Judge Sues ISP for Poor Service 179
Pig Hogger writes: "According to this National Post story, Ontario small claims judge Beverley Reade is taking Rogers Cable to court, after she failed to get a credit when her Internet connection stopped working for a few days. She asks for either $5800 ($500 for breach of contract, $300 as compensation for her inconvenience & $5000 for punitive damages) OR an apology from cable mogul Ted Rogers himself (like this would ever happen...). The kicker is that, despite being hounded by a collection agency seeking the disputed amount, judge Reade keeps being getting solicited by Rogers marketroids trying to sell her high-speed internet access and cable-TV service..."
wow (Score:1)
she should do what we'd do (Score:1)
Read carefully. Most contracts say "UP TO" n Mbps. (Score:1)
@Home says if you threaten them with a lawsuit... (Score:1)
a chemical conglomerate??????? (Score:1)
So, the author of this article has absolutly no knowledge of either Cinema or History?
PG&E is a GAS AND ELECTRIC company...
damn, ignorance is bad, but editorial stupidity is unforgiveable...
I use Rogers (Score:2)
I'm in the Scarborough area and I have very few problems with Rogers. However, every two to three days I wind up having to reset the cable modem and Linksys router sometimes followed by a DHCP Release and Renew to get going. Most users may not know the various tricks to try resetting the equipment at the client side. The big question is how well do their technical support people know how to train users. One of the first questions they should be asking is what equipment are you using. Their support people never ask me this. Then again on the rare times that I call support I am usually calling in with a list of which of their servers that I can and cannot ping. If they perhaps can better document proceedures to reset client side equipment then they could probably cut down on the number of support calls. I have a technical background and can figure out most problems on my own. The average person is not going to do this. They are going straight for the phone.
Re:And justice for none (Score:2)
Re:And justice for none (Score:2)
Where was I..? Oh yeah a week later they sent a guy with NO modem. He said everything was OK.
Repeat cycle, over and over. Finally I SNAPPED and gave the phone guy bloody hell, so TWO weeks after that they sent a guy with a new modem. Guess what?
After that, I just lost the mail server a few times every week and totally lost service a day or two every week until I finally gave up on them.
On the other hand I have friends in another city who've had uninterrupted service for over 2 years. Go figure.
Anyway my point is - Rogers really don't make any effort to supply what they advertise, and this person is perfectly right to take them to court over it.
PS, using BELL Symnpatico DSL now for a year. No interruptions, throughput 2x any I ever got from Rogers.
SWBell is far worse (Score:2)
My latest scenario:
A year ago, I moved to a location that was declared as being over 24,000 feet out from the CO, and therefore could not continue to get DSL. It took me about 3 months to get it removed from my bill (ARGH!).
Okay, three months ago (a year after previously cancelling my service), I suddenly was billed for DSL service. How the HELL can I be billed for service that I not only do not have, but can NOT PHYSICALLY obtain?
The first month, they credited me the amount mis-billed, and swore up and down that the DSL service was removed from my bill.
The second month, I did in fact get the credit, but was still being billed for the non-existent DSL! I called back, was credited again, and was put on hold for 25 minutes while the rep (who previously claimed she could not get ahold of a manager at the time) spoke to a manager who said that, on the spot, they removed, and confirmed removed, the DSL service from my bill.
A week later, I got a call from a DSL installer wanting to confirm a schedule for them to come out and install my DSL. Argh!
This month, I recieved my bill. I had not recieved my credit for the previous month. I was charged a late fee. To add insult to injury, they were STILL FUCKING BILLING ME FOR DSL!!!
This time, I got another credit (AGAIN!), and they claimed, once again, to have removed DSL from my services. This time, I spoke with my local billing office (as opposed to SWBell Internet Services). I asked them to specifically note on my account that SBIS was BARRED permenantly from being able to add services or bill my account. Period.
We'll have to see.
A relative of mine, on the other hand, has been billed for a year now for a dial up connection he does not have. SWBell has attempted to criminally extort this money from him by telling him he had to pay the entire amount of the bill (now several hundred dollars) and file a complaint. Then, if and only if it was determined to be "true", then he would be CREDITED for that massive amount. In the meantime, they have turned off his phone and DSL service multiple times. They even turned the phone off after being given a direct order by the Texas Public Utilities Commission that they were not to disconnect his service under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT-SO-EVER. Keep in mind that in most states, the phone companies do what the state PUC's say, or ELSE. It is a severe penalty when they violate an order like that.
The latest I hear is that the PUC is about to "lower the boom" on SBC. They have warehouses full of complaints just about their DSL service.
Here are some more little tidbits:
-- Their phone reps have been caught red-handed giving false names over the phone (caught by verifying with their own supervisors/managers they transfered people to).
-- Whenever you accuse SBC of capping their DSL service below their guaranteed cap of 1.5MB (which is a severe FCC violation) they suddenly become very quiet--you don't have that many people react in this manner unless they know something is going on.
