Verizon had that nationwide outage a few days ago with people in California getting “No SIM” and “Invalid SIM” errors because, Verizon says, of the hurricane in Florida. Who puts a nation wide data center with the ability to knock every user off the network in a known hurricane state? Verizon does it seems. As I was learning this, I got the upsale pitch and considered switching to a cheaper plan with more data but something made me suspicious. I guess I have this strange view that companies don’t do things that lose them money, so how was Verizon going to profit by giving me more data for less money? There had to be a catch. I started reading all the fine print and became fascinated by a few very general statements which amounted to, Verizon can cut you off and leave you stranded with no service at any time if we don’t like something you say (or do). Now this makes sense to stop hackers from breaking the cell network. As far as people doing illegal activities, it made me wonder who at Verizon would be listening in order to determine that? I guess it would be the watchers who watch everyone telling Verizon that this person is plotting to steal the moon or something, and Verizon would take action based on being told that? Hopefully it is that way, so there is no illegal wiretapping activity by Verizon on law abiding citizens.
Anyway, what really got me wanting to blog was a line in the Verizon Acceptable Use Policy updated August 2024. The Verizon AUP states that users may not ” use the Service to violate any rule, policy or guideline of Verizon or relevant industry sector”. So, this rule should be illegal because Verizon does not provide a list of every rule, policy and guideline of their own and they do not link to clear information about this vague concept of “relevant industry sector.” What the hell are all the rules, policies and guidelines of relevant industry sectors? I had to ask ChatGPT to clarify this one.
Answer
“While I understand your frustration with the vagueness of Verizon’s Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), it’s important to note that such broad language is not necessarily illegal. However, your concerns about the lack of clarity and specificity are valid.”
Analysis of Verizon’s AUP Language
The clause you’re referring to is indeed quite broad and open to interpretation. This type of language is common in many service providers’ terms of service or acceptable use policies for several reasons:
1. It allows flexibility to address new and emerging issues without constantly updating the policy[4].
2. It provides a catch-all provision to cover potential violations that may not be explicitly listed elsewhere in the policy[4].
3. It encourages users to exercise caution and common sense when using the service.
Legality and Enforceability
While the clause may seem overly broad, it’s not necessarily illegal:
1. Courts generally allow companies some latitude in drafting terms of service, as long as they’re not unconscionable or against public policy[4].
2. The clause likely serves as a general guideline rather than a strict legal requirement, giving Verizon discretion in enforcement.
3. Many industry standards and regulations are publicly available, even if not directly linked in the AUP.
Potential Issues
However, your concerns about the vagueness are valid:
1. The lack of specificity could make it difficult for users to know exactly what rules they’re agreeing to follow[4].
2. The term “relevant industry sector” is not clearly defined, leaving room for interpretation.
3. Without clear links or references to specific rules and guidelines, users may struggle to ensure compliance.
Recommendations
To address these concerns, Verizon could:
1. Provide more specific examples of prohibited activities.
2. Offer links to relevant industry standards and regulations.
3. Define key terms like “relevant industry sector” more clearly.
4. Regularly update the AUP to reflect current concerns and issues.
While the current language may be frustrating, it’s important to remember that most service providers use similar broad language in their policies. If you have specific concerns about compliance, it may be helpful to reach out to Verizon directly for clarification.
Commentary
Isn’t that great logic? It may not be fair, but hey, every other big company does that too, so it’s normal to screw users. As a user, you could reach out to the company and ask for clarification about ways they might screw you. I did, and surprisingly (not), they did not have an answer. That’s just some general language in all AUPs. Yes, I know. And also, words mean things.
The Verizon “You Have No Freedom of Speech” Clause
Does Verizon have a no freedom of speech clause? In a sense, yes. It is this:
General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, and pass on any directly resulting consequences if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon or industry policies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network or Services by Verizon or other users, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”).
If they alone decide your use is objectionable, they can pull the plug on you. This should be illegal in a country were the first amendment prohibits abridging freedom of speech, but the end-run around the law is to have the government act through private corporations which don’t have to follow the rules. Let’s have the corporate loving ChatGPT response on this:
Answer
- Verizon’s policy is not technically a “no freedom of speech clause.” Rather, it’s a broad discretionary clause that allows them to restrict service based on various factors, including objectionable use.
- This type of clause is common among internet service providers (ISPs) and other technology companies. It’s designed to give them flexibility in managing their services and addressing potential misuse.
