🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5een2q$5q6@milkwort.bri.st.com>
           des@bristol.st.com "David Shepherd" writes:

> Alastair B Roberts <abr@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> : ANOTHER FARCE: Telewest Communications claim that "any call made between
> : two modems is exempt from the free local call scheme". (Made by a Customer
> : services representative to me on the phone). This BLATANTLY CONTRADICTS
> : their small print on brochures, etc, which says something like "not
> : including ISP's PoPs".

> No - the issue is that modem-modem calls of any nature tend to have 
> a much longer connect time - and if they are free there is no incentive
> to hang up. This skews all the usage patterns and is the problem that
> many US telcos (especially in the Bay Area) are having to deal with with
> long free local modem-modem calls taking a significant proportion of the
> local switching capacity. Note that the press release that announces
> it states
> 
> "Excludes .... and calls to Internet services"
> 
> Sadly the main answer to this may well be "caveat emptor".

Here it is definitely caveat vendor.  If Telewest writes that the 
exclusion is just for "Internet services" then they can be made to 
bear full responsibility for the correctness of that choice of 
words.  To say that these words mean all modem calls is bizarre and 
would also imply that fax's were excluded.  Just give them fair 
warning in writing and then go to the county court and request the 
form to file a Summons for a money damages.  When you fill in the 
form, make it clear that their bill is a breach of the agreement 
which *they* wrote and which you had accepted.

Regards,
-- 
   Tony - G3SKR / W2TG                   email: tgold@panix.com
                                                tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na