bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to jmn1207
Re: Capacity Issue The specific channels provided were never part of the obligation to provide service. They could have dropped a few channels any time they wanted, without any legitimate legal exposure regarding contracts with subscribers. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
1 edit | Sure, but we don't know what type of potentially sweeping changes may be coming in an effort to address the issue with channel space, and despite how cleverly worded Verizon's terms are, Florida, where this began, is known to have tough consumer protection laws, and often comes to the aid of the customer despite what might be included in a footnote of section IX, title C, subset ii, clause 3.b(2). |
|
|
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Those laws pertain to practices that are unusual for the specific industry. Customary provisions aren't affected. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | I am simply skeptical of the motivation behind this decision to initially abandon contracts. Now, after the fact, it makes sense to continue with this practice as they have seen success with it.
Sprint probably thought they had an airtight contract in place with their ETF, but it was Florida that forced them to change this policy. |
|
