On February 23rd, AT&T customers experienced a nationwide network outage that lasted for several hours. The cause of the outage was an incorrect process used during network expansion.
Thousands of customers lost cellular service and experienced issues with phone calls, texting, internet access on their mobile devices.
On Thursday, February 23rd, AT&T customers experienced a nationwide network outage that lasted for several hours. The cause of the outage was not a cyber attack but rather an incorrect process used during network expansion. This led to thousands of customers losing cellular service and experiencing issues with phone calls, texting, internet access on their mobile devices, and even calling emergency services in some cases. While AT&T has apologized for the inconvenience caused by this outage, it is unclear whether they will offer any credit or compensation to affected customers.
Several local governments said that the AT&T outage was causing disruptions and that in some cases AT&T customers were unable to call emergency services
Accuracy
The outage began early on Thursday and lasted several hours.
AT&T customers are wondering whether they will get some sort of credit on their account for the inconvenience.
Several local governments said that the AT&T outage was causing disruptions and that in some cases AT&T customers were unable to call emergency services.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there was no evidence of a cyber attack causing the outage but later reports from other sources suggest otherwise. Secondly, AT&T initially claimed that all its network had been restored around 3pm ET when it was not yet fully restored and some customers were still unable to access their services. Thirdly, the article quotes an expert who claims that cloud misconfiguration is likely the cause of the outage but does not provide any evidence for this claim.
The author claims there was no evidence of a cyber attack causing the outage but later reports from other sources suggest otherwise.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the outage as if it is either caused by a cyber attack or not caused by one, when in reality there may be other factors at play that are not mentioned in the article.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement from the author that AT&T has ruled out a cyber attack as the cause of the outage. However, it also reports on investigations by various government agencies and private organizations to determine what caused the widespread outage. The article mentions that there is no evidence yet to indicate whether or not this was an intentional act.
AT&T has ruled out a cyber attack as the cause of the outage.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article by Andrew Griffin has several examples of conflicts of interest. The author is a member of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which may have an interest in downplaying or minimizing the impact of cyber attacks on AT&T's network services.
Andrew Griffin is a member of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which may have an interest in downplaying or minimizing the impact of cyber attacks on AT&T's network services.
The article mentions that CISA has been working with AT&T to address the outage, but does not disclose any specific details about their involvement or potential conflicts of interest.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author Andrew Griffin has a conflict of interest on the topics of AT&T outage and cyber attack. He is an employee at The Independent which is owned by News UK Limited, a company that may have financial ties to AT&T or other companies affected by the massive system failure.
The article mentions Andrew Griffin as being an employee at The Independent.
The outage was not the result of a cyberattack but rather an incorrect process used as AT&T expanded its network.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is now working with AT&T to get to the root of the issue.
Accuracy
The network disruption that caused the outage was not the result of a cyberattack but rather an incorrect process used as AT&T expanded its network.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author claims that the outage was not caused by a cyberattack but fails to provide any evidence or explanation for why it occurred. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy as the author relies on their own statement without providing any supporting information. Additionally, the article uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing some customers' complaints about being unable to make calls or send texts during the outage.
The network disruption that caused tens of thousands of customers to lose cellular service Thursday was not the result of a cyberattack. After service was fully restored at around 6 p.m. ET, the mobile phone service provider revealed the results of its initial investigation into the outage.
Some customers are experiencing wireless service interruptions this morning.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement from the author that suggests the outage was not caused by a cyberattack. However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim and it is unclear if an investigation has been conducted beyond what AT&T has stated publicly.
AT&T apologized for the outage Thursday after several irate customers complained about being unable to make calls or send texts on social media.
]Based on our initial review, we believe the outage was caused by the application & execution of an incorrect process used as we were expanding our network, not a cyberattack,"
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Chris Pandolfo has a financial interest in Verizon Communications Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc., which are mentioned as being affected by the network disruption.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of AT&T network disruption and cyberattack as they are directly related to Verizon Communications Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc., which are competitors of AT&T.
