savetheinternet.com about this. They are an organization dedicated to net neutrality. They have lobbyists in Washington, lawyers, and a network of activists already working on issues like this. They were opne of the main reasons Comcast got smacked down for their bit torrent blocking.
We’d love to advocate to everyone, everywhere, all the time. The best thing that we suggest, is that readers take the link to this story, and pass it around to anyone and everyone they think cares.
That’s what we say about every article, but certainly we understand if some articles are going to go farther across the web. We keep all the carriers honest, but doing that level of research means we don’t have the time for much else… especially when you see what’s in the hopper.
And we’ve got a lot of things in the hopper.
[…] According to this link you can only get out of your contract if they increase the price of the service, or if they materially decrease the geographical area in which your airtime rate applies. AT&T Clarifies Position on ETF & Material Changes, Argues Only Two Situations Allow Terminat… […]
Well I would like to dedicate this article to all the morons who said this site unfairly picked on Sprint. This is proof that this site calls it like it is, no matter which carrier happens to be screwing up.
Simple & unbiased!
That is why PCS Intel/Phonenews, is still my first daily Tech blog stop !
Thank You!
@F1 I concur… always loved t608info / sprintpcsinfo / pcsintel / phonenews.com
[…] there were two possible material changes which could be made to the terms of service. AT&T now says that it believes that there are only two possible changes to the Terms of Service, which they […]
[…] work thus far, AT&T has had to inform the FCC that they did not provide customers with their more-restrictive internal material change policy. They have also had to change their stance on the March terms changes from being a “non […]
[…] a material change that enables you to cancel service, sans termination fee. Well, Sprint read how we’ve been battling AT&T to get them to fess up and acknowledge their bad […]
[…] News We covered a lot last year. From standing up to illegal actions by AT&T, to making the Palm Pre free… PhoneNews.com was a consistent mover and shaker in the wireless […]
[…] the past how carriers like Sprint have been great at honoring this, and AT&T has (arguably*) broken the law by not honoring it. Since Kansas is taxing Verizon, and not Verizon customers… […]
[…] takes effect, to request that their service be cancelled entirely.Some other carriers have offered creative language as to what they consider to be material changes, we’ll continue to keep the carriers honest […]