how-to block ads
|
TrainBuff
The New Haven Railroad
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Buffalo, NY
clubs: 
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| What Caps!
There should be a class action suit against Comcast by those users who got suspended for going over a limit that they (Comcast) refuses to divulge.
Luckily Adelphia is not doing that.
--
Train Yourself To Relax...Ride The New Haven Railroad | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Yeah, lets make some lawyer rich. and give all those kicked off $3.50.
[whispers] PSST..over here...In case you haven't noticed class action lawsuits are a joke.[/whispers]
--
Infogrames != Atari | |
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| reply to TrainBuff
said by TrainBuff  :
There should be a class action suit against Comcast by those users who got suspended for going over a limit that they (Comcast) refuses to divulge.
Luckily Adelphia is not doing that.
Better read the user agreement! You can not be a member of a class action suit against Comcast, nor can you take Comcast to court! All disagreements have to go to arbitration. Like it or not, you accepted these restrictions the minute you allowed one bite of data enter or leave your computer via your cable modem! I think that you will find this restriction in just about all user agreements you have with any service provider; be it cell phone, pager, cable company, credit card provider, insurance company, etc. The only way these restrictions can be overcome is an act by each of the 50 state legislatures; something that can take years to happen! | |
terogers
join:2003-12-19
Glenolden, PA
| Relax a little, guys. These boilerplate user agreements don't ever stand up in court. Some of the stuff commonly included directly compromises your Constitutional rights, which you can never actually lose. That is, you can reclaim them at any time by simply doing so.
All that the company can do is sue for breach. There is no recourse to force you to relinquish Constitutional rights, regardless of their contract, whereas you have every right to sue to compel them to provide service in a manner commonly understood to constitute a reasonable likeness of what they claim to offer. In some states, even if the contract says otherwise, and you knowingly agreed.
Part of their game is to try to bluff the world into accepting their definition of the thing they offer (internet connectivity, in this case) just by blustering and delivering something different for a long enough time that it begins to take on the status of an acceptable example of the type.
This is exactly the strategy followed by Microsoft in establishing the common idea of an "acceptable deliverable" of a software product intended to function as an operating system, which is so broken that it is almost useless. Now there is a norm for some kinds of software to be delivered incomplete and untested, and with no obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide support or upgrades even to the level of functionality described on the box.
Comcast is trying to do a similar thing. There is a huge wrestling match underway for control of the pipe into your house, involving Microsoft (through both set top boxes and game consoles), AOL (All Out of Luck, at this point), various wireless delivery purveyors (including especially cellular), the Cable companies, DSL, and what's left of the POTS.
I don't believe it's wrong to demand a explicit cap; I think it will serve to expose the whole house of cards that Cable delivery is based on. But I don't think that it's a good idea to blindly engage in a heated debate in a context defined by Comcast. We need to keep our eye on the real issues, like what Comcast's ultimate goal is in foisting such blatantly embarrassing foolishness on their customers.
Try to think of it this way: if this is a hammer, it works just fine as long as you don't drive too many nails with it. But if you exceed an unspecified number of nails in one month, the manufacturer will cause the head to fall off. There is no way to mistake such a tool as actually being what we all understand to be a hammer. I can drive a nail with a shoe, if you get my point.
We know what bandwidth delivery is. There is plenty of historical support for our understanding, and experts to expound on it. Comcast wants to blur and change that definition; what they want to deliver is something different. Lets not get fooled, and lets not let them get away with it.
I say we make them give a different name to what they sell, and let them go off happily selling it to whoever wants a hammer with a head that flies off with no warning.
--TR
(Composed on a Windows machine, delivered through RCN. DOH!) | |
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| reply to mjcrocket
said by mjcrocket :
said by TrainBuff :
There should be a class action suit against Comcast by those users who got suspended for going over a limit that they (Comcast) refuses to divulge.
Luckily Adelphia is not doing that.
Better read the user agreement! You can not be a member of a class action suit against Comcast, nor can you take Comcast to court! All disagreements have to go to arbitration. Like it or not, you accepted these restrictions the minute you allowed one bite of data enter or leave your computer via your cable modem!
That's funny, we have a statement of indemnity too, but it didn't stop the multiple class action law suits which really had no merit for the most part.
said by SBC's TOS:
12. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo!, SBC and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners and employees harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit or make available through the Service, your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of these TOS, your violation of the AUP or your violation of any rights of another
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
|
