🚀 go-pugleaf

"Raymond J. Henry" <rayhenry@TROLLmts.net> wrote in message
news:kzvC9.14444$b5.70510@news1.mts.net...
> Guess what? There is no law to make them provide you with service. They
have
> the right to decide that due to the increased man-hours you create by your
> antagonistic posting methods on newsgroups that it's not feasible to
provide
> you with service at the specified costs. This is 100% legitimate.
>

Guess what? You are wrong, dead wrong!
They had an option not to provide him service when he first signed up -
BEFORE they entered into a contract to provide "said service for said cost".

The laws governing this are called "Torts", and it falls under civil rather
than criminal laws.

But be clear, costing too much is not a legitimate reason to "break" the
contract which both he and they are bound. You do understand a contract is
valid as soon as there is "mens rhea" (sp?) or in layman's terms "a meeting
of the minds". No hand shake nor written paper is required. Therefore the
only provision for them to get out of the contract is through violation of
the Acceptable Use Policy, which you agreed would negate the agreement, or
if you fail to pay that is grounds too to break the contract, because you
agreed to pay them compensation for services rendered.

What of a customer that is the sole customer on a given node, a node with
failing equipment.
Their cost is not an issue. It is not your problem. They have a contract to
fulfill at whatever expense to them.
If you had enough money to ride it out in the lengthy court battle they
would launch against you, or were a lawyer with a lot of idle time on your
hands, you would WIN in court given the same senario.

Having enough money to bankrupt any legal challengers does not make breaking
the contract on unfounded  or irelevant grounds 100% legitimate. Though it
is how Shaw and Rogers governs themselves.

Why they are in breach of contract when they are not providing you bandwidth
at 100 times faster than a 28.8kbps dialup modem.

So sorry you are wrong!


> There are other ISP's that can provide you with service, so you wouldn't
> even have a case if you could prove that lack of Internet connectivity
> caused you hardship.
>
> I applaud Shaw in their actions. I am aware of other ISP's that have
> declined service to problematic users, even if those users have not
violated
> any AUP's. In the cases that I'm aware of, each was warranted.
>
> Shaw has an obligation to it's shareholders to ensure that you aren't
> costing them money. And you have cost them money. I know users that are on
> MTS due to the length of time that Shaw allowed you to continue in the
> fashion you did. You can go on and on about other posters violating their
> AUP, but that's a call that Shaw makes, not you. You're not their
enforcer.
> If Shaw decides that other users are not detrimental to income levels and
> you are, you lose. That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.
>
> While on the case of Shaw, what happened to your spiel about you loving
> Shaw, and Shaw loving you, and how stable your account was there, yadda,
> yadda, yadda? Think maybe you put Shaw into a spot that they were
unwilling
> to let you?
>
>
>
> "�-#� tayl�rchuk ��|I" <db2639@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:66ae96c0.0211191010.5f8e4db@posting.google.com...
> > re: Shaw internet cancels account without violation of AUP
> >
> > Yes we should all be very worried about the actions that Shaw has
> > taken.
> >
> > They chose to cancel my account despite the facts that:
> >
> > 1. I did not violate their AUP
> > 2. I am a paid up customer
> >
> > They sent a cancelation email and failed to identify ANY violations of
> > their AUP but simply said..
> >
> > "it is no longer economically feasible for us to continue to provide
> > you with Internet services:.
> >
> > They did NOT outline even a single violation of their AUP in this
> > letter because there weren't any.
> >
> > They just had complaints from people who disagreed with what I said.
> >
> > This is how Internet providers think that they can operate.
> >
> > If they or their customers simply don't like what you say, they can
> > cancel your account.
> >
> > No warnings.
> >
> >
> > Their last letter to me about 5 months ago said that they would have
> > to keep one of three complaints on record but that I had two
> > remaining.
> >
> > The facts.
> > 1. They wrongly suspended my account for 7 days until they realized
> > that they had blamed me for a post that was created from someone else!
> > No appologies, no refund of monies lost for that period.
> >
> > 2. they then tried to say that I made a threat when I said in a post
> > that a person should be "spanked off the newsgroup". Spank? Thats a
> > threat? Since when.
> >
> > 3. Shaw has allowed other users to blatantly violate their posted AUP
> > over and over with threats, profanity and pornographic stories but
> > these users have never had their accounts cancelled or even suspended.
> >
> > So everyone should be worried that an Internet provider can jackboot
> > users at their own discretion.
> >
> > They can be the censors and ensure that nobody ever says something
> > that they or their customers disagree with.
> >
> > I want anyone with information or assistance in this matter to email
> > me
> >
> > donbayomi@hotmail.com
> >
> > Winnipeg.
> >
> > The CRTC does not actively regulate the Internet at all.
> >
> > So lets get a decision..either they don't regulate anything or they
> > do.
> >
> > I get my account cancelled simply because they don't feel like
> > addressing the problems of those who violate their own AUP?
> >
> > I dont' think so.
> >
> > I have asked for my account back out of the mere principle of it.
> >
> > You don't have to agree with something that I or others say...but do
> > you want to live in a country and have internet providers who can just
> > simply accept some complaints from people who disagree with you and
> > then take away your account?
> >
> > No.
>
>