Source:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Verizon_ATT_broadband_policies_allow_for_1010.html

http://www.mediainstitute.org/Speeches/abernathy.html

An FCC Commissioner explains the FCC mission.

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/cat-public-interest-obligationslocalism.html

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/public-interest-obligationslocalism-enhanced-public-interest-requirements-for-tv-too.html

A leading law firm provides a forum for numerous FCC issues.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html

The FCC site for policies, rules and regulations regarding the airwaves.

Verizon, AT&T broadband policies allow for censorship of unfriendly opinions

By Nick Juliano Published: Wednesday October 10, 2007

Companies insist they don't censor customers . . .

Buried deep within the dense, legalistic agreements two of the country's largest telecommunications carriers force subscribers to accept are provisions that could allow the companies to cut access to subscribers who criticize them online.

Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus uncovered the little-noticed clauses in AT&T and Verizon's service contracts.

In a Wednesday column, Lazarus writes that the companies say they can terminate Internet access "for any behavior that AT&T or Verizon believes might harm its 'name or reputation,' or even the reputation of its business partners."

Both companies told the columnist that they have not enforced the policies, which critics view as an inappropriate corporate check on Americans' freedom of speech.

"Not being able to speak your mind about something is contrary to public policy," University of Wisconsin law professor Frank Tuerkheimer told the LA Times. But Tuerkheimer, a specialist in Internet-related issues, said such corporate blocks are not illegal because the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.

The discovery comes after Verizon faced harsh criticism for blocking text-message alerts from Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group; the company reversed its decision after an outcry from subscribers. Earlier in the year, a Pearl Jam concert webcast by AT&T did not include lead singer Eddie Vedder's criticism of President Bush; AT&T blamed a contractor for censoring the comments.

A one-line disclaimer in AT&T's 14,000-word service contract gives the company right to boot from the Internet any customer who might cross the telecom giant. Along with "defamatory, fraudulent, obscene or deceptive" behavior, Lazarus writes, customers can be suspended for anything that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, Yahoo [AT&T's online partner] or their respective parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

An "acceptable use policy" issued to Verizon customers alongside its 10,000-word contract contains similar prohibitions on obscene, pornographic or racist content, and it tells customers they risk losing service if they "damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties."

A Verizon spokesman, Jon Davies, told the paper that the policy is designed to prevent customers from setting up Web sites that look like Verizon's to attempt to defraud customers and steal personal information. Such behavior is explicitly prohibited elsewhere in the contract, meaning Verizon's terms give the company wider latitude to censor customers' online communications, the columnist notes.

"But whether or not it's interpreted that way is irrelevant," the Verizon spokesman said, "because we've never used it that way. Actions speak louder than words."

AT&T also stressed it had no plans to censor customers and insisted its language was "common" and "designed to protect the brand." A spokesman, John Britton, told the paper that the company would be revising its policies to more explicitly enshrine customers' free speech.

"We are going to clarify the policy," Britton said, "to make clear that nobody is faced with losing service because they express an opinion about the company."