Slashdot Mirror
Judge Sues ISP for Poor Service
Pig Hogger writes: "According to this National Post story, Ontario small claims judge Beverley Reade is taking Rogers Cable to court, after she failed to get a credit when her Internet connection stopped working for a few days. She asks for either $5800 ($500 for breach of contract, $300 as compensation for her inconvenience & $5000 for punitive damages) OR an apology from cable mogul Ted Rogers himself (like this would ever happen...). The kicker is that, despite being hounded by a collection agency seeking the disputed amount, judge Reade keeps being getting solicited by Rogers marketroids trying to sell her high-speed internet access and cable-TV service..."
After a year and a half of a VERY broken connect and refusals time and again from rogers to send anyone to my house to repair my connect, I threatened them with a lawsuit in order to talk to someone in a higher tier in tech support. (A benign threat- I didn't have the time or money to take on this sort of thing.)
I insinuated that they advertised that Rogers allowed you to do certain things with your cable modem, including surfing the web and playing games. However, I was told flat out by many of their techs that as long as my connect is up and they can ping it, they will do NOTHING ELSE to help me with my connect.
When Rogers left British Columbia and Shaw moved in, a tech came to my house to switch my Lancity modem with a Terayon model (thanks to Terayon and Shaw for the non-competition monopolistic contract). Apparently the wiring inside my wall was positively rotten. It was fixed by a Shaw employee that day.
Rogers deserves to rot for what I would call false advertising.
As a sidenote, if anyone is going through a Shaw to Rogers switch like I did, check out my experiences.
\\\ SLUDGE
If they have not provided you with a proper degree of service, you should absolutely withold payment. In a conflict liie this, it is FAR more difficult to get money back than it is to get a bill cancelled.
Of course, the ISP is easily within their rights to report the failure of a bill payment to a collection agency, but the burden of proof, and its enforcement, is on the shoulders of the vendor.
Asking for a refund is not at all the way to handle this. Clearly you haven't dealt with many vendors like this before.
I have ordered both Cable and Phone service over the phone, they did not read me the written agreement before placing my service. This is the same as the EULA agreement about agreeing with the EULA after you open the box.
Also the arguments about 5800 as too much, i think its too little. Her time is worth more than 500 bux for hours of lousy on-hold music.
I had AT&T @Home for two years before getting my new locally owned and run cable modem service in my new place.
The level one support people are clueless, and like to blame your machine or hardware for every problem, even if you haven't changed anything, and you wake up some morning to find all three of your computers no longer connecting to the network, and you've swapped out your hub and every network cable. I am not making this up, it happened to me, and it took two and a half weeks for them to diagnose that there was a problem in the cable box outside my apartment building. One tech had come out, but didn't bother to actually TEST the line, just installed a new modem and left saying "it should work in a couple of hours".
What I want, is for ISPs to take providing service more seriously. If you do convince them that there is an actual problem with your line or modem, @Home always schedules someone to come to your house in two weeks, not the next day, not even that week.
Would I accept that from the phone company or the power company? Hell no! Maybe access to the internet isn't important to them, but it is important to me, as it can save me several trips to the office to fix minor glitches or help out computer-challenged users.
Now, I understand that cable modems can go down, but for the love-of-god, have a free dial-up number locally for when it does, so that those of us who have phone modems at least have a backup that we can use for those two weeks while we wait for help. AT&T has a modem pool that their subscribers can use, FOR FIFTY CENTS PER MINUTE. That's adding insult to injury.
What is the average cluelss user supposed to do for two weeks without access? You can generate an awful lot of negative eBay feedback for unpaid auctions and unsent goods if you can't get to your e-mail for two weeks...
I know that if you really NEED Internet access 24/7, you should be using something more expensive than a $30/month cable modem, but it's time that @Home actually showed some concern for the experience of the end users...