-- The same thing occurs when you accuse them of chaining multiple DSLAMS together (thereby reducing the possible bandwidth of the connected DSL users).
Personally, I'm waiting for Birch or one of the other local phone carriers (NOT AT&T) to get rolling in town, and I'll tell SWBell to kiss my ass forever.
Re:Did she have any choice? (Score:1)
But, in Quebec, where I live, the cable company (Videotron) sells its service for $CAN 30
So yes, we are stuck with monopolies, but at least they are monopolies competing very vigorously...
Re:No way. (Score:1)
I'd say she's at least entitled to legal fees as well. Additionally, I happen to agree that punitive damages are in order. Roger's shouldn't be allowed to get away with just losing the amount they owe her. Otherwise they'll have no incentive not to treat their other customers the same way. They should face at least SOME penalty.
Re:Cleared up (Score:1)
Umm.. here's what I don't understand. If you don't get the service that they want you to pay for, how can you be considered to be "in debt" to them? In debt for what? What did they give you? Seems like if they aren't providing the goods, they shouldn't get the money, right?
Re:No way. (Score:2)
Unfortunately what the Firestone/Bridgestone case shows us is that in order to draw enough bad press to really have an effect on a large corporation, they have to kill a few dozen people.
Lawyer: and she hear's cases??? (Score:2)
This is indeed scary--this woman is hearing cases? Her actions in this suit show a fundamental lack of understanding of the law.
Yes, this is Canada, and not a state where I have a license. Note, though, that the US is usually in the forefront of jackpot-style expansions of the law.
Never mind whether or not you hate the ISP, or what you think is fair. This is about the law.
There are no punitive daages on a contract. None. Zip. Nil. Just can't have them. You might get something for general damages in addition to the value of the services not delivered, but not several thousand--at most, she gets here regular rate of compensation.
The only way to get punitive damages out of a contract is to show a fraud in getting you into the contract. To show this, you need to show that a statenmt was made with the knowledge it was untrue. This does not appear to be what she's doing, though, according to the article.
and why did I give it up for academia???
hawk
You want a case aganist Rogers? (Score:5)
After a year and a half of a VERY broken connect and refusals time and again from rogers to send anyone to my house to repair my connect, I threatened them with a lawsuit in order to talk to someone in a higher tier in tech support. (A benign threat- I didn't have the time or money to take on this sort of thing.)
I insinuated that they advertised that Rogers allowed you to do certain things with your cable modem, including surfing the web and playing games. However, I was told flat out by many of their techs that as long as my connect is up and they can ping it, they will do NOTHING ELSE to help me with my connect.
When Rogers left British Columbia and Shaw moved in, a tech came to my house to switch my Lancity modem with a Terayon model (thanks to Terayon and Shaw for the non-competition monopolistic contract). Apparently the wiring inside my wall was positively rotten. It was fixed by a Shaw employee that day.
Rogers deserves to rot for what I would call false advertising.
As a sidenote, if anyone is going through a Shaw to Rogers switch like I did, check out my experiences [dhs.org].
\\\ SLUDGE
Re:@Home says if you threaten them with a lawsuit. (Score:1)
I GUARANTEE your threat didn't get you any further than if you had just attempted to resolve the issue without trying to drop names.
similar to my dad's ordeal (Score:1)
Rogers did not cancel our service and after my dad came back from a trip out of Canada, he found letters from Rogers threatening him and they continually called to threaten him about not paying for the service. Needless to say, he was really upset. Especially since he had paid for three months _after_ his original cancellation request. He told me each time they harassed him, it always ended up in a shouting match with whomever Rogers sent to harass him.
The issue was never resolved. Since then, Rogers has continually called to try to solicite their services. On a few occasions, my dad decided to go ahead and subscribe only to later be called by someone working for Rogers harassing him about how he still owes them money. And then the cycle repeats...
Re:You want a case aganist Rogers? (Score:2)
Re:What is the deal with Cable service (Score:1)
Re:This is a golden opportunity (Score:1)
Five letters... (Score:2)
This could get interesting if she wins; couldn't it be used as precedent for several aspects of customer/business/government communication interaction? Imagine having to provide x number of tech support for each 1000 customers, or metered internet access with automatic deduction for downed connection time. Interesting possibilities.
Wrong (Score:3)
Of course, the ISP is easily within their rights to report the failure of a bill payment to a collection agency, but the burden of proof, and its enforcement, is on the shoulders of the vendor.
Asking for a refund is not at all the way to handle this. Clearly you haven't dealt with many vendors like this before.
Re:Although Rogers does suck... (Score:1)
Don't think her nationality has anything (Score:2)
Re:Oh, the horror (Score:1)
(look of disbelief) The canucks must be pretty hard up. I've missed every episode of Survivor, ever, and I'm perfectly norm.. uhhh nevermind
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Re:"Click-Through" licences... (Score:2)
A company can put all kinds of disclaimers in their little print, but if these disclaimers are not reasonable, a court will dismiss them in a heartbeat.
