My ISP shut off my internet last night because...

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: user1234
give them back some of their own medicine - they hired all those lawyers to put all the restrictions in the agreement, but they have to understand they can't just put anything they want and say if you don't like it go somewhere else. Once they go too far they are in violation of reasonable policy, and they disrespect customer's right, they will be punished for it.

In your scenario the only one that benefits is the lawyers. Don't feed the machine.

I told you the extent of your rights as a customer. You don't need any more.

Get your own T1. Set your own policies.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: user1234
give them back some of their own medicine - they hired all those lawyers to put all the restrictions in the agreement, but they have to understand they can't just put anything they want and say if you don't like it go somewhere else. Once they go too far they are in violation of reasonable policy, and they disrespect customer's right, they will be punished for it.

hey dumbass, you signed it when you took the service.

I'm going out on a limb here but I presume you have no legal experience, no ISP experience, very little to no experience or knowledge in interstate laws and boundaries between state/federal jurisdiction, no education/experience in such matters and are just talking out of your ass at this point.

I mean what part of "using somebody else's property" don't you get?

GAAAAAAAAA. Just re-read what you said. It boggles the mind. "but they have to understand they can't just put anything they want and say if you don't like it go somewhere else"

Of course they can - what don't you understand about a binding agreement?????????? Both parties agree to the terms, if both parties don't agree to the terms then there is no agreement, there is no exchange of money for services. Don't want to be a customer? Don't agree to the terms? Don't use the service. End.

 

[user1234]

I guess you're too stupid to understadnd that any illegal clauses in an agreement are void, like when you sign a job contract that say you can't work for a competitor for X number of years after leaving the company....that's illegal, and therefore unenforceable, so the smart thing is actually to sign it without complaining cause it means less then a used toilet paper. Same goes for rental agreements, let me break the nmews to you, there are RULES governing these agreements, which means that any part of the lease which violates tenant right is illegal to begin with. I suggest you get out of your self centric close minded shell in your own little stinking network, and understand that consumer don't give a damn about your precious little network and your little paranoia attacks, and just want to use a service which delivers what it promised and doesn't force then to sepervise their own usage or else they'll be punished by some little creepy "administrator".

 

[spidey07]

thanks, you just proved your experience in such matters.

 

[user1234]

pwned

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: user1234
pwned

The maturity is strong in this one. :roll:

Landlords can evict abusive tenants. Don't like it, buy your own home.

Car leases enforce milage restrictions. Don't like it, buy your own car.

Movie theatres can kick out loud patrons. Don't like it, watch a movie at home.

Buffets have the right to kick you out if you are abusing the "all you can eat" policy by sitting in there for hours and gourging yourself. Don't like it, eat at home.

ISP's that offer consumer level broadband access can dump abusive customers. Don't like it, lease your own dedicated line.

Deal with it.

 

[whalen]

Originally posted by: user1234
The alarming (and most likely illegal) part of this "agreement" is that clause "If GREENFIELD determines, in GREENFIELD's sole discretion, that Subscriber is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Service....". Note that it theoretically allows them to cut off any customer, even if he uses 1K per day, since this clause doesn't define what excessive means, and in fact states that only the company can define what is excessive. I believe the comapny must at least state what is reasonable usage which the customer is ENTITLED to for what he's paying to those SOBs.

Yep, just like how it would be illegal for McDonalds to kick out a customer for bringing a 1 gallon jug into the restaurant and filling it with coke. The customer payed for a drink with FREE REFILLS....HE IS ENTITLED TO AS MUCH AS HE WANTS!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: user1234
pwned

Please post your qualifications. The University your law degree is from, and where you are currently allowed to practice would be enough.

Or your official title and contact information at a big consumer rights organization.

Or just the lawyer you've hired to take care of this "problem," since you "care so much about consumers."

And since administrators are such loathsome creatures, what do you do for a living?

 

[lapierrem]

I think what the point was here at least on the enforcement of contracts is that - if it's illegal - the original contract is void. At least in most places, they are required to give 90 days notice for any change in TOS. That includes adding a usage cap to a previously unlimited service. The illegal contracts thing - think of it this way. If you said you paid the hooker on the corner and then don't and she tries to take you to court - they can't do anything about it even if she was screwed out of money...haha

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: lapierrem
I think what the point was here at least on the enforcement of contracts is that - if it's illegal - the original contract is void. At least in most places, they are required to give 90 days notice for any change in TOS. That includes adding a usage cap to a previously unlimited service. The illegal contracts thing - think of it this way. If you said you paid the hooker on the corner and then don't and she tries to take you to court - they can't do anything about it even if she was screwed out of money...haha

the problem is the contract is signed, the terms are agreed upon. The fact that somebody signed a binding agreement with such a blatent "out" is not the ISPs problem. There is a specific section of a services agreement (no matter what the industry) called "termination." If somebody is dumb enough to sign it without reading the fine print, well.....its perfectly legal to terminate said service.

again - no matter what the industry. There is nothing "illegal" about the contract, because the contract has already been though many reviews on the "legality" of the agreement. That is what is so funny, is folks honestly believe this is somehow illegal yet they agreed to it.

If it was illegal you attorney would have let you know before you signed it. Didn't get your attorney to review before you signed? That sure as hell is the customer's problem for being a dummy.

These kinds of agreements are perfectly legal and perfectly acceptible.

 

[razor2025]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: lapierrem
I think what the point was here at least on the enforcement of contracts is that - if it's illegal - the original contract is void. At least in most places, they are required to give 90 days notice for any change in TOS. That includes adding a usage cap to a previously unlimited service. The illegal contracts thing - think of it this way. If you said you paid the hooker on the corner and then don't and she tries to take you to court - they can't do anything about it even if she was screwed out of money...haha

the problem is the contract is signed, the terms are agreed upon. The fact that somebody signed a binding agreement with such a blatent "out" is not the ISPs problem. There is a specific section of a services agreement (no matter what the industry) called "termination." If somebody is dumb enough to sign it without reading the fine print, well.....its perfectly legal to terminate said service.

again - no matter what the industry. There is nothing "illegal" about the contract, because the contract has already been though many reviews on the "legality" of the agreement. That is what is so funny, is folks honestly believe this is somehow illegal yet they agreed to it.

If it was illegal you attorney would have let you know before you signed it. Didn't get your attorney to review before you signed? That sure as hell is the customer's problem for being a dummy.

These kinds of agreements are perfectly legal and perfectly acceptible.

I'm not sure how much legality Contracts will have over any government law/regulation. I'm pretty much a legal-newbie (lol, excuse the pun), but I've always thought that if any contract had a clause that will violate local/state/federal law or regulation, then that clause is null-void.

There's also problem with your lawyer logic. If consumers were to have their lawyer present at every contract they sign, we'll have to have a personal lawyer 24/7. That will be crazy and this is why businesses and scrupulous individuals create contracts that are practically impossible to decipher. If you want consumers to read the contracts carefully, you should support the effort of forcing contract to be written in layman terms.

 

[vi edit]

Spidey's point is that the ISP's legal buzzards have already picked and probed apart any possible loopholes in the wording of the TOS. There is an excessive bandwith use clause in the TOS. They said in the TOS that they don't have to give warning and that they don't have to give concrete defintions to what they describe as "excessive".

If they choose the pull the plug on you, they can. And there is nothing that you can do about it.

They, as owners of the lines, have full control over those lines and can terminate as will. You, as a customer have a right to take your business else where if you don't like it(assuming you don't have an obligation to contract length).

You went to them for service. You agreed to their rules. You have to live by their rules.