dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
11
cmotors
join:2011-01-28

cmotors to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187

Re: A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...

said by JohnDoe187:

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

In my opinion, it is dumb to blame teksavvy. Dumb business decision? That's not a simple answer if you are the one running the business. However, it's far, FAR too easy to say that from the outside looking in. Considering the time that TSI spent researching their options, I wouldn't think they were uninformed or had neglected to weigh all options when making that decision.
said by JohnDoe187:

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To be it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.

As far as I can see, being different and customer friendly is not necessarily mutually exclusive to their decision. Now if Teksavvy had said they were the champions of justice, I would give you the slam dunk on that.

There is merit to the problems expressed with giving Voltage that info. As far as I know, Teksavvy is not disputing that. I don't dispute that either. I disagree with saying that Teksavvy is dumb for remaining neutral. That is a bit simplistic.
JohnDoe187
join:2013-01-04

JohnDoe187

Member

Did you read the article about questioning the validity of the claims and still keep their neutral status? I guess not.
cmotors
join:2011-01-28

cmotors

Member

said by JohnDoe187:

Did you read the article about questioning the validity of the claims and still keep their neutral status? I guess not.

No. Feel free to post a link to it and I'd be more than happy to read it.
JohnDoe187
join:2013-01-04

JohnDoe187

Member

My apologies see below post by avp77

Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium Member
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON

Tx to cmotors

Premium Member

to cmotors
...
cmotors
join:2011-01-28

cmotors to JohnDoe187

Member

to JohnDoe187
said by JohnDoe187:

My apologies see below post by avp77

I assumed you were referring to a different article than what was already posted in this thread. Yes, I had already read it from very first posting, and the link had worked for me then. The only thing that I can see that might be considered usable in your argument is that "While Mr. Knopf did not comment specifically on Voltage’s material, he said if it is inadequate, TekSavvy taking a stand against it would be an easy win for the company with its customers and would not sacrifice its status as a neutral party." Well, that's opinion, and all matters of law are always a matter of opinion or interpretation, each side thinking they have the "right" one. In practice, anything can happen and a decision can go either way.

Even if my ip were listed as one affected, I would still have the same opinion. I wouldn't be happy for sure, but Teksavvy is a company. They are not my mommy, they are not related to me in any way, other than I pay them for internet. The problem here is Voltage, and hopefully the courts will see that.