Never trust anything not in writing.

Lame.

The image is so insane...it is making my brain bleed.

As they said on BoingBoing, don't believe anything unless they put it in writing.

Exactly, they promise not to do it, until they do it, then they'll say "you shoulda read your contract". F them, they can keep their ten dollar cheap-ass internet service.

Fuck AT&T. Get cable internet + proxy. xD

@ViperBorg:

Ugh, but then I'd have to deal with Comcast. :-(

AT&T DSL is a POS. I've had it since it wa

If AT&T terminated everybody that criticize the company, they wouln't be in business today.

dear at&t,

you are monoplositic piece of shit. you couldn't care about anything, but raping anyone and everyone for a nickel. please, please cancel me for talking shit about your cunt pump company... ah fuck, that's right i forgot, i canceled your shit service quite some time ago and will never, ever, ever use your service if it's the last one on earth. best of luck on being the big piece of shit you are.

enjoy your time in hell,

royal72

I don't have AT&T, but I do love all these Vader posts.

<.<
>.>
... AT&T,
... you suck.

Unfortunately, At&T are the same assholes that helped the NSA hook up to unwarranted wiretaps of any phone they felt like listening to.
I don't trust them past the first letter of the alphabet.

And it makes no sense. A pedo hosting a site with nakkid Olsen twins (what have you) wouldn't damage AT&T's rep. Ever.

For instance, anyone remember any ISP that hosted any pedo site? Of course not. Since they all yank them down as soon as they discover them, as they should.

More likely, it sounds like they got caught, chose the most likely boogyman excuse (For The CHILDREN!!), hoping no one would notice it makes no sense.

Too bad we're smarter than dumb AT&T PR guys.

AT&T's claim that they won't abuse their censorship clause while keeping the text of the clause as it is really is part of a strategy regarding how service and retail contracts are written.

The general idea is to write a contract that explicitly gives powers to the provider of the service or the goods while a the same time the provider verbally agrees that the clause won't apply to the client. Another closely associated technique is to keep the language of a clause vague enough so that application of the clause depends solely on the whim of the provider. Comcast is a good example of that second technique: their ToS is written so vaguely that if they really wanted to, they could deny service to someone who uses email to provide a service. (The language of the ToS mentions nothing about bandwidth so it does not matter if the user sends 10 mails a week or 100,000 mails a day.)

The common factor in both cases is that the provider has given itself powers it can apply very arbitrarily. As long as they like you, they'll keep you as a customer but as soon as you do something disadvantageous to them, you're screwed.