said by Skippy25:
So are you claiming this ruling gives corps the constitutionally protected right of binding arbitration?
I did not read the ruling and probably wont, but did they find this to be AT&T's constitutional right to do this or did they just say that they are within current law to include it and the lower courts were incorrect in their reasoning for not allowing it?
The ruling states that it can be in a contract it does not force anyone to agree to it. In fact if force is used the contract would be null and void.
Let me give it to you cold and hard; a residential or small business subscriber is low ROI and if they don't get one no big deal. So if one doesn't agree to arbitration most likely no service except POTS.
Now a Bloomberg or the State of New Jersey is a large ROI and they negotiate their own contracts.
This is an example; a small, very small, 10 x10 mom and pop store that sells cigarettes, newspapers and lottery tickets has his land line go out at 2 AM. He will be given a 24 hour time frame for repair. Now if his lottery machine goes out a tech would be dispatched immediately because the machines are under contract to the state.
This ruling just says a company can put whatever is legal in a contract and a subscriber has the right to agree to it, change it, or not sign it. These are not vital regulated services.
I find it much more disturbing that they can change the language of the agreement or cut off your service for any reason. This has not been challenged because there is no money in it for the ambulance chasers.