fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Lets see if I have this right... ... You're a competative ISP running your system wholesale through your big boy provider.
You run a business model that is completely unsustainable. (often called a ponzi-scheme)
The time comes where the economy slows down and your scheme starts to rear it's head.
You know you can't pay your bill so you call foul of your big boy provider, in this case, Qwest. You claim anti-competition in court and get a restraining order so they can't pull the plug on you pending a court case.
You HOPE, and knowingly abuse the court systems, to keep yourself a-float during this mess ALL while calling attention to your bran using free marketing such as the news to get your name out in front of people. (Always happens in big cases against a known name, like Qwest)
You owe money, you don't pay your bill and that convenient and inexpensive court case keeps your service running when you can't pay your bill.
Not only do you NOT pay the disputed amount, you pay NOTHING of what you owe and yet your service remains on.
.... ALL with out the use of bankruptcy!
I love the country we live in!
This is just my take on what I see happening here.. doesn't mean it is, but it's how *I* see it.
Personally, I don't think that Qwest should have had to restore the service so long as any of the un-disputed portion remains unpaid. The order to restore service, irregardless of what the other party claims, in my view, is a great abuse of power and authority. Qwest should have every right to disrupt service service until the base fees have been paid promptly. |
