Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Frivolous Lawsuits
To me perhaps the reason arbitration works against the customer is the case frivolous in the first place, for example, suing because one is a bandwidth hog. I think Comcast need to play hardball and one is screwing up the network then they need to send a tech to disconnect the cable and say goodbye. If Comcast starts dropping the problem child then there will be no need for arbitration. |
|
SlickEnW
Premium
join:2003-01-21
Seattle, WA
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Richard B  :To me perhaps the reason arbitration works against the customer is the case frivolous in the first place, for example, suing because one is a bandwidth hog. I think Comcast need to play hardball and one is screwing up the network then they need to send a tech to disconnect the cable and say goodbye. If Comcast starts dropping testes problem child then there will be no need for arbitration. While I agree with you, thats where the problem lies. There is absolutely NO "definition" on excessive bandwidth usage. You cannot terminate users for just whistlin dixie. Yes, we all say hat 5,6,7 hundred gigs a month is rather excessive , but Comcast doesn't have this specifically defined in their TOS. Likewise, comcast WILL NOT define hard caps, because even individuals who use such service in a mannor they indtended (e-mail, browsing, e-mail, and maybe some e-mail) will be put off by the idea of "unlimited" internet with a nanny cap. |
|
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX
| said by SlickEnW :said by Richard B :To me perhaps the reason arbitration works against the customer is the case frivolous in the first place, for example, suing because one is a bandwidth hog. I think Comcast need to play hardball and one is screwing up the network then they need to send a tech to disconnect the cable and say goodbye. If Comcast starts dropping testes problem child then there will be no need for arbitration. While I agree with you, thats where the problem lies. There is absolutely NO "definition" on excessive bandwidth usage. You cannot terminate users for just whistlin dixie. Yes, we all say hat 5,6,7 hundred gigs a month is rather excessive , but Comcast doesn't have this specifically defined in their TOS. Likewise, comcast WILL NOT define hard caps, because even individuals who use such service in a mannor they indtended (e-mail, browsing, e-mail, and maybe some e-mail) will be put off by the idea of "unlimited" internet with a nanny cap. If you want unlimited use, then purchase a dedicated line. You get what you pay for. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | reply to SlickEnW
there really needs to be federal legislation mandating truth in advertising and the elimination of fine print. even better, i would call for plain english law as well. |
|
