Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Terms of service

Options
  • 26-05-2001 5:10am
    #1
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭


    I would just like to say.. fair play for getting your group started.

    in your minutes you state that you would be looking for esat to change!? terms of service to accomodate the users affected by there letters?

    I say.. 1stly they did not! inform these users of any change of terms of service and unless they have actualy changed there terms of service they also are obliged by law to inform there users of the change so they may comply. As far as i am aware they at the the time did not! change there terms of service OR! if they did?? they never informed anyone of this change including myself who has not been affected or have not recieved a chain letter from easat.
    Effectivly they are breaking the law by not! informing any one of change of service if any and then cutting people of without informing them of any new conditions.
    I would not be accomodating esat by requesting? they change there terms of service, as its terms of service have not been notified to me or any one else for this matter and we should insist we recieved the service we all subscribed to under the current terms of service.. NOLIMITS means NOLIMITS, if they cant handle the traffic they should upgrade there servers.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BoneCollector:
    they did not! inform these users of any change of terms of service and unless they have actualy changed there terms of service they also are obliged by law to inform there users of the change so they may comply.</font>

    I'm not a lawyer but I think if you look carefully at what they did, they did not change terms of service - they terminated accounts, giving 30 days notice, which their terms of service allows them to do for any reason.

    Debatable whether new 75 hour rule is a change in their terms of service - there is nothing IMO to stop them having this as an 'internal rule' and just terminating accounts that exceed it.

    Again, I emphasise, this is just my opinion - other people have already disagreed with this.

    It will all remain 'lay' opinion however until someone finds a lawyer willing to give a free opinion or is willing to put up legal fees.

    FWIW, the IrelandOffline committee are taking the view that there is no point in pursuing a legal route at this stage:

    a) We don't have the money
    b) We don't think we would win
    c) It would probably go on forever




  • Options
    #3
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I have to say, that I agree.

    Even though I am one of the 2000 who is gonna be disconnected next Thursday, ESAT are within their rights to do what they did. If you look at the contract/terms of service, it gives either party to right to terminate the contract at any time with 30 days notice.

    I'm not pleased with the way they went about it, but they had the right to do it. I think their excuse is laughable, and one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. But there you are - they did it!

    As for the comment that they should have employed extra servers to cope with the demand, that's not correct. You obviously don't realise why we're being disconnected. ESAT had to pay Eircom to use their lines. Based on the fee that Eircom were charging, and what ESAT were charging for the SNL scheme, they lost money once a person stayed online for more than 3 hours at a time.

    It had nothing to do with not being able to cope - although, I must admit, the service has deteriorated noticeably since Christmas.

    So, disgruntled and all, as I am, at the back of it all, I don't think ESAT should be expected to keep providing a loss-making system. But I think that the way they chose to deal with it, was farcical and a PR disaster (See Irish Times article of May 21st).

    Legally, I don't think we'd have a leg to stand on if we pursued it.

    Mike


  • Options
    #4
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I agree broadly with what you say, however a number of points should be noted:
    1. You say people don't realise why they're being disconnected?..Esat made it plain in their "famous letter" why they were taking this action. There was no mention of costs I quote from the said letter "Esat Fusion will no longer continue to support this high level of usage of IOL NoLimits as it is not in keeping with the spirit of the service and it is affecting the overall quality of the service for all IOL NLimits customers." So the reason according to Esat is that they couldn't sustain the heavy traffic!
    2. Within their rights? Perhaps, but the fact remains that you and I are being discriminated against because of the manner we used the service! discrimination based on usage: they have admitted that in the letter, that may have some legal implications, (maybe someone with a legal background should be consulted here)if they just informed you that as and from May 31 you're service was being discontinued, then they were within their rights as per the agreement, but this is not actually the case, also it could be argued that the disconnection is not in keeping with the SPIRIT of the contract or agreement.
    3. The spirit of the service? nobody was informed about this! does that constitute a change in the terms of the contract without informing the parties involved? (more legal advise needed here!)
    4. Esat offered this service to grab market share, with the expectation of Local Loop Unbundling, thats not our fault and we shouldn't be demonised or blamed for their marketing and corporate strategy.
    5. I would agree that the SNL as we know it will come to an end, but the manner that Mr. Andrew Conlan-Trant and company handled it was a complete disgrace with the typical disregard for customers that nearly all the telecoms operators seem to show.
    I only hope that when/if ADSL appears that more companies that Esat Fusion are offering services, as I'd be very nervous having to get involved with them again.



  • Options
    #5
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fionn:
    (maybe someone with a legal background should be consulted here)
    </font>

    Not taking away from the rest of stuff you said - but until someone 'puts their hand in their pocket' for legal advice, this argument is going nowhere IMHO frown.gif


  • Options
    #6
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I agree with Fionn
    keeping withing the spirit of the service is the same as keeping withing the spirit of the agreement. Concerning itself with the letter of the agreement is akin to keeping with the letter of the law. I think the letter of the law is seen as a matter of perspective and the spirit of the law should be seen as doing whats right!
    These cotracts are always one way with the client being set in concrete while there swimming in water. There are no indevidual contracts so therefor we would have to assume!? the the spirit in which the contract was drawn would be upheld and not the letter of the agreement. YES! i agree they have the right to terminate service but NOT! for the reasons they have used as this is! direct discrimination and just as bad as them saying "we are disconnecting you cos your black!" just because the agreement says that they can termininate service for what ever reason given 30 days notice" does Not! mean they CAN! use any! reason they wish, since regardless of what the agreemnet says.. if they step outside of current law! they are breaking they law and discrimination is against the law and definitly NOT! withing the spirit of the law or the agreement.

    [This message has been edited by BoneCollector (edited 26-05-2001).]


  • Advertisement
Advertisement