This is page 3 of:
Think You Can Use Smartphones In-Store? Read The Contract First
And if AT&T—as ISP, wireless carrier, wireless data carrier, phone company, GPS locater and text message provider—thinks a customer is in breach of the contract, then “AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T’s terms, conditions or policies.” Thus, it can read your E-mails, monitor your GPS location and cell tower location, filter and analyze your network traffic and, what is worse, listen in on your phone calls. (Yes, that’s perfectly legal under provisions of the federal wiretap law.)
It also means AT&T can intercept and disclose payment-card information that’s transmitted if an iPhone is used for mobile payments or as a POS—not to mention inventory data and other retailer proprietary information. No wonder the logo looks like a Death Star!
Of course, there’s a reason for such restrictive contracts. Mobile providers have learned they can make a business out of writing restrictive policies that prohibit a host of perfectly legitimate uses, and then force customers to repurchase these services.
For example, tethering is purportedly prohibited by the contract because it causes “excessive usage.” Then AT&T discovered it could make a business out of charging additional money for tethering. So now, tethering is no longer evil and destructive—as long as you pay extra for the “unlimited” data you are using. And if AT&T finds out you are using tethering (by monitoring your use), it will graciously and automatically charge you for its new service. Oh, no arbitration necessary.
If someday AT&T finds it can make a business out of streaming music, it can graciously terminate customers’ access to Pandora and upgrade them to AT&T’s music service. Same with GPS—Navigon disappears in favor of an AT&T service. Same with everything that does not specifically constitute “Web browsing, E-mail and intranet access.”
And if AT&T discovers customers are making mobile payments with something other than an AT&T-backed service or retailers are using in-store retail applications that don’t fall strictly into those categories? All bets are off.
For retailers trying to use smartphones in-store and support mobile payments, that’s not just a nuisance. It’s a threat to security, reliability and IT functionality.
If you disagree with me, I’ll see you in court, buddy. If you agree with me, however, I would love to hear from you.
-Marc
May 12th, 2011 at 6:59 am
Are the contract terms actually enforceable, or would a court hold them unconscionable? (Would a court actually adjudicate that question, given that AT&T claims that all contract disputes are subject to binding arbitration?)
May 13th, 2011 at 9:56 am
A court (if it ever got to a court) would ask the question, “can a consumer of wireless services agree not to use those services for certain things?” Why would a contract limiting HOW you can use the service be unconscionable? It is spelled out in the agreement. I think the contract is unfair and outrageous (and unread) and that it is NOT AT&T’s intention to prevent all other services, but that is what the agreement says, non?
May 26th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Mr. Rasch brings to light some draconian aspects of the AT&T Wireless agreement that are disturbing. Still, this is not going to stop the trend. Most retailers exploring this space will undoubtedly offer wifi access, bypassing the AT&T network entirely.