[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Feb 6, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <85D304BA-6C4E-4B86-9717-2ADB542B8606 at delong.com>, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes
>>> Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy?
>> If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the contract and the contract says they are providing internet access, then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to date.
> You may be right about enforcing that in the USA (is it an FCC thing?), but it won't fly in most other places.
It has worked for me so far in several countries.

No, it's not an FCC thing, it's called "Truth in advertising" and/or Fraud.

If you advertise a product as internet access, then, providing limited or partial access
to the internet does not fulfill the terms of the contract unless you have the appropriate

>> Admittedly, I'm not over-fussed about email on my phone and I don't use
>> a tether device at this point.
> The 3G I'm discussing is a dongle intended for general access.
As I said, I don't use a tether device (the dongle would qualify
as a tether device in my meaning).

>> I mostly expect 3G and 4G networks to be broken internet anyway. I was more speaking in terms of land-line providers.
> Apparently there are something like three times as many people with mobile phones in the world, as with Internet access. And a lot of network expansion is expected to be based on mobile connectivity as a result.

While this is true, for whatever unfortunate reasons, those users seem to expect and
accept a certain level of brokenness in their internet access.

When I looked into the mobile contracts I have (SPRINT 4G/EVDO service for my phone
and AT&T 3G service on my iPad), it was pretty clear that they promised to provide
whatever they felt like under whatever circumstances they chose and I was supposed
to pay whether it works or not.

Unfortunately, lacking viable alternatives, we live with that, but, at least in their case,
the contract specifies that I accept brokenness as built in to their service models.