Internet users expect a free and unfettered online experience.  Blogs, vlogs, podcasts, and YouTube have flourished by providing an outlet to reach audiences directly, without the filters associated with traditional media.  Those who favor "Net neutrality" rules argue that government must force Internet service providers to treat all content equally in order to prevent censorship and discrimination online.  In PRI's recent paper, Net Gains or Net Losses? The Net Neutrality Debate and the Future of the Internet, Lloyd Billingsley calls this argument a solution in search of a problem: "net-neutrality advocates go hypothetical and base the need for a new regime not on actual cases but on what some companies might do in the future."

New rules censoring users who criticize AT&T would seem to provide Net neutrality advocates the case evidence they have been lacking.  If service providers can filter content to protect their corporate image, advocates argue that nothing prevents them from censoring for nefarious political purposes.  Suspicions have already been raised following two recent incidents.  In August, AT&T edited lyrics critical of President Bush from a Pearl Jam webcast, leading to the discovery that this was not an isolated incident.  Last week, the pro-choice organization NARAL was blocked from sending text messages on Verizon's network.

As troubling as these incidents may be, the ensuing reaction demonstrates why government regulation is unnecessary.  Within a week of the Pearl Jam concert, AT&T issued a strong apology stating that "it's not our intent to edit political comments," and "we have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."  As PRI's Sonia Arrison wrote last week, Verizon rapidly bowed to consumer outrage in the NARAL case, issuing a public statement within days to declare that "the decision...was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident."  Both AT&T and Verizon are private companies in a competitive marketplace.  The risk of angering customers and losing business provides a far more powerful disincentive to censorship than heavy-handed government mandates.

It is inconceivable that AT&T will have the time or inclination to screen its subscribers' web activities for anti-AT&T sentiments.  In all likelihood, this clause does not represent the company's intent, and strict government regulations could not have prevented this misunderstanding.  While AT&T could attempt to enforce such a provision, most Internet users would likely switch their service provider before submitting to censorship.  The outrage and confusion generated by this clause will almost certainly elicit an apology and/or clarification from AT&T before the week's end.  The resulting resolution will be faster, simpler, and cheaper than anything achievable through complicated rules and costly litigation.

UPDATE: As predicted, AT&T issued the following clarification on Tuesday:

AT&T respects its subscribers' rights to voice their opinions and concerns over any matter they wish.  However, we retain the right to disassociate ourselves from websites and messages explicitly advocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children (e.g. child pornography or exploitation).  We do not terminate customer service solely because a customer speaks negatively about AT&T.

This policy is not new and it's not unique to AT&T.

As a result of our recent mergers, we have simply incorporated language from the AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet Terms of Service into the Terms of Service for our legacy Worldnet and BellSouth customers. The language is consistent with that of previous documents for those companies, and is equally consistent with former AT&T and its legacy companies' policies.