🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.