Yeah, basically a court can find a contract to be "unconscionable" if it is absurdly tilted towards one party or the other. Trouble is, I bet you could count on two hands the number of contracts voided by courts in the US for unconscionability in the last *century*.
In theory, such a thing can be done, but in practice it virtually never happens, because the general presumption is that both parties understand the contract before signing it. You could try to get a contract voided that way, but believe me, you're never gonna get beyond the judge asking you why, if the contract was so awful, you signed it anyway. Unless you're retarded, insane, or otherwise demonstrably incapable of guarding your own best interests, you're going to be stuck with that contract, even if it is totally one-sided.
Re:Read the contract (Score:3)
Also the arguments about 5800 as too much, i think its too little. Her time is worth more than 500 bux for hours of lousy on-hold music.
Re:No way. (Score:1)
Filing a complaint with the FCC is also important, but in my experience doesn't make much of an impression.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that you are not just losing your phone service, but you are losing your 911 emergency dialing. This is a FCC regulation and if a phone company can be shown to be negligent in this matter they can face some major fines.
As always, this should not be considered legal advice, ie consult a lawyer. Hopefully, it points you in the correct direction though.
Lando
Re:Although Rogers does suck... (Score:3)
The level one support people are clueless, and like to blame your machine or hardware for every problem, even if you haven't changed anything, and you wake up some morning to find all three of your computers no longer connecting to the network, and you've swapped out your hub and every network cable. I am not making this up, it happened to me, and it took two and a half weeks for them to diagnose that there was a problem in the cable box outside my apartment building. One tech had come out, but didn't bother to actually TEST the line, just installed a new modem and left saying "it should work in a couple of hours".
What I want, is for ISPs to take providing service more seriously. If you do convince them that there is an actual problem with your line or modem, @Home always schedules someone to come to your house in two weeks, not the next day, not even that week.
Would I accept that from the phone company or the power company? Hell no! Maybe access to the internet isn't important to them, but it is important to me, as it can save me several trips to the office to fix minor glitches or help out computer-challenged users.
Now, I understand that cable modems can go down, but for the love-of-god, have a free dial-up number locally for when it does, so that those of us who have phone modems at least have a backup that we can use for those two weeks while we wait for help. AT&T has a modem pool that their subscribers can use, FOR FIFTY CENTS PER MINUTE. That's adding insult to injury.
What is the average cluelss user supposed to do for two weeks without access? You can generate an awful lot of negative eBay feedback for unpaid auctions and unsent goods if you can't get to your e-mail for two weeks...
I know that if you really NEED Internet access 24/7, you should be using something more expensive than a $30/month cable modem, but it's time that @Home actually showed some concern for the experience of the end users...
---
Re:Acts of God... (Score:2)
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:Read the contract (Score:2)
In reality, many contracts include unenforceable language that is knowingly included for its intimidation value. They know that it would get laughed out of court, but they know that most people are not lawyers and will assume the language is valid.
You need to consult with a lawyer if you want to know what the contract actually means.
did you read? (Score:2)
I think she'll win.
Possible test of "click-through"-style licenses? (Score:2)
It might set an interested precedent if the judge wins. As another poster mentioned, there's probably one of the usual "we disclaim any liability for it not working" sort of clauses somewhere in the agreement. (While the agreement for signing up with the cable company may not have been an actual "click-through" thing, the "it's not our fault if it doesn't work" is a common feature of such things).
If the judge wins, should commercial software developers start worrying about the lack of protection that these clauses in the licenses?
---
It's not so bad here. (Score:1)
Sometimes, there does exist good service.
Re:Acts of God... (Score:2)
Now, naturally, if the ISP loses a peer or upstream provider, or your cable gets cut, there's gonna be some connectivity problems, but it should be fixed promptly, and other problems should be fixed immediately. My cablemodem died two nights back, and Roadrunner sent a tech out (after standard tech support call) at 10:30pm to figure out the problem, and fixed it. In the past, they've always either fixed it immediately or given me credit for the day.
It's reasonable to assume your ISP will provide you with Internet service, funky EULAs stating "we won't provide you with service, even though our ads explicitly promise it" be damned.
It's all relative ... (Score:3)
Add to that the actual threats they made towards her credit rating while she was attempting to get that bank loan, plus the usual obnoxious behavior that collection firms can sometimes get into, a complete lack of respect by the service provider about any of it's customers, makes me think that she's asking for too little in punitive damages to get the company to rethink this kind of behavior.
It's exactly concerns like this and other horror stories that make me mistrust most cable ISP's.
Re:And justice for none (Score:2)
Myself, I subcribe via Cogeco [cgocable.net], who was about the same when I first started with them. However, they have a clue - when thier backbone started melting, they quadrupled it's bandwidth. When @Home kept blowing up it's DHCP server, they put thier own in Burlington, Ontario. When wait times on service calls regularily went over 45 minutes, they hired new staff - they even trained them before they went on Hell desk duty. I have only been off-line for a total of one hour in the last 4 months. All in all, I am extremely satisfied with Cogeco.
