| reply to kherr
Re: [HSI] Charter Monthly Bandwidth Limits said by kherr:Typical response,"Call the lawyers and sue". If you do not agree with their terms, no one is forcing you to use the service.
OP didn't say they were suing or even thinking of it. Just wondered why no one has tried it.
Another person with the "no one is forcing you to use their service" line which is along the same exact line as what you just said about typical response!
I think OP is just mentioning the fact of how ridiculous the caps are in today's almost all electronic age.
Personally,
I think it would be cool for some one to try and sue, or severely threaten to do that, just to see if it woke Charter up. 
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
 anhisr
join:2001-12-01
Ballwin, MO | what legal grounds could you use to sue. "They have to let me use it all the time" I do not see a judge going for it. |
|
kherrPremium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL | reply to cork1958
He brought up the subject, not me.
I never said that he said he was going to sue. |
|
|
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
 ·voip.ms
| reply to anhisr
said by anhisr:what legal grounds could you use to sue. "They have to let me use it all the time" I do not see a judge going for it.
If I had the money, I would sue any ISP with caps who also offers video services under the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
I would argue that:
#1) the "bandwidth crunch" isn't real. It isn't, BTW.
Once that's been established,
#2) the real reason bandwidth caps are in place is to keep subscribers from using alternative video services such as Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, Google TV, Apple TV, Roku, etc...
We all know that this is what BW caps are really all about.
The Sherman act isn't just about monopolies, it's about using your prevalent place in the market to stifle competition. That's exactly what the cable companies, AT&T, and Verizon are doing. They want to keep that captive customer base tuning in to their video services. Think of it as video "cock-blocking".
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
| I'm sure any decent lawyer would do it for free provided they thought they could win and provided they get their cut if you were to win.
So, give it a shot. Call up a lawyer and see what your chances are. Make sure to record that call so we can hear how loud that lawyer laughs at you!! 
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |
|
nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 | I don't think it will be as funny as your think. I'm pretty sure this is the route Netflix and Google will take when they finally sue.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
| said by nunya:I don't think it will be as funny as your think. I'm pretty sure this is the route Netflix and Google will take when they finally sue.
If they thought it was a viable option what are they waiting for? |
|
| reply to nunya
said by nunya:The Sherman act isn't just about monopolies, it's about using your prevalent place in the market to stifle competition. That's exactly what the cable companies, AT&T, and Verizon are doing. They want to keep that captive customer base tuning in to their video services. Think of it as video "cock-blocking". Not Verizon as Verizon FiOS has no cap and video service. |
|
