 
punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs: | it needs to be changed to it needs to be changed to (it's crapcastic!)  | |
|
 | 
A P CC
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
 ·AT&T Southwest
edit:
September 7th, @09:04PM
| Re: it needs to be changed to and more & more pple leaving comcast,and they just raised their rates this week,& plan on doing so again next month,
I'll bet their upper management is so mad they could,(well they say a picture is woth a thousabd words)lol,
i love it couldn't happen to a better company then time warner/comcast or castrate, or whatever name they want to be called.
--
That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am,and don't bother with those that ONLY know how to hurt.
| |
|
| | LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: it needs to be changed to said by A P CC  :and more & more pple leaving comcast,and they just raised their rates this week,& plan on doing so again next month, [b]I'll bet their upper management is so mad they could,(well they say a picture is woth a thousabd words)lol, i love it couldn't happen to a better company then time warner/comcast or castrate, or whatever name they want to be called. You got stats to show more and more people are leaving? Or are you just assuming? Is it because you know like 3 people who left? | |
|
| | |
A P CC
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
September 7th, @09:07PM
| Re: it needs to be changed to stats have already been shown,for our area & surrounding counties,and i have been with a satellite tv company for 7 yrs-going on 8 with only a (less then a week trial for cabel & R.R. internet & didn't care for either of them from T.W.and I put the results last yr on here R.R. vs DSL
I'am NOT trying to convince you or anyone,just showing Cabel is costing you & WILL cost you more & more then anyone else.
this may help some make a decision.
»www.associatedcontent.com/articl···ose.html
also IF YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING reading the main page here, you would have seen some of the LIES/deceptions CAST---- has told,"WE will not raise rates", in 2 months so far they have raised rates this moth is the 3rd time,with a promaise in october to raise then another 6% | |
|
| | | |
A P CC
Premium
join:2003-07-26
.. | Re: it needs to be changed to also note that the above link/comparison was done for T,W vs."Castxxxx (comcast) and general satellite tv (not a specific company. | |
|
| 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | Wierd. DTV has this arbitration clause... | |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Where is... Notification of changes to the TOS?
This is a basic principle (or law) that financial institutions are held to, why isn't this applied to telcos and cablecos?
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset! | |
|
| 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | Re: Where is... It was sent with the monthly bill. | |
|
Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL | God they suck!  | |
|
dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI | Throw the rascals out I have to wonder why companies of such proven dis-reputability have to be allowed further access to our markets anyway. We need a consumer movement with some serious teeth in it.
The market does not belong to businesses. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Throw the rascals out said by dilettante :The market does not belong to businesses. Ok, I'll bite. Without businesses, where does the market come from? And please don't say government...that's not a market. | |
|
| | 
Bri
@comcast.net
|  Re: Throw the rascals out
| |
|
| | | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Throw the rascals out Actually, Bri, the market comes from both supply AND demand. We can want eternal youth, but without a supplier, there is no market.
All:
Comcast isn't doing anything that any other general consumer service company doesn't do. It would be financially foolish not to try to limit legal exposure through forced arbitration (provided it could do so).
Before jumping all over Comcast, look at the mouseprint of your wireless service, credit cards, health club, etc. etc.. You'll likely find arbitration clauses in many of these.
I'm glad to see the courts side for the consumer on these, but I'm angry at Comcast for doing what is widely considered to be wise from a corporate perspective.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| As funchords mentions, a market exists due to both a supplier and a consumer. I guess I should have clarified that in my first post. said by Bri :
Terms of service should not be dictated by a business: these terms need to be agreed upon by the consumer and the service provider. The ToS is agreed to by both the supplier and consumer each and every time a service is purchased. Am I missing something? | |
|
| | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Throw the rascals out said by openbox9 :The ToS is agreed to by both the supplier and consumer each and every time a service is purchased. Am I missing something? That Comcast does not have a TOS, for one.  (They call theirs a "Subscriber Agreement," but it isn't even that.)
