Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| The good ole USA or is it USC?? seriously, have any of you read their agreements?
in most business agreements
1. gives up rights to trial but to the opposing companies attribution court
2. any disputed amount MUST be paid then goto an attribution hearing which most should know WILL side with the other (Qwest).
so you would own a company that you get services from
1. that company says you owe $1.7 million
2. due to agreements this amount must be paid in full even if any amount is in dispute.
3. you know this is not possible to pay, also knowing you dont owe this amount.
4. if any amount is paid you are agreeing to the charges, even if any amount is in dispute.
5. you cant file a case in court due to an agreement to fight and or settle in attribution
6. what is this companies alternatives???
pay the supposedly $1.7 million owed, then try going to attribution court chosen by in this case Qwest? and forced into bankruptcy.
or in this companies case they found a life line in invoking the Clayton Act and RICO statutes. to in turn get a fair chance in court. not in Qwests court.
is SkyWi in the right? yes
is Qwest in the right? HELL NO
when SkWi says openly "they" owe monies to Qwest but no where near $1.7 million why would they lie?
its not like Qwest has the grail of billing systems more so if Qwest wants out or is want to resolve agreements or force bankruptcy. Qwest is loosing nothing in this case.
it looks to me they are directly disrupting a business that competes on its on backyard that being (INTERNET SERVICES)
but Qwest refuses to build WiFI to compete, but SkWi is interfering with Qwest profits on (INTERNET SERVICES). Humm 
has anyone EVER been in an attribution hearing? chosen by the opposing side. |
