dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI | Throw the rascals out
I have to wonder why companies of such proven dis-reputability have to be allowed further access to our markets anyway. We need a consumer movement with some serious teeth in it.
The market does not belong to businesses. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by dilettante  :The market does not belong to businesses. Ok, I'll bite. Without businesses, where does the market come from? And please don't say government...that's not a market. |
|
Bri
@comcast.net
|  Market comes from demand, not supply. So you would be incorrect to suggest that without businesses, there is no market. For example, there are markets out there that have yet to be tapped. You cannot explain those markets if you were to believe that markets only exist based on the presence of a business. Terms of service should not be dictated by a business: these terms need to be agreed upon by the consumer and the service provider. I think that was the point of the previous poster. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Actually, Bri, the market comes from both supply AND demand. We can want eternal youth, but without a supplier, there is no market.
All:
Comcast isn't doing anything that any other general consumer service company doesn't do. It would be financially foolish not to try to limit legal exposure through forced arbitration (provided it could do so).
Before jumping all over Comcast, look at the mouseprint of your wireless service, credit cards, health club, etc. etc.. You'll likely find arbitration clauses in many of these.
I'm glad to see the courts side for the consumer on these, but I'm angry at Comcast for doing what is widely considered to be wise from a corporate perspective.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Bri
As funchords mentions, a market exists due to both a supplier and a consumer. I guess I should have clarified that in my first post.said by Bri :
Terms of service should not be dictated by a business: these terms need to be agreed upon by the consumer and the service provider. The ToS is agreed to by both the supplier and consumer each and every time a service is purchased. Am I missing something? |
|
XxBladesxX
join:2006-12-22
Puyallup, WA
|  reply to Bri
ok well I've already read enough, both on here and my comc..(we'll call them just "cable") bill...1, my bill, I've been with comcast MANY years, loved their service, cant say i care so much for their customer service(actually sad thing is i got better customer service from america line the many years ago when i had it, and that's saying a lot) and 3, i just got my bill and noticed like everyone else that it's noticeably higher... now I'm a gamer, and the faster, the better, however i know i can do everything i want on dsl without lag...don't worry, I'm already switching, and the bundles (internet and phone) will replace what I've got for quite a bit cheaper |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :The ToS is agreed to by both the supplier and consumer each and every time a service is purchased. Am I missing something? That Comcast does not have a TOS, for one.  (They call theirs a "Subscriber Agreement," but it isn't even that.)
The customer is already using the service before they learn about the surprises hidden in in the paperwork. Again, Comcast isn't doing anything unusual -- all service companies behave this way:
The company publishes a set of terms and conditions (under whatever name) for whatever service they are providing. These are not negotiable, and only rarely can certain terms be waived. Usually, you may settle your account and cancel your service -- under the old terms -- within a set amount of time.
Because companies know that most consumers never read the original terms, and even fewer read any updates, they often take advantage of the consumer's ignorance. Although the Subscriber Agreement should be a straightforward recap of the customer's and supplier's expectations of one another, a service company can quietly turn it into a one-sided legal tool cutting only in favor of the company.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| ToS = Subscriber Agreement
In the residential telecommunications arena it is fairly commonplace for a customer to "agree" to the provider's ToS/Subscriber Agreement before receiving any paperwork. In my experience, when you initially sign up for service, or immediately after install, the customer signs a form agreeing to the companies various agreements...whether the customer reads the material or not. It is well within a customer's rights to review the documents before signing any paperwork. Otherwise the agreement is in effect upon signature and is implied with the customers payment for services every month. Yes I agree that very few customers actually read their ToS. What's humorous IMO is that a lot of those customers that don't read their agreement are some of the first ones to jump on the "I hate my provider because they did xxx" bandwagon.
Anyway, of course a for profit industry will do the most to slant the playing field in their favor. As an investor and shareholder of various companies, I would expect nothing less. As this whole thread points out though, the ability of companies to totally run away with the fine print and turn the unread agreement into a one-sided legal tool is questionable in the legal realm. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this in the future. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA | reply to XxBladesxX
Actually if you're a gamer your more interested in latency than speed. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to dilettante
Disclaimer: I used to be a lawyer but gave it up for a real job. I am not licensed to practice law anywhere but do keep up with things and basically know what I'm talking about.
I don't understand what all the hoopla is all about.
Every company, from Comcast to car rental agencies to dropping change in a vending machine, has some sort of agreement, literal or implied, that is usually rigged to favor and protect them.
Anything you agree to (in writing or otherwise) is always subject to court interpretation. You can sign a waiver that says "I agree not to sue you," but that doesn't stop you from suing anyway...and letting the courts decide if your case has merit or not.
Contracts get voided by the courts all the time. This is case is such a non-story, I don't know why it's getting this much attention.
There are rare exceptions, but the bottom line is you always have the right to redress in law. Of course, that doesn't mean the court will rule in your favor, or for that matter even agree to hear the case. But even Big Mighty Corporations cannot unilaterally short-circuit the justice system by cooking up their own version of "court".
mocycler |
|
XxBladesxX
join:2006-12-22
Puyallup, WA | reply to Neyland
very true, i used lag, and yes lag is different then latency, however they both pretty much intertwine |
|