The customer is already using the service before they learn about the surprises hidden in in the paperwork. Again, Comcast isn't doing anything unusual -- all service companies behave this way:
The company publishes a set of terms and conditions (under whatever name) for whatever service they are providing. These are not negotiable, and only rarely can certain terms be waived. Usually, you may settle your account and cancel your service -- under the old terms -- within a set amount of time.
Because companies know that most consumers never read the original terms, and even fewer read any updates, they often take advantage of the consumer's ignorance. Although the Subscriber Agreement should be a straightforward recap of the customer's and supplier's expectations of one another, a service company can quietly turn it into a one-sided legal tool cutting only in favor of the company.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Throw the rascals out ToS = Subscriber Agreement
In the residential telecommunications arena it is fairly commonplace for a customer to "agree" to the provider's ToS/Subscriber Agreement before receiving any paperwork. In my experience, when you initially sign up for service, or immediately after install, the customer signs a form agreeing to the companies various agreements...whether the customer reads the material or not. It is well within a customer's rights to review the documents before signing any paperwork. Otherwise the agreement is in effect upon signature and is implied with the customers payment for services every month. Yes I agree that very few customers actually read their ToS. What's humorous IMO is that a lot of those customers that don't read their agreement are some of the first ones to jump on the "I hate my provider because they did xxx" bandwagon.
Anyway, of course a for profit industry will do the most to slant the playing field in their favor. As an investor and shareholder of various companies, I would expect nothing less. As this whole thread points out though, the ability of companies to totally run away with the fine print and turn the unread agreement into a one-sided legal tool is questionable in the legal realm. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this in the future. | |
|
| | | XxBladesxX
join:2006-12-22
Puyallup, WA
| ok well I've already read enough, both on here and my comc..(we'll call them just "cable") bill...1, my bill, I've been with comcast MANY years, loved their service, cant say i care so much for their customer service(actually sad thing is i got better customer service from america line the many years ago when i had it, and that's saying a lot) and 3, i just got my bill and noticed like everyone else that it's noticeably higher... now I'm a gamer, and the faster, the better, however i know i can do everything i want on dsl without lag...don't worry, I'm already switching, and the bundles (internet and phone) will replace what I've got for quite a bit cheaper | |
|
| | | | 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC | Re: Throw the rascals out Actually if you're a gamer your more interested in latency than speed. | |
|
| | | | | XxBladesxX
join:2006-12-22
Puyallup, WA | Re: Throw the rascals out very true, i used lag, and yes lag is different then latency, however they both pretty much intertwine | |
|
| 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
September 8th, @04:00PM
| Disclaimer: I used to be a lawyer but gave it up for a real job. I am not licensed to practice law anywhere but do keep up with things and basically know what I'm talking about.
I don't understand what all the hoopla is all about.
Every company, from Comcast to car rental agencies to dropping change in a vending machine, has some sort of agreement, literal or implied, that is usually rigged to favor and protect them.
Anything you agree to (in writing or otherwise) is always subject to court interpretation. You can sign a waiver that says "I agree not to sue you," but that doesn't stop you from suing anyway...and letting the courts decide if your case has merit or not.
Contracts get voided by the courts all the time. This is case is such a non-story, I don't know why it's getting this much attention.
There are rare exceptions, but the bottom line is you always have the right to redress in law. Of course, that doesn't mean the court will rule in your favor, or for that matter even agree to hear the case. But even Big Mighty Corporations cannot unilaterally short-circuit the justice system by cooking up their own version of "court".
mocycler | |
|
|
| alalper
Premium
join:2000-08-20
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: Word of Warning to Comcast users I believe you are wrong. While I haven't read the entire opinion, it seems to me that the "the entire arbitration provision is rendered unenforceable" would also apply to individual suits. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
September 8th, @09:16AM
| Re: Word of Warning to Comcast users said by Cuchulainn :I think both of you are right in a way. The court DID rule that the entire provision is unenforceable, but simply because the unconscionable provision could not be severed from the rest of the clause. TKjunkmail - or whatever he's calling himself these days - is right too. Comcast will simply redraft the provision to exclude the offending portion. I would be hugely surprised if they haven't already done it. They have not yet changed the "class action subsection". »www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp See section "13. BINDING ARBITRATION" for the arbitration rules. But I am sure their lawyers already have a new arbitration section written up.
