| This is bad This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | I disagree. This is a predatory company in more ways than one.
Firstly they advertise themselves a "broadband" but with their "FAP" your actually provided less bandwidth than dialup.
Secondly, Ive heard they have a pretty wicked ETF.
They market themselves to people who have no other alternative, but in reality, they are in many ways worse than dialup. |
|
|
|
| reply to S_engineer
Yeah, I guess you can kiss your raise goodbye now, huh?  |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 | reply to S_engineer
So companies should be able to advertise and charge for one level of service, but actually provide considerably less in return? Allowing this is a bad idea too. |
|
jrose78
join:2005-02-10
Bondsville, MA
2 edits | In reply to S_engineer
You can apply that logic to anything. Don't sue doctors health care will go up .. Don't sue cable companies there cable fees will go up. I am not buying it. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! boy you can sure tell who works for whom by their posts can't you? |
|
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! Oh but its ok for companies to give less than what they advertise? What do you suggest they do? Bend over for the companies and just give them money? |
|
 BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
It's an excellent precedent.
What this means is if a company fails to provide the service as contracted, the company is in breach of that contract and the customer leaves without paying a punitive penalty.
As it stands now, Hughesnet can provide beyond horrible service and customers are forced to pay because they're bound by a contract.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
dellt6
join:2005-10-27
Nursery, TX | reply to S_engineer
Yes, it is bad - on Hughesnet's part. I only wish you had my service. I tried to upload a 253k file to my website yesterday evening, I tried for about 30mins before I gave up. My upload was zero and it was so bad the speed test would not finish.
Hughesnet needs more than sued, they need to be dissolved and never be allowed to sign up another customer. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by S_engineer:This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! boy you can sure tell who works for whom by their posts can't you? So you think I work for Hughes here in Chicago?...try some critical thinking!
This is clearly a money grab by opportunists. I could make the same claims about food at McDonalds being "tasty, credit card companies informing me of terms changes in a "timely manner", or politicians working in the best interests of its constituants. This underlines the fact that the public is largely uninformed about the services they buy, and that they refuse to rectify that matter. Everyone knew hughes wasn't reliable in their advertisments, which is the avenue for which this problem should be solved. Furthermore, this method isn't the first, here's some of the fearless ambulance chasers that have tryed this before. Please note the wide range of services they offer.
»www.druginjurylawyerblog.com/200···nst.html
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! Dude I had sat internet it was crap. I paid over 2x what I paid for dial-up got about 3-4x the speed(I had 26k) and crappy ping and a cap. Now thankfully I am on an un-caped WISP, I pay for up to 512k/128k 95+% of the time I get 507k/256k. It works great for gaming VoIP and youtube. Sat internet should never have been born it is just bad, they give little to no support and it is ALWAYS you fault or your router's if you have one. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to S_engineer
Did you forget the /sarcasm tag? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to dellt6
Do you live near anyone? Can you get cell phone service? How about 3G?
It'd probably be expensive, but you could band together with other people in your area and start a wireless internet provider. Get a T1, share it out with other people via Motorola Canopy, cap speeds at 512k or 768k so nobody hogs the pipe...expensive to start up? Yes. Better service than satellite could dream of being? By golly, yes. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:So you think I work for Hughes here in Chicago?...try some critical thinking! This is clearly a money grab by opportunists. Talk about not thinking. Ok so it's ok for a company to BREAK a contract by not providing services it PRMOSIES to provide. Ok Einstein. God forbid a company should be made to uphold it's promises.
Let me ask you, is there EVER a time when it's ok to sue a company? Or is it ok for them to do whatever the fuck they like? |
|
| reply to jrose78
you can also apply this litigation towards anything. I just think there are different avenues to be taken rather than a prolonged fight that only harms the carrier financially which of course will ultimately be passed onto the consumer.
Cingular wireless was advertising their "fewest dropped calls" campaign when I had them when in actuality they had the most. False advertisement;absolutely....Litigation worthy; hardly!
The problem is subjective. It will be interesting to see the argument for how a carrier could be held punitively liable for a network that is not uniformly providing a specific speed!....Now name a provider that does.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
| reply to DataRiker
these people knew before signing up they had have a FAP in place. Like i said before, it's not HughesNets problem. |
|
| reply to BF69
technically, its providing those services. The problem is how the latency is measured. For Vsat is bits per million. So latency will be starts out higher relative to cable. This case will be hard to prove for the plaintiff.
As far as lawsuits go, yes there are times when it's necessary...I just don't think this is one of them.
By the way...may I suggest Midol for you!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
| reply to me1212
We just moved to P-Hill (on 58 hwy) and are desperately looking for an uncapped bb connection. Who are you using? |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:This sets a horrible precedent...I hope its struck down. While there is contract law that may be in play here, suing every company that had bad service will have the reverse effect it seeks. Costs will rise for the consumer as these companies become liable and have to pay to defend themselves. This is a bad idea! No, it's not.
These companies NEVER stop selling because they are oversubscribed. They just keep adding and keep adding to the same-sized pool of bandwidth.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
Most people aren't aware of the FAP. Sure, it's sort of explained on Hughes' website, in the fine print, and maybe everyone who signs up without doing much research should be slapped on the wrist. But the FAP, the packet loss, the mysterious perpetual 404s and the bandwidth and latency limitations of satellite are never explained to potential customers. Quite the opposite--they're concealed. This is sort of the central issue. The FAP and etc. are symptoms of Hughesnet's inability to provide the service they are selling ("broadband internet"). That's leaving out the myriad other issues people have with the company itself, and the unique way in which it practices business. |
|