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Add to that the actual threats they made towards her credit rating while she was attempting to get that bank loan, plus the usual obnoxious behavior that collection firms can sometimes get into, a complete lack of respect by the service provider about any of it's customers, makes me think that she's asking for too little in punitive damages to get the company to rethink this kind of behavior.
It's exactly concerns like this and other horror stories that make me mistrust most cable ISP's.
Cable companies in Canada are granted local monopolies for cable access. Rogers certainly behaves like it has a monopoly - "Oh, just pay your bill, we'll fix it soon."
This is just someone who is hitting back since there's relatively no alternative. I myself couldn't go back to dialup, and Sympatico is not much better for service. As well, I'm fairly certain thet there's not a CO on or within 7 or 8 Km ( about 4.4 to 5.0 miles) of Pelee Island - IOW it's out of DSL range.
(OT: There is also somewhat misleading advertising from Sympatico. They advertise "No sharing, always fast" - about 760Kb to the CO - but what they don't tell you is that you and the other 200 people in the CO are sharing a single T1 to the Internet. Since Cable is usually @ 1.5Mb, it's about the same in the end, isn't it?)
I won't duplicate an earlier rant, but let's just say that the trouble with Rogers (and Bell Canada - owners of the Sympatico service) is one of being a little too focused on the bottom line and not thier customers. Having a monoploy seems to do that to a company, IMHO.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
The bulk of the money she's asking for is in punitive damanges because of Rogers behavior; the behavior of their collection agents, and there refusal to do proper business.
This is not simply about internet downtime.
Right, which the Judge did, remember? She didn't get the service she was expecting, right off the bat, so she cancelled her service.
They then both a) refused to give her the refund she said she was getting and b) sent her to a collections agency.
Her point is twofold.
One, that she agreed to sign up because it would be on all the time, and there was technical support. Once she was signed up, she found that it didn't work all the time, and the support was a joke. In any normal business dealing, that's a fundamental breach of the implied contract of sale. The service they sold here didn't work as specified, so she cancelled it, and refused to pay them any money.
Then their collection agent went a bit too far with her too, acting quite threatening, talking about ruining her credit rating, etc.
She's going after them for selling a bunk product, not for losing her internet access. She hasn't paid them any money, and is instead taking them to court over it.
Had they simply said 'we're sorry you didn't like our service, we hope you come back some day' all woudl ahve been well. This is about their actions, not her loss of access.
This could be interesting..
According to the cableco, they can't be held liable because their AUP says so..
This sound suspiciously like a "click-through" license.. if the Judge wins, it could spark a HUGE blow against such licenses - finally (at least in Canada) bringing them under legal scrutiny..
I'd be interested in seeing how this plays out.. a legal precident could be in the makings...
"Acts of God" usually refers to specific events beyond a company's control. In the words of my DB professor, it's "Fire, Floods and Insurrection." (And Tornados, Hurricanes, heavy unseasonable snowfalls, war, et al.)
It does NOT include something a company could reasonable foresee. E.g., building a switch in a flood plain.
Very few people aren't willing to cut a company some slack after a bona fide Act of God. But many companies try to use this to justify Acts of Gomer. (Think Gomer Pyle, Cable Guy, and you know what I mean.) It's Gomer Pyle, CEO, who didn't staff the help line and caused hour-long waits on help-calls, not God. It's Gomer Pyle, CEO, who made some decisions that caused the network connection to be routinely dropped.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yeah, read the contract. It promised timely, 24-hour support. Not hours on hold, only to finally reach a clerkoid with no answers or authority.
Besides, taken to its logical extreme (something many cable providers attempt), that clause would make it perfectly legal for them to provide *no* service whatsoever. That flies in the face of common sense - contracts are supposed to be mutual guarantees of exchanges of value. Paying $40/month while the cable company does absolutely nothing doesn't make sense, and any court would throw it out.
That's all the judge is asking in this case - a determination that the company can't routinely drop that connection without reaching the point where no reasonable person would consider it worth the hassle. There has to be *some* limit, and since it's not stated in the contract that's something that can (and will be) determined by a judge or jury.
