The SCOTUS ruled this week that AT&T (and other corporations) can block people from filing class action lawsuits and force mandatory binding arbitration per the Federal Arbitration Act.

First off, here’s what the Act does:

The Federal Arbitration Act (found at 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.), enacted in 1925, provides for contractually-based compulsory and binding arbitration, resulting in an “arbitration award” entered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel as opposed to a “judgment” entered by a court of law. In an arbitration the parties give up the right to an appeal on substantive grounds to a court.

Per the Wikipedia link, mandatory binding arbitration is nothing new, but in some states (such as California), forcing binding arbitration is unconscionable and can be voided from a contract by a judge. This week’s ruling voids all laws like California’s and applies one federal standard. That is, states that want to apply a higher standard now have no choice but to side with the corporations.

The downside of mandatory arbitration? Companies tend to make it such that they require you to use their own arbiter, which is hardly fair for the consumer. And there’s no way to appeal the ruling if it’s not completely legit.

Just another example of how people are getting screwed over. Our only hope now is definitely much stronger, neutral federal regulatory bodies to enforce our consumer rights.

The FCC is seeking additional comment (warning: PDF) regarding the state of the “multichannel video programming distribution” (aka cable/satellite TV) industry:

Pursuant to its statutory mandate, in 2009 the Commission solicited 2007, 2008, and 2009 data, information, and comment for the 14th Report similar to that which had been requested for earlier years. However, since that time, the Commission has initiated a comprehensive review of the way in which it uses data, including data used for its statutory competition reports. In the course of that review, we determined that the data submitted in response to the notices of inquiry for the 14th Report are insufficient to produce an adequate report. We are therefore requesting additional data for 2009 and for the first time asking for data for 2010. In submitting additional data for 2009 and new data for 2010, to the extent that it is not unduly burdensome, we encourage commenters to also submit comparable historical data for 2007 and 2008, which will facilitate the Commission’s analysis of trends.

And as part of their review of the T-Mobile/AT&T merger, they’re reviewing telephone number utilization reports (warning: PDF) to determine the effects of the merger on mobile telephone competition. However, it looks like these reports will not be released to the public:

The Commission has recognized that disaggregated, carrier-specific forecast and utilization data should be treated as confidential and should be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). The NRUF and LNP reports are being placed into the record subject to the provisions of an NRUF Protective Order. As such, the NRUF data will not be available to the public except pursuant to the terms of the NRUF Protective Order, as outlined below.

I fully encourage everyone to participate in the FCC review/comment process. If nothing else, it will let our voice be known. 🙂

The caps are the biggest part of the new Terms of Service AT&T has released, but did you know that there are other provisions that are just as alarming?

One big one is mandatory binding arbitration. Arbitration is a private way of settling disputes without having to get the courts involved. Good in theory, right? Wrong:

The TOS also informs U-Verse users that if they agree to their AT&T contract they lose their ability to take part in a class action lawsuit, and instead must participate in binding arbitration — a process overseen by AT&T-hired companies where consumers lose more often than not.

And this isn’t the first time AT&T has decided to try these shenanigans. (Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule against AT&T and force them to permit class action lawsuits again.)

They can also now force you onto U-Verse if you have AT&T DSL, which means that if you can get service with a CLEC in your area, you may no longer be able to. For me, DSLextreme is the CLEC in my area, but my neighborhood can’t get service from them because of what I assume is U-Verse availability. Another way AT&T can force the competition out of the picture.

And AT&T can now terminate your service if you’re being impolite to the representative:

you engage in conduct that is threatening, abusive or harassing to the AT&T or Yahoo employees, including, for example, making threats to physically harm or damage employee or company property; frequent use of profane or vulgar language; or repeatedly contacting our customer service representatives for reasons that do not pertain to our provisioning, maintenance, repair or general servicing of your high speed Internet access service after you have been asked to stop such conduct.

Threatening violence at anyone is always a bad move, but would complaining about improper billing not fall under “general servicing” of your connection? I don’t think anyone knows.