Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Don Freeman <freemand@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> danny burstein wrote:
>>> (RCN killed internal usenet this week with no warning)
>
>> Can that be considered a breach of contract?
>
> I'm not sure if it meets the technical definition. Probably the fine
> print on the contract says they can shut of any and all services at
> any time and you'd still owe them money for the remainder of the year.
> But judges and juries tend not to like that kind of one-sided contract.
>
> It's probably not worth taking anyone to court, but if it were me, I'd
> cancel the service and demand my money back. Or if regular monthly
> payments were being deducted from my account, I'd stop those payments,
> and let *them* take *me* to court if they think I'm being unreasonable.
>
> I get an ISP for three main purposes: Email, Web, and Usenet. If
> any one of those goes away, I'd be about as happy as I would be with
> my landlord if he cut off my heat or my water.
I'm glad you mention this point. As a comcast customer I am very upset
that they are offerring fewer services for the same amount of cash. I
was thinking about giving them a call to see if they were thinking of
lowering the cost of their service to reflect the decreased amount of
service.
I've been looking into different ways to access usenet, and both Panix
and the Giganews 'super-duper special' offer for Comcast customers would
add about $8 to the internet bill per month. I'm thinking that would be
a place to start.
In reality though, we're probably just going to fire them outright and
have someone else handle our phone service and internet connectivity.
The dread husbeast has already found a couple of less expensive
alternatives, but it will probably take him a couple of weeks to decide
which is best. My biggest concern now is how far will this go. Is there
some way in which 'they' can completely cripple usenet - and how worried
should I be about this idea.
bri - but don't you care about the childrun?- gid
|
