AT&T and Verizon told the public they have changed their terms of service (ToS) so they no longer reserve the right to cancel customers service if they “damage the reputation” of the company. But the fine print shows that they really haven't changed a thing. It's a testament to the lack of competition in the U.S. broadband market that this type of language made it into the phone companies’ subscriber agreements in the first place. I researched ISP terms of service for Free Press’ June Net Neutrality filing with the FCC and am ecstatic to see this issue finally get some attention. But the phone companies are still trying to pull a fast one.AT&T did remove the section that received so much publicity -- in which they threatened to kick you off if you talk bad about the company. But they have't given up the power to do just that. All broadband providers seem to have two main portions to their subscriber agreement. The ToS and the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The AUP essentially tells you the way in which you can use your Internet service. The agreement specifically says they can terminate your account for “conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy.” Mind you, this comes from their recently updated agreement where they tout their respect for freedom of expression.Now, take a look at the AUP. Since their initial ToS announcement they have changed the language in their AUP to remove the language that directly discusses reputation. Unfortunately, they just could not bring themselves to get rid of it entirely. The new language states a “Customer is prohibited from engaging in any other activity, whether legal or not, that AT&T determines in its sole discretion …causes AT&T or the AT&T IP Services to be viewed unfavorably by others."Different language, same effect. (If you have the time, it is worth reading your ISP's subscriber agreement in full as there are lots of other ridiculous sections that pretty much leave the customer with no rights whatsoever.) Verizon made a similar claim about improving their AUP. Now let me first say that of all the agreements I analyzed, Verizon is by far the worst. If you take a look at their main TOS/AUP you will see that nothing has changed: “Verizon reserves the right to deny Service to you … if your use of the Service … whether explicitly or implicitly, and in the sole discretion of Verizon: (e) in any manner violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy.” (Check out this one as well: “(d) is objectionable for any reason.")Dig into the AUP and you will see this: “You may NOT use the Service as follows … (j) to damage the name or reputation of Verizon, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries, or any third parties.” Looks like I’m two for two.Believe it or not this isn’t even the section you should be most concerned about. This is: "Verizon reserves the right and sole discretion to change, limit, terminate, modify at any time, temporarily or permanently cease to provide the Service or any part thereof to any user or group of users, without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.”  Once you’ve seen the type of language Verizon includes for their DSL customers, you can’t help but wonder about their cell phone customers. As a result of “dusty internal policy,” Verizon recently blocked the text message campaign of NARAL Pro-Choice America, because they said they had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” content. (Note: This is an opt-in service. These people asked to receive these alerts from NARAL and Verizon said no).I analyzed a 2006 version of this policy and Verizon, as you must expect by now, included language that forbid campaigns from negative references to Verizon and/or promotion of Verizon’s competitors. (FYI on the footnote, the carriers don’t shy away from detailed rules for explicit content.) Verizon claims they have improved this policy but so far have not released it to the public.How can they expect us to trust them with their track record? Unless I see this supposed new version, I remain entirely unconvinced. What “reputation” do they have left to defend anyway?These contract requirements are anti-consumer and anti-competitive and just one more piece of evidence to add to the mountain of proof as to why these telephone companies can’t be left to their own devices.