The difference here is that Cogeco is in this for the long haul - they want to keep thier on-line customers happy, so they keep thier on-line customers in the face of any competition. Rogers doesn't give a flying fuck as long as you pay your bill.
I don't blame her. (Score:3)
This is just someone who is hitting back since there's relatively no alternative. I myself couldn't go back to dialup, and Sympatico is not much better for service. As well, I'm fairly certain thet there's not a CO on or within 7 or 8 Km ( about 4.4 to 5.0 miles) of Pelee Island - IOW it's out of DSL range.
(OT: There is also somewhat misleading advertising from Sympatico. They advertise "No sharing, always fast" - about 760Kb to the CO - but what they don't tell you is that you and the other 200 people in the CO are sharing a single T1 to the Internet. Since Cable is usually @ 1.5Mb, it's about the same in the end, isn't it?)
I won't duplicate an earlier rant [slashdot.org], but let's just say that the trouble with Rogers (and Bell Canada - owners of the Sympatico service) is one of being a little too focused on the bottom line and not thier customers. Having a monoploy [microsoft.com] seems to do that [slashdot.org] to a company, IMHO.
Well.. (Score:2)
Still won't matter (Score:2)
Also, recall that she is not seeking punitive damanges because of her internet service, but because of Roger's actions as a company. She is not asking for punitive damages because her net access didn't work, she's suing for damanges because of how they acted *after* she cancelled her service.
Think about this though. (Score:2)
However, an AUP that disclaims punitive damanges would be, i'd think, limited to damages related to internet access or loss thereof, directly. So you can't sue them when they crash and you lose access to e-trade for an hour and lose money.. that's not their fault. You cannot, however, disclaim all punitive measures against the company itself for whatever reason...
She's suing because of their actions as a company, not because of lost internet access.
Re:Damages. (Score:2)
Punitive is supposed to punish the offender, more than pay the plaintiff.
The judge asked for much smaller amounts for 'damages'
Re:Microsoft bullies its best customers (Score:2)
I hope to receive such a notice some day.
My response will be 'We understand what you are asking, but fail to see how you can compel us to do this. If you feel we are stealing your product, please file charges, otherwise, please stop harassing us. We do not have the time to deal with you.'
Re:Not too outlandish (Score:3)
This is not simply about internet downtime.
Re:Still won't matter (Score:3)
They then both a) refused to give her the refund she said she was getting and b) sent her to a collections agency.
Her point is twofold.
One, that she agreed to sign up because it would be on all the time, and there was technical support. Once she was signed up, she found that it didn't work all the time, and the support was a joke. In any normal business dealing, that's a fundamental breach of the implied contract of sale. The service they sold here didn't work as specified, so she cancelled it, and refused to pay them any money.
Then their collection agent went a bit too far with her too, acting quite threatening, talking about ruining her credit rating, etc.
She's going after them for selling a bunk product, not for losing her internet access. She hasn't paid them any money, and is instead taking them to court over it.
Had they simply said 'we're sorry you didn't like our service, we hope you come back some day' all woudl ahve been well. This is about their actions, not her loss of access.
Re:Telocity (Score:1)
That was in Feb.
I just found out that I've been still getting billed since then. Thank god it wasn't still automatically getting charged to my CC.
Dipshits.
Re:"Click-Through" licences... (Score:1)
Re:holy cow!!! (Score:1)
The thing is.. (Score:1)
Yes, floods, etc count, but I don't see anything like that mentioned by Rogers.
As a disclaimer, I work for an ISP too - so I can sympathize with you about things that are really out of your control - but equipment failure doesn't cut it.
"Click-Through" licences... (Score:3)
According to the cableco, they can't be held liable because their AUP says so..
This sound suspiciously like a "click-through" license.. if the Judge wins, it could spark a HUGE blow against such licenses - finally (at least in Canada) bringing them under legal scrutiny..
I'd be interested in seeing how this plays out.. a legal precident could be in the makings...
Re:No way. (Score:2)
Judge Judy (Score:2)
--
Re:Acts of Gomer... (Score:3)
It does NOT include something a company could reasonable foresee. E.g., building a switch in a flood plain.
Very few people aren't willing to cut a company some slack after a bona fide Act of God. But many companies try to use this to justify Acts of Gomer. (Think Gomer Pyle, Cable Guy, and you know what I mean.) It's Gomer Pyle, CEO, who didn't staff the help line and caused hour-long waits on help-calls, not God. It's Gomer Pyle, CEO, who made some decisions that caused the network connection to be routinely dropped.
Re:Read the contract (Score:4)
Besides, taken to its logical extreme (something many cable providers attempt), that clause would make it perfectly legal for them to provide *no* service whatsoever. That flies in the face of common sense - contracts are supposed to be mutual guarantees of exchanges of value. Paying $40/month while the cable company does absolutely nothing doesn't make sense, and any court would throw it out.