But they don't have to rush. The appeals court ruling only applies to Federal District 11(S.E. US) and not to the rest of the country. I suspect they will wait to see what the district court does based on the appellate court ruling.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: Word of Warning to Comcast users The ruling only applies to Comcast customers in Georgia. Further, it specifically addressed paragraph 13f2 related to class actions under Georgia state law. At no time did the court say that the entire arbitration agreement was illegal! They just said that paragraph 13f2 was illegal and therefore the full agreement was unenforceable; which is exactly what paragraph 13i states. There is a very big difference between illegal and unenforceable.
A new agreement without paragraph 13f2 and the new agreement becomes enforceable!
The arbitration laws of most states have not kept up with the changing arbitration landscape. If you do not live under Georgia State Law this court ruling has absolutely no value. | |
|
| 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
edit:
September 7th, @06:25PM
| The class-action clause was found to be unseverable, so the arbitration agreement was thrown out in its entirety.
I know you badly wish for it to be how you said, you'd support a corporation over an individual no matter the circumstances, but Comcast got slapped and there's no other spin you can put on it. | |
|
iamcool2
join:2006-05-12
Carmel, IN | insight Insight does the same thing  | |
|
|
|
A P CC
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
September 7th, @05:32PM
| Re: Bang Bang that's the sound of Laywers beating at the doors but C,C thinks like a lot of companies,
you (as a consumer) are not suppose to be smart enough to sue us,all your suppose to do is give us your $$ and don't say diddley.we'll do what we want to do.
--
That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am,and don't bother with those that ONLY know how to hurt.
| |
|
|
| 
BryanOnFiber
join:2007-06-22
Brandon, FL |  Re: Serves them right
--
The Maxx
max dn 22mbps / max up 4.7mbps | |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
edit:
September 7th, @06:10PM
| who's a lawyer here? The TOS is just a binding contract. What enforcement, besides disconnecting you, prevents you from suing Comcast should they actually blow up/burn down your house? Contract law (from my very poor understanding) would be that they can sue you and/or disconnect your service for breaking the agreement. But if they owe you 300k for your home, wouldn't that outweigh any winnings they could receive from this breach of contract? Who's a lawyer that can answer this?? | |
|
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
·Comcast
edit:
September 7th, @06:29PM
| Re: who's a lawyer here? I'm not a lawyer, but contracts can entail more than monetary damages for breach, courts can also enjoin certain actions by court order. Happens sometimes with non-compete agreements, where a company will obtain a court order to force an ex-employee to honor the agreement. If you still go ahead and do it, you're in contempt and can go to jail.
Of course there would be no contempt here, if the contract had been upheld Comcast could enforce their rights by having cases filed against them summarily dismissed. | |
|
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| Sprint is doing the same Sprint recently offered me good deal, if I renewed my contract with them and they made mention of an arbitration clause in the new contract.
It was interesting, because they wanted you to be aware of it and clearly printed that part as an * underneath.
--
[[Your signature here]] | |
|
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Violates due process It violates due process under the law. Though I agree lawsuits are getting out of hand, there is no reason to take away someones ability to sue. Comcast or any other company can't do that even if it's in there TOS.
