said by sbrook:taylortbb ... this is the land of lawyers and interaction between TSI and the incumbents.
You never know what the interactions have been on other matters that might for example provoke the lawyers to say "You'd better include the AUP info they want just in case".
Sometimes you have to make compromises that have next to nothing to do with what you're negotiating to actually GET what you want. For example imagine this exchange ...
[snip]
As to Rocky promising to get rid of it ... have you been fortunate to have never made a promise that in the end you couldn't deliver on?
I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that it doesn't matter which independent one switches to. If Rogers says that independents are bound by their AUP then Rogers will disconnect someone who breaks it. It doesn't matter whether the independent put it in their AUP, as far as Rogers is concerned everyone is bound by theirs. If it's in the tariffs (which it appears to be) then negotiations don't really factor into it, there's no provider you can go to. Switching to Start (for example) doesn't gain you anything even if their AUP doesn't say it, they're still bound by the same tariffs.
I've made promises I couldn't deliver on, but I'm not sure I get your point. I understand completely why TekSavvy can't deliver, it's in the tariff, and I consider that a reasonable excuse. I don't favour banning servers, but when it's in the tariff I don't get the big deal being made here. Take it to the CRTC, not TekSavvy.