re ATT suggests heavy data users overloading cell sites, must stop or pay?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bob Torres <rjt () rjtorres org>
> Date: December 13, 2009 10:58:10 AM EST
> To: "dave () farber net" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: RE: [IP] re  ATT suggests heavy data users overloading cell  
> sites, must stop  or pay?

> Just a quick (and possibly OT) observation to share with IP, if you  
> want:
>
>
>
> In the snippet below, Sid Karin suggested that AT&T would lose in  
> court if the matter of their so-called “unlimited” plan were to  
> be heard. I have no idea if that is the case, but if Mr. Karin has a 
>  contract with AT&T that is like mine, he would have already contrac 
> ted away his rights to sue in anything except small claims court. My 
>  contract with AT&T includes a mandatory arbitration clause that spe 
> cifies that I “agree to arbitrate all disputes and  
> claims” (emphasis original) between me and AT&T.  In addition, I als 
> o do not have the right to be part of a class action. Most of you wi 
> th AT&T probably have agreed to the same.
>
>
>
> The whole of the agreement is here if you have not had your  
> recommended daily allowance of fine print today:
>
>
>
> http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/service-agreement.jsp?q_termsKey=postpaidServiceAgreement&q_termsName=Service+Agreement
>
>
>
> Bob Torres
>
>
>
> Yes, I'm sure that they are correct about the fine print in the
>
> contract that no one reads.   I'm also certain that the contract
>
> does not reflect the unlimited data that they advertise.  I suspect
>
> that they would lose in court.  I am certain that they should.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com