dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2491
« This guy is an idiot
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

O.k. stuff like this has to stop

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 recommendations

FFH5

Premium Member

said by moonpuppy:

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.
tcope
Premium Member
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

tcope to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
"Spaccarelli has admitted that he has used his iPhone to provide Internet access for other devices, a practice known as tethering, which violates AT&T's contract terms. AT&T says that means it has the right to turn off his service."

He admitted in court that he violated AT&T's TOS and really, this is why he went over the cap. AT&T certainly has every right to cancel his contract and give him the boot. I have no love for AT&T but it's "odd" how the article commenting on the "threat" does not explain anything about the issue. That is, the author is obviously trying to make what he/she wrote more interesting by not reporting all of the facts.
Expand your moderator at work

DaveDude
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey

1 recommendation

DaveDude to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

said by FFH5:

said by moonpuppy:

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.

It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS.
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I support that. Moreover imagine I am unfairly suing you for molesting mr in court which I loose . Then imagine u can't sue me back for frivolous litigation.

Or maybe something more in line with AT&T, I stop providing tutoring to your kids because u sued me for dog bite when u taunted him. Fair and square and I don't see anything wrong with that!
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to tcope

Member

to tcope
Or maybe it is that a TOS isnt so binding after all.

Hell, maybe they can terminate him and he can sue them again with the money they lost the first time and waste more of their money. Being it is clear this guys motive is not to come out ahead on this so it doesnt matter if he actually has a strong case or not. Though it would be nice to see a TOS that restricts how you use the bucket of data you are paying for challenged. You get xGB, what the hell do they care how you use it?
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to DaveDude

Member

to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:

said by FFH5:

Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.

It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS.

BINGO! It is retaliatory and strong arm.
Expand your moderator at work

pjcamp
@comcastbusiness.net

pjcamp to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

The difference is that negotiations are over. The court has already issued a decision and the case is therefore settled unless the guy voluntarily wants to reopen it. AT&T can appeal the decision but until an appeal is granted, the decision stands. This sort of thing does happen all the time in legal proceedings PRE-TRIAL. This is post trial. I agree. This action crosses the line into extortion.
Expand your moderator at work
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

said by moonpuppy:

Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.

The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United is based on corporations being people, AT&T should be held in contempt of court and forced to go to jail.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
They can probably cancel his service, either at the end of his contract or because he admittedly violated the TOS by tethering, but "meet with us or we'll cancel your service" might well fall under the crime and tort of extortion.

What's more serious for them is the PR hit. They obviously did not want him going to the AP with their threat.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

said by vpoko:

What's more serious for them is the PR hit.

Like they ever cared about that.
tcope
Premium Member
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT

tcope to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

Or maybe it is that a TOS isnt so binding after all.

Though it would be nice to see a TOS that restricts how you use the bucket of data you are paying for challenged. You get xGB, what the hell do they care how you use it?

As I said, I'm no AT&T lover and I think all mobile carriers are in the habit of promising more then they know they will deliver but in this case I see nothing wrong with telling a consumer that they can't use the bandwidth on other devices. I think you are confusing "unlimited" with how the service is used. Two different things... not related at all. Unlimited does not mean I can share on other devices, it does not mean I can share with my neighbors, etc. The TOS can limit on what devices that unlimited data is used. It's still "unlimited".

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to Robert

Premium Member

to Robert
Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

said by vpoko:

Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter.

No, that's standard procedure.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

said by vpoko:

It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons.

I think it's more for legal and not PR.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I think their liability would be limited to any consequential damages stemming from the disconnect, such as if the cell phone number were used by a salesperson and the disconnection precluded porting to a different carrier (the lost revenue of sales).

As we all know, just because some escape clause may be buried in a contract doesn't mean it would be enforceable.

And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.
skeechan

skeechan to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon
No it doesn't. People getting pissed about AT&T (like I did) but staying with them anyway (like I did) are the ones who propagate these practices. I can cry until I'm blue in the face, but so long as I keep cutting checks I have no one to ultimately blame but myself.

If EVERYONE who complained would cancel for change in terms of service (thereby avoiding the ETF) they wouldn't pull this crap.

Simply put, AT&T will do this stuff so long as subs tolerate it.
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

25139889 (banned) to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
and this gives them the right to shut off his service- He admitted he violated the contract between the two. That means it's done with.

Chaplain
So It Goes
Premium Member
join:2002-10-11
USA

3 recommendations

Chaplain to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan
But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

2 recommendations

vpoko to 25139889

Premium Member

to 25139889
The problem is they phrased it conditionally. We'll shut off your service if you don't negotiate. A jury could easily decide that shutting off his service had nothing to do with his TOS violation and was actually an attempt to extort him into settling.

Chaplain
So It Goes
Premium Member
join:2002-10-11
USA

Chaplain

Premium Member

Agreed. They said nothing about the TOS. This is as direct as you can get when it comes to the reason for shutting off service. Watch them backpedal, though.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to tcope

Member

to tcope
So I guess you would be OK if they tell you that you can't use Skype or some other streaming service as well? Would you be OK with them telling you that you can't loan out your phone?

Data is data: how you use it, how quickly you use, whether or not you want to purchase more of it to continue use - should not be dictated by them or any one else other then the consumer paying that bill.

Spin it how you will, but them telling you what application or feature of a phone you can use is not too far over the line of them telling you that you can't go to X website, use X application, stream x content or download x files. They should be the dumbpipe they are and sell the data plan and manage the network.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to OwlSaver

Member

to OwlSaver
See that is the beauty of this God awful ruling (one of the worst in our nation) - they get all the benefits of being "people" when it is convenient for them, but then don't have to deal with any of the responsibility or accountability for being a "person".

The corporation's acting board members and executives should all be held responsible and serve whatever punishment is handed down on the corporation. They are the "person" after all.

doghob3
@comcast.net

doghob3 to Anon

Anon

to Anon
He never said anything useful to begin with smart one! READ!

Rambo76098
join:2003-02-21
Columbus, OH

Rambo76098 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Threatening to breach a contract IS NOT just doing business. Just because they're mad that he won in small claims court (which he has the right to take them to BY LAW), does not give them any legal reason to not meet their obligations under the contract. In fact, if they did terminate, he would have grounds to sue for breach of contract and seek recoupment of damages.
tcope
Premium Member
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT

tcope to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

So I guess you would be OK if they tell you that you can't use Skype or some other streaming service as well? Would you be OK with them telling you that you can't loan out your phone?

Your confusing two different issues.
said by Skippy25:

Data is data: how you use it, how quickly you use, whether or not you want to purchase more of it to continue use - should not be dictated by them or any one else other then the consumer paying that bill.

The TOS are the TOS. If the contract promises "unlimited" data then you can use it as defind. If a company tells you that they will give you unlimited data for use only on you phone and you are not allowed to share that with other devices then this in no way means the data itself is not unlimited. Controling how that unlimited date is used is certainly within their right. Like it or not... if you don't agree with the contract, don't sign the dotted line.
said by Skippy25:

Spin it how you will, but them telling you what application or feature of a phone you can use is not too far over the line of them telling you that you can't go to X website, use X application, stream x content or download x files. They should be the dumbpipe they are and sell the data plan and manage the network.

Actually... it's not even close to what you mention.

Limiting the sharing of a product over multiple devices is nothing new... it's been around forever. Buy one book and can't make multiple copies to use at the same time. Buy one DVD and you can't make a digital copy to watch on your computer. Buy Windows and you can't share it with your friends. If the contract states that you cannot share data with another device this does not go against the compay giving you "unlimited" data.
« This guy is an idiot
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next