That's all the judge is asking in this case - a determination that the company can't routinely drop that connection without reaching the point where no reasonable person would consider it worth the hassle. There has to be *some* limit, and since it's not stated in the contract that's something that can (and will be) determined by a judge or jury.
There's also issues regarding business and collection practices. From what the article said, I agree with the judge that the company's behavior crossed the line of acceptable behavior. Promising a future credit, for an unknown amount at an unknown time, is nothing but a clear "fuck off" to the customer.
(IANAL, but can read.)
due to the lack of television.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did she have any choice? (Score:1)
Yes in canada, the cable and phone monopolies must also allow other isps access to their infrasture.
However due to the cost of implementation, nobody has so far gone that route with Cable (although in the huronia region as small isp has begun to look into offer high speed cable as well) , only dsl isps have done this.
And justice for none (Score:5)
Odd how this is the first I've ever heard of anyone complaint about this ISP via way of a lawsuit. I wonder how many others have either complained, in comparison with how many users they have, etc. People always complain for whatever reason about anything, it's human nature.
As stated how many people faced this same problem with this provider? A bit disturbing to see this article which seems to contain shaky grounds. So she doesn't want money but an apology? If it's a matter of morals, why waste the peoples time and money with this bs, just move along to another provider, unless she has a vendetta which is not written going on against the provider.
Now when I see things like it would shut down when she and her kids were using it, how the hell does she know it wasn't her own, or her kids negligence that was causing it? For this I refer to "Diary of an AOL'er [antioffline.com]", a funny ass story, but oh so true for some people.
Re:holy cow!!! (Score:2)
That gives me an idea... (Score:4)
I think I'll go into the ISP business. I'll sell customers a 100gigabit access for $19.95 per month. When they complain that they ain't getting any service I'll point out the Rogers Clause in their contract, and try to upgrade them to my premiere package (1 zillion terabits for the low, low price of $39.95 pre month).
Re:Still won't matter (Score:1)
The consumer also has a right to take their business elsewhere.
Re:Although Rogers does suck... (Score:2)
While I agree they do work hard, as a whole, I object to this on principle.. He's a money grubbing moron who hopes he's got his star to the easy life.
This is a golden opportunity (Score:2)
A corrupted judge (Score:2)
This story is very lackluster on details, and does a great job of making Judge Reade look like a hero fighting a big company. That may be the case, but the facts sure don't back it up. It is made clear that Rogers has harassed her, and she should sue for that. But from the rest of the facts, this looks more like a typical frivolous lawsuit.
Unbiased Article: "Their protagonist is a former litigator..." PROTAGONIST?
She is suing for $5800: $500 for breach of contract, $300 for compensation, and $5000 for punitive damages. Lets examine this:
What are the damages? "...Reade says her kids have agreed to testify in court about the deprivation of missing television -- particularly this year's Survivor show -- and its effect on their lives..." Many Slashdotters would probably PAY money to not be mass marketed. These people consider it a $5000 damage!
Re:Although Rogers does suck... (Score:2)
This is why I went with the Sympatico ADSL service Bell Canada offers. sure I never get more than 50kB/s and it's a dynamic IP but the customer service makes up for it.
Case in point, I was having trouble with intermittant connections with the modem. Called the toll free number, got live person within 3 minutes and they were helpful going thorugh the proper steps to double check that everything was fine, and when I told them I was using Linux, I was imediatly written up for a check on the network line, tech support said "You must know what you're doing on your end then"
Next day got a call from network support to do some checks with the modem to test the line, when nothing came up that way they sent a guy out THAT DAY to get me a new modem.
compared to the 2 weeks it took to just get rogers out to my old place to hook the stuff up, the intermittant service and the hangups when I told them I ran Linux (with the phrase "Sorry we don't support that OS") I am extremely happy with my connection, even if it's slower.
It sounds like my Adelphia@Home in my city! (Score:3)
1) Very slow speed, especially during peak hours (i.e. analog modem speed during peak hours). I was told that there are only six T1 lines in this city.
2) Too many cable modem outages.
3) Horrible technical support (nothing unusual for any companies).
4) None of can get DSL because we're too far. IDSL, satellite Internet, etc. are too expensive and slow (i.e. gaming).
5) The problems are getting worse.
6) Adelphia@Home is still adding new subscribers. My cable friends and I recently got flyers and postcards.
I was told Adelphia is going to discontinue @Home and switch subscribers to its PowerLink ISP service. I doubt that will help a lot.
Some interesting links with my city's cable modem problems:
My city complaints [dslreports.com]... Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Speed Test Results [dslreports.com] (type in 91745 for zip code).
Adelphia Forum [dslreports.com]: A few posts related to my city and Rowland Heights.
Some results [apu.edu] from my traceroutes, pings, etc.
Did she have any choice? (Score:4)
This suit really isn't as frivolous as some here are making it out to be. Regardless of what the contract says, there are certain minimum warranties required by law, and certainly a company should be held accountable to a degree for the claims it makes about itself in its advertising. Presumably she knows the law in this situation and believes she has a good case.
