🚀 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.
>
> 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.

Yeah, right. There is an extremely limited number of suppliers of HIGH SPEED
access in any given Canadian city. Screw dial up.


>
> 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.
>
>