- The policy doesn’t explicitly prohibit free speech, but it does give Verizon broad discretion in determining what constitutes objectionable use.
First Amendment Considerations
- The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free speech, but it doesn’t generally apply to private companies like Verizon.
- Private companies have the right to set their own terms of service, which may include restrictions on certain types of speech or behavior.
- However, there is ongoing debate about the role of ISPs and other tech companies in moderating online speech, given their significant influence over public discourse.
Legal and Ethical Implications
- While Verizon’s policy may not be illegal under current law, it does raise important questions about the balance between corporate discretion and user rights.
- There are ongoing discussions among policymakers and legal experts about how to address these issues, potentially through new regulations or legal frameworks.
- Verizon, like other ISPs, must balance various concerns, including user privacy, network security, and compliance with existing laws and regulations.
Potential Safeguards
To address concerns about potential overreach, some possible approaches could include:
- More specific guidelines on what constitutes “objectionable” use.
- A transparent appeals process for users whose service is restricted.
- Regular reporting on how often and why the company exercises this discretion.
While Verizon’s policy may seem broad, it’s important to note that ISPs generally don’t actively monitor or censor individual users’ speech. The policy is more likely intended as a safeguard against extreme cases of misuse or illegal activity. Nevertheless, your concerns about the potential for overreach are valid and part of an important ongoing discussion about digital rights and corporate responsibility.
Commentary
Answer
“You raise valid concerns about the potential for abuse of power by large telecommunications companies like Verizon. The situation you describe does indeed present some troubling implications:”
1. Discretionary power: Verizon’s broad discretion to restrict or terminate service based on “objectionable” use could potentially be misused to suppress speech or punish users for expressing certain views.
2. Critical infrastructure: As you point out, telecommunications services have become essential infrastructure, akin to utilities. Losing access could have serious consequences for users, especially in emergencies.
3. Limited alternatives: With only a few major carriers dominating the market, users may have little recourse if their service is restricted.
4. Lack of constitutional protections: Unlike government entities, private companies are not bound by First Amendment restrictions on limiting speech.
5. Potential for life-threatening situations: In cases where emergency communications are affected, the consequences could indeed be dire.
These issues highlight the complex challenges in regulating modern telecommunications:
– There’s a tension between allowing companies to manage their networks and services, and ensuring open access to vital communications infrastructure.
– The line between private companies and public utilities has become increasingly blurred as these services become more essential.
– There’s an ongoing debate about whether and how to apply constitutional protections to online spaces and digital communications.
While companies like Verizon argue that broad discretionary policies are necessary to address potential misuse or illegal activities, your point about the risks of such policies is well-taken. It underscores the need for:
1. Clearer guidelines and limitations on when and how services can be restricted
2. Stronger consumer protections for essential communications services
3. Potentially updated regulations that recognize the utility-like nature of these services
4. Greater transparency and accountability in how these policies are applied
The concerns you raise are part of an important ongoing discussion about digital rights, corporate responsibility, and the balance between private enterprise and public interest in the telecommunications sector.
Commentary
Read More
[1] https://www.ironmountain.com/resources/blogs-and-articles/c/compliance-regulations-by-industry
[2] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12119
[3] https://www.epa.gov/regulatory-information-sector
[4] https://hbr.org/2023/09/the-new-era-of-industrial-policy-is-here
[5] https://www.convergepoint.com/policy-management-software/policy-procedure-best-practices/10-policies-all-companies-should-have
[6] https://www.ilo.org/sectoral-policies-department-sector
[7] https://www.powerdms.com/policy-learning-center/50-essential-policies-for-different-industries
[8] https://www.osha.gov/complianceassistance/industry
[9] https://community.verizon.com/t5/Other-Network-Discussions/Report-Poor-Coverage/m-p/1178048
[10] https://community.verizon.com/t5/Other-Network-Discussions/The-Truth-about-Verizon-First-Responder-Priority-Features/td-p/1108710
[11] https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/articles/s/challenges-to-first-responder-communication-in-remote-areas/
[12] https://www.verizon.com/about/consumer-safety/emergency-information
[13] https://www.verizon.com/business/solutions/public-sector/public-safety/programs/verizon-response-team/
[14] https://www.verizon.com/business/en-gb/resources/factsheets/verizon-frontline-public-safety-communications-faq/
[15] https://www.verizon.com/about/sites/default/files/Verizon-Code-of-Conduct.pdf
[16] https://www.verizon.com/business/solutions/public-sector/public-safety/secure-mission-critical-communications/
