dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
reply to ruralhub

Re: Way out of a rocket hub contract due to unusable service?

said by ruralhub:

Just thought I'd post an update if anyone cares:

Rogers never got back to me here, so I reached out on socialmedia with the same information in the op and was told they couldn't help me. I don't understand why they even bother with rogershelps/facebook if the people can't actually help.

I'm doing the phone back and forth now and apparently the exact policy is as long as you're in the coverage map that's enough. Am I the one not getting this here? There are two components to any wireless service: tower to device and tower to network. If either aren't working there's no service. It isn't unreasonable to think I shouldn't have to pay ETFs when one of these components isn't working is it?

At least one of my neighbours has just eaten the ETF. I might too but it feels like I'm being screwed over. Still hoping the OOP comes through if not I may try the CCTS.

That is absolutely a reasonable way of thinking. However, big corporations have always cleverly designed their TOS so that they have no obligation to you whatsover in this situation. I'm quite certain this is out of the CCTS's mandate as well. The only other option really as others have alluded to is litigation.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
said by yyzlhr:

The only other option really as others have alluded to is litigation.

Seriously?? Has Rogers been reduced to such a bottomfeeder lowlife POS outfit that the only option for dispute resolution is for the customers to spend thousands on a long protracted litigation?

I say go to your local court house and contact the district attorney and have them charge Rogers with FRAUD. This isn't a TOS issue, it's a willful intent to defraud the public.

And just because they're Rogers won't get them off the hook for that.........

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
said by elitefx:

said by yyzlhr:

The only other option really as others have alluded to is litigation.

Seriously?? Has Rogers been reduced to such a bottomfeeder lowlife POS outfit that the only option for dispute resolution is for the customers to spend thousands on a long protracted litigation?

I say go to your local court house and contact the district attorney and have them charge Rogers with FRAUD. This isn't a TOS issue, it's a willful intent to defraud the public.

And just because they're Rogers won't get them off the hook for that.........

This is not just a Rogers issue, this is an industry issue. Every wireless service provider has this clause in their TOS. Lots of customers from many providers find themselves in the same situation as the OP every day, yet these particular parts of the TOS have gone unchallenged.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

1 edit
said by yyzlhr:

Lots of customers from many providers find themselves in the same situation as the OP every day, yet these particular parts of the TOS have gone unchallenged.

Well, it's all about "Consent". The Law says you can't consent to a criminal act. Rogers can't simply write a TOS and use it as carte blanche to rip people off. That's not the way the law works.

That's why I'm suggesting to the member to at least visit the Crown attorney, present the facts and let him decide if it's worth pursuing a criminal indictment. It won't cost anything (and unlike a lawyer) he'll have nothing to gain personnally.

Rogers TOS has been found to be "barely legal" in the past. Maybe this time they've gone too far in applying it.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
Although the OP's situation is unfortunate, what crime has the industry committed? If your service provider says you need to agree to our terms in order to use our service, and if one of the terms is that service is not guaranteed even within our own footprint, then what crime is being committed here?

These terms have been in place since day one, if it really was a crime, I'm sure some sort of enforcement action would have taken place already.


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
said by yyzlhr:

These terms have been in place since day one, if it really was a crime, I'm sure some sort of enforcement action would have taken place already.

That's why we have a Criminal Justice System. Let those that deal in the Law interpret the Law. Hence, a visit to the local Crown Attorney, whose job it is to represent the victims in a given situation, is available.

A judge doesn't care if "These terms have been in place since day one". They care about the legalities of a GIVEN SITUATION. Maybe more victims will come forward, maybe Rogers has gone too far, it wouldn't be the first time that a criminal investigation was launched into big business.

Let the system do it's job. That's why it's there......It's not for us to decide.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
This isn't necessarily a crime ... this is contract law ... contracts may contain terms that are untenable but are forced upon you ... these are generally considered unenforceable.