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

> In article <85d304ba-6c4e-4b86-9717-2adb542b8...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong 
> <o...@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
disclaimers.

>> 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.

Owen


Reply via email to