EveryName
Wake Up
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Montreal | Thank god!
It's about time someone set them straight! |
|
Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Winchester, VA
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Bout time really
I was wondering when this was going to happen. I have hughes net and I can relate to the pain and suffering. Bad enough having to deal with their speeds and FAP but also the packet loss errors or HTTP transport errors all the time too that I see mainly in the evenings. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Pointless
This, like most class action lawsuits, will turn into a win-win for the lawyers as well as defendants. There will be a grand spectacle of courtroom theatrics, excoriating Hughes and making them appear to be worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot combined... and then there will be the predictable result... tons of coupons to the "victims" which will entitle them to discounted services provided by Hughes of course!
Hughes wins by making money again off of the plaintiffs. The lawyers win making money off of Hughes. In the end, the plaintiffs end up putting more of their money into the coffers of a company they hate for a service which clearly doesn't meet their needs.
What I don't get is this. If your speeds are consistently throttled to those below dialup, then why not just get dialup? The plaintiffs clearly have no problems paying ridiculous prices for sub-dialup speeds, why not just get the real thing and save the hassle?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Winchester, VA
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Because the problem is, Hughes net locks you in to a contract and make it nearly impossible to get out of. They charge you out of line ETF's and I've even read horror stories about customers even trying to get through to cancel their service.
If they cannot provide what they advertise, they should not be in business period. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| This is bad
This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Luminaris
Re: Pointless
said by Luminaris  :Because the problem is, Hughes net locks you in to a contract and make it nearly impossible to get out of. They charge you out of line ETF's and I've even read horror stories about customers even trying to get through to cancel their service. What you say is true of most contracts though. I chalk these experiences up to people not doing proper research on a product or service before committing to it.
said by Luminaris :If they cannot provide what they advertise, they should not be in business period. I am unfamiliar with civil laws in this regard but if this is indeed true then the government should be holding Hughes' feet to the fire for false advertising.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
JohnQuincyPublic
@bellsouth.net | reply to S_engineer
Re: This is bad
Yeah, I guess you can kiss your raise goodbye now, huh?  |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
I disagree. This is a predatory company in more ways than one.
Firstly they advertise themselves a "broadband" but with their "FAP" your actually provided less bandwidth than dialup.
Secondly, Ive heard they have a pretty wicked ETF.
They market themselves to people who have no other alternative, but in reality, they are in many ways worse than dialup. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to S_engineer
So companies should be able to advertise and charge for one level of service, but actually provide considerably less in return? Allowing this is a bad idea too. |
|
jrose78
join:2005-02-10
Bondsville, MA
2 edits | In reply to S_engineer
You can apply that logic to anything. Don't sue doctors health care will go up .. Don't sue cable companies there cable fees will go up. I am not buying it. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! boy you can sure tell who works for whom by their posts can't you? |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| AT&T?
Interesting AT&T was mentioned as a byproduct of this.
I just got a notice from them informing me of a change in my service agreement that stipulates I will not join class action suits against them and that if I have unresolved issues I won't take them to court but agree to be bound by an arbitrator.
It doesn't look to me like AT&T has responded very positively to such lawsuits. I still have the same service but they're trying to force their customers in my region into staying out of courts to settle disputes with them. 
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| Nationalize the broadband infrastructure...
to deliver wired Internet access to every citizen that wants it. Internet access is too important to national security and the economic well being of this country to allow corporations to have a hand in its delivery. They have already proven that their limited agendas will take precedence over everything including the well being of this nation. After the Internet is delivered, corp's. can then make their money delivering services across the Internet.
If you don't think this is a good idea then let's turn over the nation's highways to corporations. And the military as well. We might as well let them control everything. |
|
boogi man
join:2001-11-13
Apo, AE
clubs:
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Comcast
| the horror of it all
imagine a place where what you pay for is actually what you get and when it isn't the provider has to fix it or forfeit any additional money from the customer...
obviously this utopia doesn't exist yet but that's really the bigger point of the this type of lawsuit. is an effort get closer to companies actually doing the 'right' thing. they have lobbyist's and we the people have class action suits. still not quit balanced but over all it does have some good impact.
as for not taking something that doesn't perform well there are about 300 million here and it would seem that not all of us have learned that lesson yet or maybe when some of us get involved all of the facts aren't available and yes that's a risk hopefully one rewarded by good value and support and when it isn't then the contract is null. for both parties at that point.
and what about the fast talking salesman whose face you can't see? or when your only POC is a phone call. they aren't like the local power, phone etc that actually have a local presence in most towns. that even though it takes a drive to get there you can look someone in the eye and get a resolution.
--
my site |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to pnh102
Re: Pointless
said by pnh102 :This, like most class action lawsuits, will turn into a win-win for the lawyers as well as defendants. There will be a grand spectacle of courtroom theatrics, excoriating Hughes and making them appear to be worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot combined... and then there will be the predictable result... tons of coupons to the "victims" which will entitle them to discounted services provided by Hughes of course! Hughes wins by making money again off of the plaintiffs. The lawyers win making money off of Hughes. In the end, the plaintiffs end up putting more of their money into the coffers of a company they hate for a service which clearly doesn't meet their needs. What I don't get is this. If your speeds are consistently throttled to those below dialup, then why not just get dialup? The plaintiffs clearly have no problems paying ridiculous prices for sub-dialup speeds, why not just get the real thing and save the hassle? Thats like saying Verizon's service sucks in your area, and you are telling people to switch. But, people can't switch because they are locked in a 2 year contract. See the catch 22 you just described? |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to S_engineer
Re: This is bad
said by S_engineer :This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! Oh but its ok for companies to give less than what they advertise? What do you suggest they do? Bend over for the companies and just give them money? |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Wow, what a difference a few years make
Ahhh, those were the days |
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
Re: This is bad
It's an excellent precedent.
What this means is if a company fails to provide the service as contracted, the company is in breach of that contract and the customer leaves without paying a punitive penalty.
As it stands now, Hughesnet can provide beyond horrible service and customers are forced to pay because they're bound by a contract.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| There is only one winner.
There is only one winner in these kinds of cases. It's not the consumer, it's not Hughes, it's the lawyers. Hughes is wrong for trying to enforce ETFs on service they can't deliver. If they could deliver the service as advertised then I would say that the consumer should suck it up or vote with their feet. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| The issue
The real issue is that HughesNet markets their service as high-speed Internet when it really isn't. Their ads don't tell people that the speeds they promise are rarely delivered, and they sure don't mention the FAP. I wouldn't have a problem with the service they provide if they simply were honest in their marketing.
And, as for why folks get the service, if someone doesn't know another HughesNet customer, how would they evaluate the service? From the commercials? They promote it as broadband, which we all know it isn't. And, even though we all know that DSLR is a great place to find reviews, not everyone does. They see the ads, think about how satellite technology delivers a pretty good TV service, and figure that anything must be better than dialup.
I'm not defending ignorant consumers, but HughesNet is clearly advertising a service they simply can't deliver. They either need to drastically improve the service to bring it in line with their advertising or come clean about what they're really offering. |
|
