What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
310 Comments
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -18/+327Another reason to Support Net Neutrality!
- kc8yds, on 10/10/2007, -5/+243I HATE at&t
*waits for my internet to disconnect & my iPhone to iBrick* - shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -7/+147Another reason to switch phone and internet companies.
- OUChevelleSS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+93Maybe they should learn to stop sucking and their customers won't have to 'tarnish' their name.
- shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+74Here's another reason to drop your at&t service - http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1158
» EXCLUSIVE: AT&T CEO’s political donations to net neutrality opponents | IP Telephony, VoIP, Broadband | ZDNet.com - antdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+72If you can that is...
- DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+64I'd just like to say, on behalf of millions of AT&T customers who work crap jobs so they can pay their phone/internet/cell phone bill:
Go ***** yourself. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+64Lol at&t will keep you from talking about the nsa and the ***** service they provide, you will use it and like it says the terms of service.
- knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -1/+55AT&T: FU.
- shaun3000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51I'll jump on that bandwagon: AT&T sucks ass and I can't WAIT for their ass to get handed to them in the first lawsuit.
- Jennyd6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51Yet another company that insists on driving away customers. Whatever happened to trying to KEEP customers?
- DCMacHead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+47This is an appalling development! I smell a precedent setting lawsuit on the horizon.
- JamesWilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+46In a lot of areas, you cannot switch. There is no viable alternate.
- asforme, on 10/10/2007, -5/+42We don't need net neutrality, we need the elimination of the localized telecommunication monopolies. Competition can fix the problem much more efficiently than government.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/10/2007, -2/+39Yeah, unfortunately, ATT's ToS is meaningless in the face of the law. And I'm pretty sure consumer laws protect you against this sort of nonsense.
- Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37You say that like people have a choice.
- Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37I worked as a customer service rep for them about a year and a half ago. They sent out company-wide e-mails railing against net nutrality and urging all employees to fight against it.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32they scraped the wagon and started a steamtrain
- shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -4/+35Do you understand what "net neutrality" means?
- iSlayer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31WHY! WHY did Apple make a deal with the devil!!! WHY!!!!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27more of a cruise ship now
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31This won't work. If they DID enforce it, they'd be bankrupt in under 30 days flat as they would have maybe 4 customers left. You'll note that it also includes:
parent companies
affiliates
subsidiaries
They've got their hands in so many things, it would be near impossible to write an email longer than 3 sentences without 'tending to damage' a reputation, let alone a blog entry or a forum post.
What will likely happen is that they'll start with a dozen people, one of who's story will make it to Digg, and within 30 days, the policy will be reversed. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25A floating city at this point.
- lorean, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24WTF?
AT&T is learning business strategy from the Chinese government. - toxicshok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24It isn't a free market, the government restricts who can build in what area, those there can be localized monopolies, thus net neutrality would be a government fix to a government problem, thus no regulation at all would fix the problem. It would allow for fully free markets, and thus ***** would never happen
- HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25AT&T: First we giveth, then we taketh away.
- DarKnyht, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Since I have yet to be notified that I am under these new terms of service, let me voice my opinion before I cannot. AT&T sucks balls. They misled the consumer and government as Bellsouth, AT&T, and Southwestern Bell. We were supposed to have fiber to our door, instead we can get a crappy ADSL that can barely get to 3 MB if you are lucky enough to be in the range of their equipment.
Cingular, AT&T mobile (I've had both in my lifetime), and now the new AT&T cell service also sucks. The least dropped call commercials is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. I can drive down the road and accurately predict when my call will be dropped. Plus half of the time one side of the call or the other has to tolerate an echo of everything they say.
As for AT&T Business (formally Bellsouth), their service again sucks. It took me two months to get them to understand that I did not have service with them anymore. They held onto a line that was supposed to be switch to another company and then proceeded to charge my company $500 a month for that single line. It literally took my talking to 6 different people and calling them daily for two months to get a simple billing error corrected.
So in essence, AT&T Sucks!!!! I curse the day the government let them rebuild themselves.
Now that said if I don't login tomorrow, we can only assume that AT&T is watching what we type. - RandomGuySteve, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Yes, because no alternative obviously means "oh yeah, there's always NetZero."
- Drahkar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Not to mention this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything about a major infraction against Free Speech. People have every right to complain about the service they are getting.
- soil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Digg should have a EULA expose section.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality. It would not change this at all.
- toxicshok, on 10/14/2007, -2/+17Godwin's law
- zanzzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14AT&T is not the only ISP to have dubious Terms of Service. The following is an excerpt from Comcast's TOS:
"post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful;"
So nothing "embarrassing or distressing"?! How can they report half of what our government does without it violating a half dozen things on their prohibited list? - specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Corporate Fascism all the way...
- MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Finally, a way out of my contract without paying a $200 early-termination fee!
- time4evacuation, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14It seems to me that those terms are in there to protect against illegal actions, for example: someone using AT&T's network backbone to operate a warez site. While it does look fishy, wouldn't the right to free speech protect ranting blog posts about $2500 overseas iPhone bills?
- *hittalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13@kc8yds: ....... Can you hear me now? LoL.
- MBHoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm sure they value the income from your custom enough to keep you despite you saying "I hate AT&T" or "***** AT&T" - chances are this only applies to those who put effort into spreading bad word about AT&T, writing lengthy reviews and blogs, and the such. Chances are, people who care this much won't be on AT&T in the first place though.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Yup, I agree. Free markets (little to no regulation) > Net neutrality > AT&T having a government sanctioned monopoly (which is what we have now).
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12it's cheaper to pay off local government officials for sanctioned monopolies than it is to maintain good customer relations.
- mrboratsagdiev, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Bingo. Net neutrality will still end up circumvented so long as the monopolies exist.
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13No. What would be unconstitutional would be to stop them from doing this. In America, corporations have the right to make stupid decisions and bankrupt themselves. Of course, AT&T has a bit o f a monopoly due to the government restricting who can join the market. Now that is unconstitutional. What we need is a telco free market with no government regulation so we can get some start ups in there and create some real competition for NS&A.
- IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Agreed, plus in a lot of places there's only one internet provider in the area. So it's not as easy as " aka take your money elsewhere". Maybe if they weren't federally permitted monopolies that idea would work.
- mtxe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11you mean +2
- SaladCactusKing, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16My favorite part of this article is when commenter JOEH criticizes BoingBoing for doing the EXACT same thing as AT&T, and then everybody changes their mind, praises the moderation, and praises AT&T's change in policy.
Now JOEH's comment is deleted. It just reminds me how much dick anyone in any blog community or message board will suck to win brownie points with the mods. - tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13ZDNet.com is an opponent of net neutrality? WTF?
- toxicshok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Hardly
- G00SEISL00SE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12At&t sucks you guys blow ***** you At&t
- missingnoh4x, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11***** AT&T. It's a corporation made of epic fail. They suck.
- shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Read the link silly buns!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 312 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is