http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21280119 en Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:06:45 EDT Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:06:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21281948 Kearnstd : well why does DSL even need a contract? cable doesnt have them and rates for DSL and cable are pretty much the same.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21281948 Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:49:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280663 EPS : That plan didn't work so well for Verizon, though- their patents crumbled as soon as they had to face a company that could afford competent legal aid.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280663 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:18:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280303 ashworth : It's all in the terms of service, although it would be buried somewhere in the 40 pages or so. And if that's what you(the consumer)agreed to(for a lower price), then guess what ?? Pay up !!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280303 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:15:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280119 battleop : "The funny thing is I don't get why they are going after Qwest of all providers."

Probably for the same reason Vonage was picked on. Pick a fight with the one that's big enough to put up a good fight but not big enough to drag it out for years and years. Once a precedent is set then they can proceed to bigger fish.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21280119 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:41:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21279539 fiberguy : The funny thing is I don't get why they are going after Qwest of all providers. It was Qwest that first got out of having contracts anyway unlike AT&T and VZ or the other Bell companies.

While I am not a fan of Qwest, I DO have them, and I do agree with what they are doing. You don't have to sign a "contract" to get DSL. In fact, the discount you get isn't that great anyway. But, if you sign a contract to get a discount knowing of the ETF and then you want to sue or be part of this suit again Qwest, it sounds to me that the customer is partaking in fraud.

In the case of Qwest, you're signing up for a discounted rate in exchange for your promise to stay a customer. In this case, I agree the ETF should be higher than the discount. Why? Simple, if the penalty doesn't exceed the benefit, why wouldn't everyone just have the discount in the first place?

Qwest is just asking a customer to commit to a time period in exchange for a discount so they can better budget their A/R. Leaving early IS breaking your word and you should pay. They discounted the service, the customer partook in the savings, why should they be able to walk away scott free?

I think this time the law suit goes too far. The consumer, just like many corporations, need to suck it up and get their own acts and priorities in order and get some morals in place. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21279539 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:00:36 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21279499 baineschile : to guarentee revenue over time, thus making the monthly price lower?

not that i think people should HAVE to say with a company for a certain period of time. but what happens when we turn a car lease in early...penalities. cell phones? penalities.

keeping a constant stream of revenue is important to companies, and they can hedge that amount by locking people into long term contracts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21279499 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:52:57 EDT