Clearly, Rogers could have avoided this simply by providing the support they promised they would in their marketing literature. Even if they lose, they're getting off cheap compared to the cost of actually hiring enough support operators.
Re:holy cow!!! (Score:2)
Have you read the story of Bob Kolody vs. Coca-Cola [guerrillanews.com]?
Re:And justice for none (Score:2)
well i've heard both good and bad things about Rogers@Home, but personally i've had absolutely no problems with them. perhaps that's just because i live in downtown Toronto: i have yet to hear a complaint about Rogers' downtown service from anybody i know. of course my parents in London have had constant problems so who knows? i do know (from my parents' experience) that if you bitch enough about the outages they'll refund some of your money.
at any rate, Rogers@Home isn't completely useless across the board, but they definitely have their problem areas. they're also considerably better than Bell Sympatico from my experience (but they're also hit & miss).
- j
Re:No way. (Score:2)
Personally, I wish I'd had the time and energy to sue my old DSL ISP in small claims court to get back the the two months of charges for service they failed to provide. Hours and hours on the phone with techs with no clue, lies about "widespread outages," and much bullshit. Finally gave up and switched to a wonderful new ISP with techs who really know their stuff. I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
---
Re:No way. (Score:2)
Re:Acts of God... (Score:2)
Telocity (Score:3)
#!/bin/bash STATUS=`ping -c 2 -q 216.227.80.37 2>/dev/null`
CODE=$?
NOW=`date`
if [ $CODE -gt 0 ]; then
echo $NOW DOWN >> ~/temp/status
else
echo $NOW UP >> ~/temp/status
fi
They were supposed to call my Noon today but haven't. The next step is to file complaints with the local PSC and the FCC.
Re:@Home says if you threaten them with a lawsuit. (Score:2)
I guess they get threatened a lot then.
When I ran Zeta Internet [zeta.org.au] we used to get the occasional customer call and threaten to sue us for something or other. In every case it was a baseless threat, made simply because the customer was frustrated. We would ignore the threat and just do our best to fix up their problem, whatever it was.
The funniest one we ever got was the guy who threatened to sue us for 60 billion dollars because he didn't understand how to do FTP. We setup his website and while awaiting delegation of the domain sent an automated form letter with instructions for uploading the web pages which said something like:
And the guy didn't understand what if/then means and went positively apeshit.So anyway I can understand their policy. 99% of these threats aren't serious, but the ISP doesn't want to stuff up the 1% which actually are. This policy stops the baseless ones in their tracks, because the really want technical support, not the legal department.
Re:No way. (Score:2)
I think that $5000 is resonable to make a company go "hey we did something wrong" and yet not actually damage the company in any serious way. This is a .com type company though maybe $5000 is more than thier profit this year :) Really though $5000 is almost nothing to a resonable business and I just hope its enough to get the attention of the provider and let them know that when they promise a level of service they must live up to the promise or compensate users for the loss. If nothing else they need to get a customer support staff that is competant, caring and fast.
Re:holy cow!!! (Score:5)
Surprisingly, this actually works. There has been significant jury duty reform here in California, and the leading proponent is the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. He was called for jury duty and actually wound up serving on a jury. He was so pissed off with the way he was treated that he decided that poor treatment of prospective jurors was a serious threat to the judicial system and started leading the charge for reform. Not all of the things that he's advocated (specifically decent jury duty pay) have been implemented, but it has made a big difference.
Re:Did she have any choice? (Score:2)
AFAIK, everywhere else in Canada is like here (Guelph, Ontario, in my case). There is one cable internet provider here - Rogers@home. If you don't like it (ie. if you don't like paying through the nose, and having so-so service) then either go with Bell Sympatico (not bad from what I hear, but also $$), or rot with the rest of the modem-using losers. Which I will probably be soon, as I cannot afford $50/month just for a decent 'net connection... :-(
Acts of God... (Score:2)
Re:"Click-Through" licences... (Score:2)
Even so, each contract has a question of good faith and reasonability applied to it. There are also consumer protection acts that apply. Also, there are an implied warranty.
Re:Possible test of "click-through"-style licenses (Score:2)
Oh, the horror (Score:5)
Yes, I can see it now
Please, tell the court how you were affected by Rogers's Actions...
I started reading. (through sobs) I got though an entire book! YOU BASTARDS!
"The deprivation of missing television" (Score:3)
Witness: ...and then I had to find out who won Survivor from a newspaper! [Witness breaks down sobbing]
Plaintiff's Attorney: Yes, I'm sorry...it must have been very hard. INow you know I don't want to do this, but I need you to describe for the court, in your own words, what kind of depraved, foul-smelling, leech-like --
Defense Attorney: Objection, your honour! My client is not leech-like!
Judge: Overruled.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Thank you, your honour. As I was saying -- leech-like, hideous, indescribable monster you think could possibly deprive you of the wholesome, innocent joys of childhood by taking away television.
holy cow!!! (Score:3)
maybe they could see what we (the massive) consumers have to put with
and so maybe we could get court decisions voted *our* way for once ...