There's also issues regarding business and collection practices. From what the article said, I agree with the judge that the company's behavior crossed the line of acceptable behavior. Promising a future credit, for an unknown amount at an unknown time, is nothing but a clear "fuck off" to the customer.
(IANAL, but can read.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Odd how this is the first I've ever heard of anyone complaint about this ISP via way of a lawsuit. I wonder how many others have either complained, in comparison with how many users they have, etc. People always complain for whatever reason about anything, it's human nature.
As stated how many people faced this same problem with this provider? A bit disturbing to see this article which seems to contain shaky grounds. So she doesn't want money but an apology? If it's a matter of morals, why waste the peoples time and money with this bs, just move along to another provider, unless she has a vendetta which is not written going on against the provider.
Now when I see things like it would shut down when she and her kids were using it, how the hell does she know it wasn't her own, or her kids negligence that was causing it? For this I refer to "Diary of an AOL'er", a funny ass story, but oh so true for some people.
Want Root?
I think I'll go into the ISP business. I'll sell customers a 100gigabit access for $19.95 per month. When they complain that they ain't getting any service I'll point out the Rogers Clause in their contract, and try to upgrade them to my premiere package (1 zillion terabits for the low, low price of $39.95 pre month).
I am not alone with this problem. Everyone who lives in Hacienda Heights and Rowland Heights, CA are having similar problems:
1) Very slow speed, especially during peak hours (i.e. analog modem speed during peak hours). I was told that there are only six T1 lines in this city.
2) Too many cable modem outages.
3) Horrible technical support (nothing unusual for any companies).
4) None of can get DSL because we're too far. IDSL, satellite Internet, etc. are too expensive and slow (i.e. gaming).
5) The problems are getting worse.
6) Adelphia@Home is still adding new subscribers. My cable friends and I recently got flyers and postcards.
I was told Adelphia is going to discontinue @Home and switch subscribers to its PowerLink ISP service. I doubt that will help a lot.
Some interesting links with my city's cable modem problems:
My city complaints... Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Speed Test Results (type in 91745 for zip code).
Adelphia Forum: A few posts related to my city and Rowland Heights.
Some results from my traceroutes, pings, etc.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
This suit really isn't as frivolous as some here are making it out to be. Regardless of what the contract says, there are certain minimum warranties required by law, and certainly a company should be held accountable to a degree for the claims it makes about itself in its advertising. Presumably she knows the law in this situation and believes she has a good case.
Clearly, Rogers could have avoided this simply by providing the support they promised they would in their marketing literature. Even if they lose, they're getting off cheap compared to the cost of actually hiring enough support operators.
And the brethren went away edified.
Telocity has been something of a nightmare for the past 3 months. I've opened several tickets but have had no resolution yet. Their billing department wouldn't credit the full amount of downtime because they'd seen the closed ticket and time had elapsed before the next ticket was opened. Here's the script that I use to check availability:
#!/bin/bash STATUS=`ping -c 2 -q 216.227.80.37 2>/dev/null`
CODE=$?
NOW=`date`
if [ $CODE -gt 0 ]; then
echo $NOW DOWN >> ~/temp/status
else
echo $NOW UP >> ~/temp/status
fi
They were supposed to call my Noon today but haven't. The next step is to file complaints with the local PSC and the FCC.
Surprisingly, this actually works. There has been significant jury duty reform here in California, and the leading proponent is the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. He was called for jury duty and actually wound up serving on a jury. He was so pissed off with the way he was treated that he decided that poor treatment of prospective jurors was a serious threat to the judicial system and started leading the charge for reform. Not all of the things that he's advocated (specifically decent jury duty pay) have been implemented, but it has made a big difference.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
'She also says her kids have agreed to testify in court about the deprivation of missing television -- particularly this year's Survivor show -- and its effect on their lives.'
Yes, I can see it now
Please, tell the court how you were affected by Rogers's Actions...
