Actually if you use either of the following search strings the boiler plate terminology used links to far fewer uses.

"damage or disparage the reputation of" + "or its Service(s)" -"AT&T"

"damage or disparage the reputation of" -"AT&T"

Though it does find this one -

http://home.bellsouth.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spage=cg/legal/att.htm&leg=aup

"Disparage" seems to be far more broad a term than "damage." Damage involves some proof of loss of some sort. "Disparage" covers describing bad service or performance or some other poor aspect of some one or some thing. (I think the courts have determined that corporations have more equivalency to a "one" rather than a "thing" in terms of situations like insult. :P)

True, "disparage" probably means using words like "bad" service, which could be objected to. I've seen that sort of argument used years ago by "bad" professors fighting against student rating systems. Maybe something like 10,000 people per 100,000 died while trying to get through to public services on the 911 system on Telecom A while 12 died per 100,000 who tried to get the same 911 services through Telecom B. But Telecom A could not fairly be disparaged with words such as "bad."

Is a description of circumstances, situations, actions, etc. disparaging if true?

Is the widespread use of speech restricting clauses by utility companies that have government enabled and privileged use of national resources (public lands and broadcast spectrum) a basis for a lack of concern about such use?

Amos:

1) It's the basis for thinking this is not something being done as part of a campaign to squelch criticism.

2) It's also the basis for exercising a little restraint and thinking maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story than warrants immediately screaming wolf-Wolf-WOLF!

But this is why I am a Z-list blogger, and not an attention-rich BigHead :-(.

Well, what's "standard boilerplate" in one context, obviously takes on a whole different meaning in another.

I mean, if there were a non-delivery clause in something you ordered, that might be slightly less unnerving than similar language from an obstetrician handling your pregnant wife.

Yes, but if you look at the search above, you'd see that clause is used often in the very context of ISP's or similar interactive services. This story has been spun as AT&T is sneaking in the option of shutting up anyone who would criticize it, which is nonsense.

There's nothing to see here, it's simply standard boilerplate that reiterates the law on slander and defamation. Truthful speech doesn't damage reputation by definition, it simply reinforces it.

There are lots of issues related to corporate misconduct in the world, but this isn't one of them.

Seth is right.

Sadly, I'm right but not popular(heard) :-(.

gotta love that VZ url:
http://policyblog.verizon.com/policyblog/blogs/policyblog/czblogger1/373/policies-prevent-no-one-from-speaking-out-about-vz.aspx

blog blog blogs blog blogger

5 "blogs" in one URL!

Karl and Broadband Reports ran a followup story to clarify-- after all, AT&T is a *sponsor* of Broadband Reports.

And all that bloggy-ness didn't save them ...

Being sponsor - and remaining so - sure proves the point about not trying to stifle criticism!