Sunny Dubey
Re:did you read? (Score:2)
It has to be said: (Score:2)
Go Girl! err... your honor.
Re:Although Rogers does suck... (Score:2)
That philosophy runs contrary to contract law. Price is irrelevant when a contract binds the relationship -- if you really NEED Internet access 24/7, and a company advertises their access as 24/7 then you can reasonably expect them to fulfill that, regardless of price.
Small claims hmmm. (Score:4)
This is why one of the first actions a company will take if you small claims court them is to have it moved to circuit court (a "higher" level court) rules of evidence are harder and the judges more "impartial" (lawyer friendly, not layman friendly)
Hopefully this will start to break us free from the cable company monopolies, my area allows only one, I would love to see equal access enforced like it is for long distance carriers. (at least in the US). Maybe then they will stop this bait and switch crap they like to play with bandwidth, 120K the first month, then 90K , then 60K etc...
On a final note I would also like to say, that must be one of the most shagable judges I have ever seen...
Small-claims how-to (Score:5)
- a book [fedpubs.com] on how to use the Ontario Small Claims Court system
- a link [cbc.ca] to some useful information, including a PDF document [gov.on.ca] on the Small Claims system
Is that enough?Of course, if there are enough people that have been pissed off by Rogers, we could go for a huge class-action lawsuit, but I have a feeling that a grassroots small-claims onslaught will be much more effective, and put more cash back into your pocket if you've been affected.
About time! (Score:2)
Hope she wins
Not too outlandish (Score:3)
--
Violence is necessary, it is as American as cherry pie.
H. Rap Brown
Re:holy cow!!! (Score:2)
maybe they could see what we (the massive) consumers have to put with
and so maybe we could get court decisions voted *our* way for once "
Yeah, really... Wouldn't it be great if some judge was threatened by the DMCA cartel?
But then few dare to mess with judges though, they are pretty much the ultimate "sacred cow" of politics. Few even dare to openly criticize them, even though it's apparent that there are many out there disgracing the bench (cough) (cough) Kaplan..(cough)
Thing is, this cable company is fucked unless they do what is requested... They clearly are in breach of contract. And you can bet a judge will get a sympathetic ear of another judge...
Re:Possible test of "click-through"-style licenses (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that in such a case, that kind of click thru agreement is legal to begin with.
No commercial contract can overrule civil or criminal law, and it's against the law in most places to take money for services you do not deliver. IMO, such agreements are there more to make the consumer feel like "We're the PHONE company, we dont' fucking care, and you can't do SHIT about it!".
Most likely, this cable company is advertising their internet service, and the claims they make in those ads ALONE makes them liable to provide the service. I doubt they have a "we take no responsibility but will happily charge you if because of our negligence, it doesn't work" disclaimer in their flashy copy.
I've been lucky with RoadRunner so far. The service was connected promptly, the speed is excellent (my download speed has more to do with how fast the server on the OTHER end is!), and other than a couple of brief weather-related outages, has been reliable as hell.
Cleared up (Score:2)
Apparently this needs to be cleared up still...
Unless the laws are so totally different in all parts of North America, the basic law is simple: you can't just not pay a bill. Here's a great analogy from my past: I was renting an apartment from a company that didn't have the building up to code. Sure, I could have just refused to pay my rent until the problem was fixed, right? Wrong. Had I done that, my landlord would have every right to charge me late fees, declare my account delinquent, whathave you. Simply put, it wasn't my right to deny payment, because it had not been a finding of law that stated I didn't need to make payment. It is up to a court judge (note: not just a judge who's acting as a citizen as in this case) to decide the fate.
Faced with this, I am in a hard place. I don't want to pay my bill because that makes me feel like I'm saying it's all okay--and things certainly are not okay. So what am I to do? Simple. I file suit. Another option would be (if I intend to file suit) to send a formal complaint to the clerk of courts with a check for the disputed amount. The court will keep hold of the funds until things are sorted out. The clerk will also notify the defendant of the funds that have been sent in as well as the complaint. This will effectively "lock" the account so that it does not become delinquent.
I really wish people would better understand that this is a very important point: one cannot go without paying off a debt. It doesn't matter how right you think you are; and it doesn't matter if the other party isn't living up to its end of the contract. If you wish to show that the defendant hasn't lived up to its portion of the contract, the absolute worst thing you can do is break the contract yourself. It is imperative that if you are going to make a claim that you haven't made a single breach of the contract. It's almost always the plantiff's burden to show proof, and by breaking the contract by withholding payment you have started off on the wrong foot.
Last comment: if you are ever thinking about withholding payment, call your lawyer first. Don't get yourself screwed by doing something that's just going to hurt you. The courts here simply throw out cases where the plantiff withheld payment. This is because it looks like the plantiff is trying to get away with free products or services. You can either pay the bill and then file suit for that money back (and yes, that's a great idea at times) or send the money to the clerk of courts. But doing neither of those things will cause bad things.
