🚀 go-pugleaf

re: provider is legally liable to provide service

The poster below the next one is correct.

The internet provider entered into a contract with me at the beginning
which was later changed.


I contracted with them for them to provide me Internet services
including the newsgroup access under certain conditions including
their promised enforcement of the clearly posted AUP (acceptable usage
policies).

This AUP which was later changed in April 2002 in a MAJOR substantive
way and I was not at any time given this information directly and
offered to renew my contract with Shaw under this new arrangement.

Before this new AUP was created, I was given assurance from their AUP
that they would protect myself and other users from their specific
contract/AUP which would not allow their customers to engage in
personal attacks with profanity, offensive content and threats.

I had signed on as a customer with the understanding and knowledge
that they had this clearly written AUP.

They failed to hold up their side of the contract and despite my
repeated notices of the breach of their AUP by 5 other customers,
nothing was ever done.

Instead, I was threatened to lose my account for what can only appear
because I had complained about their lack of enforcement of their own
contracted AUP.

So they then changed the contracted terms without my knowledge and
removed the caluse making it an AUP violation to use offensive
language or content by their customers.

So Shaw Internet is clearly in breach of contract for failing to
provide me with the services and the warranties/AUP that I had
originally paid for.

For them to later to decide to arbitrarily cancel my account based on
their own desire to save money is not only actionable but morally
irresponsible.

My internet newsgroup use is only a very tiny fraction of what I use
the INternet for and have paid for.

The newsgroup issue is the only issue which has caused Shaw problems
due to the handful of customers who have been unable to conduct
themselves within their originally posted AUP.

Shaw did not take reasonable steps to resolve this contracted issue
and could simply have requested that I not use the newsgroup access as
part of my contracted iNternet services.

They did not.

At this point, I am waiting for my service to be restored and for Shaw
Internet to carry on providing the service that I had contracted with
them to provide.

Anything less, is not acceptable and won't be acceptable if it is
taken into the courts.

I suggest that others take similar action if you are receiving
unsatisfactory service which is far below what you had contracted
with.
- slow service
- unwanted spam mail coming to your account
- offers coming in from Shaw themselves to sell merchandise
- failing to respond to any of your queries
- wrongful suspension or termination of your account.






























"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?
>