Comcast wouldn't hesitate to sue if it was in there best interest. Comcast can't change the law, that has to be done by the state legislature or by Congress. I thought arbitration can only be done if both parties agree or arbitration is issued by the court if it's in the best interest of both parties. | |
|
| 
SuperCPA
Premium
join:2002-11-28
Dayton, OH | Re: Violates due process Agree. You, as a consumer, can not typically sign away your rights. | |
|
| | 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: Violates due process Sounds about right but they'll keep trying | |
|
| 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| I'm happy with the ruling of course. But it doesn't have to do with due process (the right to due process is a right of security against government action, not between private parties.)
Also, although this particular court ruled this way, this time, not all courts have the same precident when it comes to contracts of adhesion. There have, unfortunately, been notable federal rulings that refused to treat contracts of adhesion any differently than contracts negotiated between equal parties, or did not even recognize the concept of a "contract of adhesion" with "unconcionable" terms.
The law is nuanced. In some cases you certainly can "sign your rights away." | |
|
| |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Re: Violates due process JoeOnSunset] But it doesn't have to do with due process (the right to due process is a right of security against government action, not between private parties.) After reading up on it, your are correct and I have been mistaken. That part of the law does not apply in this case.
Comcast is trying to take away a customers legal rights. I would say in order for this to be valid, Comcast would have to explain there TOS to each customer before signing them up for service. Which we all know Comcast won't do. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Companies force you to sign waivers all the time.... ... and agree to disclaimers and arbitration and other legal crap. However, I've also heard somewhere that you cannot sign away your rights.
So even if someone hands you a document saying you are prohibited from suing them, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are.
It's like at work. My company is all the time forcing me to sign things I don't agree with. However if push came to show, I think any lawyer worth his salt could show to a judge that such forms are signed under duress, since refusing to sign is considered insubordination by the company, and grounds for dismissal.
So you sign whatever they give you and keep your mouth shut... but it doesn't mean they can get away with negligence or mistreating you or breaking the law.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Companies force you to sign waivers all the time.... If you sign something that says you won't sue, you can still sue, but the case will get thrown out of court real fast.
In this case though nothing was ever signed. Basically Comcast said by using their services you agree to their terms (even if they didn't actually tell you what the terms were). Normally these TOS are upheld by courts, but only if there is an actual acknowledgment by the customer (such as clicking agree or something).
Actually the only reason the judge through it out is because it barred class action lawsuits against Comcast. You can't agree to something that prevents others from suing Comcast.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: Companies force you to sign waivers all the time.... said by Morac :If you sign something that says you won't sue, you can still sue, but the case will get thrown out of court real fast. If you think it's that simple you need to take a legal course or two. California law says that in a situation where the contract is take it or leave it that you don't have the choice to change terms and as a result the terms are illegal as one party has much more bargaining power than another.
Now this might not be true in other states but in California it certainly is true that these type of binding arbitration provisions are generally illegal under California law. It's actually unfortunate that more states don't have these laws as the consumer is heavily disadvantaged in these take it or leave it contract situations. And in such situations signing away your legal rights is under duress as it's the only way to get service, especially when all the providers have essentially the same terms.
What is most distressing is that this hasn't been dealt with on a national scale. It's unconscionable that we continue to allow companies to run rough-shod across the citizens of this country, all in the name of profit. | |
|
NFLnut
join:2004-05-22
Longwood, FL | Comcast Can't Erode Your Legal Rights With Fine Print NEVER trust a cable company! NEVER!!!
You have been warned. Now, move along people.. | |
|
| phiquach
join:2003-12-05
Anaheim, CA | Re: Comcast Can't Erode Your Legal Rights With Fine Print If you guys didn't know, pretty much all CC companies and Phone companies have in their TOS. This is because its MUCH cheaper and quicker. i just learned this in my Business Law class | |
|
Diaboyos
join:2007-08-21
·Comcast
·RoadRunner Cable
| I received no notification of this It says they sent out notification and someone else said it comes with the bill. I don't receive a paper bill and they never emailed me anything regarding this either. So I'm glad it got thrown out. I can't imagine how many other people completely missed the 30 days simply because they never received notification.