Re:did you read? (Score:3)
Flame aside, of course I read the article. And believe it or not, Rogers Cable had every right to call in the collection agency. Here's why:
First, when I "subscribe" to anything, I am agreeing to pay my bill in full every time a bill is due. Sure, I may have objections. I may even say that I don't want to pay it. But that doesn't pay the bill, and I'm not released from being required to pay in the legal sense.
Second, the lawsuit hadn't been filed. That means there wasn't a court injunction that temporarily "locked" the account until the mess could be sorted out. Had the judge simply filed the suit immediately after not paying the bill in full, her account would not have been sent to a collections agency. The burden in on the plaintiff here.
The proper thing would have been to pay the bill in full if the suit hadn't been filed. The judge could have then proceeded with the civil suit and asked for a refund of the money. Not paying the bill and not getting the account locked in a legal way forced her account into collections. One can't just go around not paying bills--one's credit rating is based on payment only; not on whether you're right or wrong for denying payment.
No way. (Score:5)
This is obviously excessive. There is no way this judge, nor anyone else, could get that sum of money from any ISP. It just isn't going to happen.
Now, what the judge is trying to do is make a point. She doesn't want Roger's Cable to get away without major negative press. She probably doesn't care much about whether she wins or loses, and I can't blame her. Sometimes finding a way to tell potential consumers to stay away is worth a loss in court.
Re:You want a case aganist Rogers? (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. Ever since Shaw came to BC their cable service, and in particular my broadband service, has been top-notch. I actually talked to a tech support guy who knew what Linux was... what a change of pace from Rogers.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Frivilous (Score:2)
Puuull-eeze. Pray tell, what effect would that be? YOU cancelled your television service. The issue was the cable internet service, not TV.
As for breech of contract etc, waiting for hours is standard practice for @home tech support, and they can't wait to get your ass off the phone. I would not classify it as breach of contract, i would call it their standard service policy, along with every other ISP's (see below). Waiting is part and parcel of the game lady. If you want a tech at your beckon call, 24/7, be prepared to pony up the dosh to pay for it, cuz your paltry $40/month don't cut it.
And now for my OT tantrum about @home:
Those know-nothings at Shaw/Rogers make $17.00/hr to basically leave you on hold, and tell you to reboot your computer, or run winipcfg. GAWD! They have none of the shit-work of a normal ISP and yet my company [uniserve.com] (may they rot in hell) that pays me $9.50/hr just layed off our ENTIRE office.
Phew, I *really* needed to get that off my chest.
Re:A corrupted judge (Score:2)
"Unbiased Article: "Their protagonist is a former litigator..." PROTAGONIST?"
Legal-ese. Calling her the protagonist is the same as calling her the plaintiff. That, and the idea is that Rogers "antagonized" her first.
"$300 for compensation - $300 won't make up for the time she spends, the harassment, and legal fees."
Assuming that she's not representing herself. To be a judge, you first have to be a lawyer. Also, renting out a few vacation cottages usually doesn't require you to be there 9-5.
"$500 for breach of contract - Rogers claims their contract makes no guarantee of service or compensation. Nice contract. So basically, they don't even guarantee that they do anything for the fee. That makes it hard to say they breached it."
Then it depends on if that particular clause is legal. If such a clause is against the law, then it doesn't matter what the paperwork says.
If "anything goes" in contracts, then builders could get out of lawsuits for collapsing buildings, and organized crime wouldn't be illegal ("But your honor, the contract said that if he fell behind on his payments I could break his kneecaps, blow up his house, shoot his family...")
"$5000 punitive damages - Rogers contract exempts them from punitive damages. That's why she has to go for breach of contract - else the $5000, which is the real heart of this matter, would be thrown out."
Again, it depends if Rogers is legally allowed to back out of said punitive damages.
"Many Slashdotters would probably PAY money to not be mass marketed. These people consider it a $5000 damage!"
Check out the by-line/motto when you come in here next time: News for Nerds. The fact that these damned "reality" TV shows suck doesn't prevent them from becoming cultural icons. And following social dogma can be a big thing, especially in... say... high school. That, and I'd also lump in the collection nazis and telemarketing demons into those punitive damages. Hell, considering the fact that this is Canadian play money we're talking about, I'd ask for double for that kind of crap. :)
Which reminds me: "Compensation" covers only losses that come directly from Rogers' breach-of-contract (the actual lost connections). "Damages" is everything else not directly covered by the contract, but outside problems caused by Rogers' action/inaction (no "Survivor," missed customers because of website problems, harassing phone calls, making her drag them to court to begin with, etc...)
However, IANAL.
Re:"Click-Through" licences... (Score:2)
A company can put all kinds of disclaimers in their little print, but if these disclaimers are not reasonable, a court will dismiss them in a heartbeat. The purpose of these disclaimers and one-sided contracts is to save money. Most consumers actually believe this bullshit and think they have no rights, thus saving a lot of money for the offending service provider.