🚀 go-pugleaf

No I am afraid you are wrong.

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
I contracted  with Shaw to provide me service and to uphold their AUP
Acceptable usage policies which are there to protect its users and
others.

- they broke their contract with me.
- they failed to enforce their AUP despite my advising them on
repeated occaisions of violent threats on the newsgroups, offensive
content and other blatant violations of their clearly posted AUP

2. NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO ENFORCE THEIR AUP
They have allowed others to libel many of the users on the newsgroup
because although they have a set of clearly stated AUP, they
continually failed to fulfil their obligation to enforce them.

3. INNAPPRPROPRIATE BUSINESS PRACTICES
I have a physical letter stating clearly that I would only have the
one complaint on my record and that they would have to advise me if
the other two remaining complaints/violations were ever in jeopardy. I
WAS NOT.

I also had an agreement with their main contact Laurence Bureau where
he was to forward me a summary of our position from 7 months ago,
which he did not.

The provider sent me a cancellation notice and 
- did not outline which if any, specific AUP I had violated. There
were none.
- they claimed that it was too expensive to keep my account active but
failed to simply address the real problem which were the other 5 users
who were blatantly breaking their own clearly posted AUP


4. FAILURE TO ACT IN REASONABLE MANNER IN CONTRACT
They did not make an atempt to resolve the matter in an appropriate
way. They simply could have asked me to not post on newsgroups at all
if that would have solved the situation.

I rely on my hispeed service to download and view critical healthcare
information for some relatives.

I am on many medical mailing lists for which I need almost hourly
receipt.

At this point, I am not able to access this very essential medical or
financial information.

My account was terminated without cause, without explanation.

They had wrongly disconnected my service for 7 days when they later
admitted that they had accused me of posting a message created by
SOMEONE ELSE!

I expect my account to be reactivated within the next two weeks.




These are only some of the charges against Shaw Internet.










"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.
> 
> 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.