Thousands of AT&T customers reported issues calling, texting and accessing the internet on their mobile devices
Several local governments said that the AT&T outage was causing disruptions and that in some cases AT&T customers were unable to call emergency services
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there was no evidence of a cyberattack but then mentions that federal agencies are investigating the incident which implies otherwise. Secondly, the author states that AT&T's FirstNet network remained operational despite the outage when it clearly did not as mentioned by local governments and emergency services. Lastly, the article is misleading in stating that only a small percentage of customers were affected when in fact over 70,000 customers reported outages.
The author claims there was no evidence of a cyberattack but then mentions federal agencies are investigating which implies otherwise.
The article is misleading in stating that only a small percentage of customers were affected when in fact over 70,000 customers reported outages.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the incident quickly raised questions about whether malicious activity could have caused the outage and presented an ongoing threat to US cell networks, although there is currently no evidence that bad actors were behind the outage. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe people's reliance on their cell phones as deeply ingrained and essential for various tasks such as calling for help in danger. The article also contains an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that regional outages happen occasionally but prolonged nationwide outages are exceedingly rare.
The incident quickly raised questions about whether malicious activity could have caused the outage and presented an ongoing threat to US cell networks, although there is currently no evidence that bad actors were behind the outage.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses loaded language when describing the outage as a 'nearly 12-hour AT&T network outage' which implies that it was an intentional act by someone to cause harm. Secondly, there is a clear political bias present in the article as it mentions several government agencies investigating the incident and quotes from officials such as John Kirby of the White House National Security Council. Lastly, there are multiple instances where AT&T is portrayed negatively without any counter-argument or evidence to refute their claims.
nearly 12-hour AT&T network outage
Several local governments said on Thursday that the AT&T outage was causing disruptions and that in some cases AT&T customers were unable to call emergency services
Telecom industry analysts say that AT&T could potentially face fines over the 911 outages
The alarm over an outage of a major cell network that at one point affected more than 74,000 customers is understandable.
The FBI, meanwhile, said in a statement to CNN that it is in contact with AT&T regarding the outage.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the massive AT&T network outage that affected tens of thousands of customers. The authors have a conflict of interest as they work for CNN which is owned by WarnerMedia and has financial ties with AT&T through its ownership stake in the company.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of FirstNet network for first responders as they are reporting on it. The article mentions that the outage affected Verizon and T-Mobile customers which could be seen as promoting their competitors.
The outage lasted several hours and was caused by a technical error during the expansion of AT&T's network.
AT&T customers are wondering whether they will get some sort of credit on their account for the inconvenience.
One person on Reddit suggested that AT&T should offer a 1/29 (3%) discount for the one day they were down, assuming it can be restored today.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that AT&T customers are wondering whether they will get a credit on their account for the outage but there is no evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author quotes one person who received a $52.50 credit on their account after contacting AT&T and implies that all customers should do the same, which is not true as it depends on how quickly they contacted AT&T. Thirdly, the article suggests that there will be some sort of nominal credit offered by AT&T but does not provide any specific information about what this credit will be or when it will be available.
The author claims that customers are wondering whether they will get a credit on their account for the outage, however there is no evidence to support this claim.
The article suggests that all customers should contact AT&T to receive a $52.50 credit but does not provide any specific information about how quickly they need to do so or if it is available.
The author implies that there will be some sort of nominal credit offered by AT&T, however no specific information about what this credit will be or when it will be available.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that AT&T has said the outage was caused by a technical error and not a cyber attack. However, this statement is not supported with any evidence or citation from AT&T's official website or spokesperson. Additionally, the author quotes customers who are expressing their opinions on whether they should receive credit for the inconvenience caused by the outage. These statements are examples of informal fallacies as they rely on personal anecdotes and subjective interpretations rather than objective facts. The article also contains a dichotomous depiction of AT&T's actions, with some customers receiving credits while others did not. This is an example of a formal fallacy known as false dilemma or the either/or fallacy.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that AT&T has said the outage was caused by a technical error and not a cyber attack.