God I wish there were more broadband options here. Comcast needs to be shut down. | |
|
| mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Re: I received no notification of this Read paragraph 16 of the terms of use:
Comcast may deliver any required or desired notice to you in any of the following ways, as determined in our sole discretion: (i) by posting it on www.comcast.net, www.comcast.com or another Web site about which you have been notified, (ii) by sending notice via first class U.S. postal mail or overnight mail to your Premises; by sending notice to the e-mail address on Comcast's account records, or (iii) by hand delivery. You agree that any one of the foregoing will constitute sufficient notice and you waive any claims that these forms of notice are insufficient or ineffective. Because we may from time to time notify you about important information regarding the Services and this Agreement by these methods, you agree to regularly check your postal mail, e-mail and all postings at www.comcast.net, www.comcast.com or on another Web site about which you have been notified or you bear the risk of failing to do so.
Unfortunately; it looks like you were notified. | |
|
| |
Diaboyos
join:2007-08-21
·Comcast
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I received no notification of this Yeah I regularly check www.comcast.com for any updates on how they're continuing to screw me over. I don't know how that can constitute a valid notification. That's just sad. I would be willing to assume that more than 50% of their users don't often visit the Comcast pages. I know I never do. Why would I?
I know they're covering their asses with their terminology in their TOS but to rely on their users to blindly stumble upon information in this manner should not be considered valid notification. Notification should be their active attempt to contact you, not a passive attempt assuming you'll see it. | |
|
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA
·Vonage
·Comcast
edit:
September 8th, @08:08AM
| comcast is hardly indispensible... comcast takes quite seriously what is typically called "the golden rule"-------------that is, those with the gold, rule.
they act as if customers (in comcast-speak: pita annoyances) will freely choose to be with comcast until the end of time.
ummm, comcast---wake up. arrogant behavior will always ultimately result in paying customers (in your words: pita annoyances) leaving for other isps. in this neck of the woods, team roberts has a monopoly. i know as soon as the folks from verizon lay a bit of fios cable here, i'll be taking my business there. while team roberts provides a fairly stable isp, i for one am tired of the customer service attitude, which i've got >>MANY TIMES from the local office on smith st in harrisburg, that makes clear we're not supposed to bother them. the days of my monthly payments to team roberts are numbered-----all simply because of a corporately accepted arrogance. bub | |
|
xlimitx
join:2001-12-31
Wilkes Barre, PA
·ProLog
| Unfortunate. This is unfortunately a byproduct of our society today. We have two issues.
1) A company that tends to run like a bandwidth vigilante and seems to want to ignore rules with regards to all kinds of service provider ethics. (of course this is not just limited to Comcast at this point)
and
2) A society where going into a court to sue someone is like a rite of passage. | |
|
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
No to ESPN
@comcast.net
| Answer is a Strong Offense Take stuff like this to the state AG and work to have the companies license to operate in the state revoked. If a company does not wish to play fair and reasonable then it should not be allowed to do business in the state.
Simple and it puts a sharp edge on the other side of the sword of justice.
By the way, Comcast cashed my check where I wrote that I did not agree to the new one sided terms and conditions. Therefore they agreed by accepting the check to my terms and conditions. | |
|
|
hwstar
@cox.net | Re: Answer is a Strong Offense Not necessarily. The law changed to exempt checks with conditions which are processed by machines, of which most are these days. | |
|
| mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| said by No to ESPN :
By the way, Comcast cashed my check where I wrote that I did not agree to the new one sided terms and conditions. Therefore they agreed by accepting the check to my terms and conditions.
The statement you put on your check has no legal standing at all and is worthless. Read paragraph 2e of your agreement:
"You agree that you may not amend or modify this Agreement with any restrictive endorsements (such as "paid in full |
|
Comcast Can't Erode Your Legal Rights With Fine Print
·
Is Arbitration Always Bad??