I started reading. (through sobs) I got though an entire book! YOU BASTARDS!
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Witness: ...and then I had to find out who won Survivor from a newspaper! [Witness breaks down sobbing]
Plaintiff's Attorney: Yes, I'm sorry...it must have been very hard. INow you know I don't want to do this, but I need you to describe for the court, in your own words, what kind of depraved, foul-smelling, leech-like --
Defense Attorney: Objection, your honour! My client is not leech-like!
Judge: Overruled.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Thank you, your honour. As I was saying -- leech-like, hideous, indescribable monster you think could possibly deprive you of the wholesome, innocent joys of childhood by taking away television.
Carousel is a lie!
maybe they could see what we (the massive) consumers have to put with
and so maybe we could get court decisions voted *our* way for once ...
Sunny Dubey
interesting, but not suprising, that she is a small claims judge. my experience (from when I once litigated against an old landlord) is that the small claims judges are actually more in touch with the people. They will help you out and make suggestions in court. They are used to big companies mauling the little guy, consequentially they don't put up with it.
This is why one of the first actions a company will take if you small claims court them is to have it moved to circuit court (a "higher" level court) rules of evidence are harder and the judges more "impartial" (lawyer friendly, not layman friendly)
Hopefully this will start to break us free from the cable company monopolies, my area allows only one, I would love to see equal access enforced like it is for long distance carriers. (at least in the US). Maybe then they will stop this bait and switch crap they like to play with bandwidth, 120K the first month, then 90K , then 60K etc...
On a final note I would also like to say, that must be one of the most shagable judges I have ever seen...
Papa Legba come and open the gate
- a book on how to use the Ontario Small Claims Court system
- a link to some useful information, including a PDF document on the Small Claims system
Is that enough?Of course, if there are enough people that have been pissed off by Rogers, we could go for a huge class-action lawsuit, but I have a feeling that a grassroots small-claims onslaught will be much more effective, and put more cash back into your pocket if you've been affected.
The judge's expectations of receiving a refund for downtimes on her cable line are not out of line at all. If Rogers were smart, they'd do what Verizon does on their (rather shitty) DSL lines - a free day of service for every hour of downtime. I've managed to get several weeks of free service so far without having to put any pressure whatsoever on the Verizon support reps. They won't bring it up, but their guidelines must state that if a customer asks about that particular policy, the rep must go ahead with crediting the account with the requested hours. They probably do check their logs to see if your claim of a down router - biggest problem, especially on the weekends - is true, so don't push it too far. :)
--
Violence is necessary, it is as American as cherry pie.
H. Rap Brown
Flame aside, of course I read the article. And believe it or not, Rogers Cable had every right to call in the collection agency. Here's why:
First, when I "subscribe" to anything, I am agreeing to pay my bill in full every time a bill is due. Sure, I may have objections. I may even say that I don't want to pay it. But that doesn't pay the bill, and I'm not released from being required to pay in the legal sense.
Second, the lawsuit hadn't been filed. That means there wasn't a court injunction that temporarily "locked" the account until the mess could be sorted out. Had the judge simply filed the suit immediately after not paying the bill in full, her account would not have been sent to a collections agency. The burden in on the plaintiff here.
The proper thing would have been to pay the bill in full if the suit hadn't been filed. The judge could have then proceeded with the civil suit and asked for a refund of the money. Not paying the bill and not getting the account locked in a legal way forced her account into collections. One can't just go around not paying bills--one's credit rating is based on payment only; not on whether you're right or wrong for denying payment.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
This is obviously excessive. There is no way this judge, nor anyone else, could get that sum of money from any ISP. It just isn't going to happen.
Now, what the judge is trying to do is make a point. She doesn't want Roger's Cable to get away without major negative press. She probably doesn't care much about whether she wins or loses, and I can't blame her. Sometimes finding a way to tell potential consumers to stay away is worth a loss in court.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.