Quote:
Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe
It seems to me that as an organisation, Virgin Media do not appear to know what they have got themselves into. Popper, can I use your Notice in the sample letters page I'm building on http://www.inphormationdesk.org? |
Very good site there! I'll certainly be bookmarking that and recommending it over on BT Beta forums. Well done! I especially liked the list of Questions for BT. Very well chosen, and I don't think you will be getting answers on any of them.
With regard to those T&C and "new agreement" claims - BT constantly update their T&C's, usually very quietly, but a new contract is only initiated when we sign up for some new service and they are always up-front about the difference between being "out of contract" and in a fixed contract.
The real issue for the customer to remember, is that it doesn't really matter what the ISP's put in their T&Cs. If the terms and conditions are held to be unfair, or relate to what turn out to be illegal acts, they are unenforceable and then the whole contract becomes void.
If there is a unilateral change to the T&Cs while you are "bound" in a contract term, say having signed up to a new 12month or 18 month agreement, and the unilateral changes the ISP announces and imposes on you, are to your material disadvantage, even if they ARE legal, and even if they ARE fair, you are not bound to the changed contract and can leave without penalty.
---------- Post added at 09:17 ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Steve
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._position.html
More from Charles Arthur, interestingly, following on from yesterday's deafening silence from BT, Phorm had this to say w/r/t the FIPR documents.
"FIPR is abusing its influence and promoting its own agenda by encouraging a frivolous debate about the legality of a legitimate e-commerce business. Internet users would be better served if FIPR focused on the benefits of the online technologies available today rather than undermine the online privacy debate and block technological progress. That would help people to make valid informed choices about the services they want to use."
So, not a refutation of the points, in any way, but straight on to the ad-hominem attacks. Rattled or what ?
And is it even possible to have a "frivolous debate about the legality of" something ?
Sounds like an epic fail to me. I don't think any decent PR would have let that statement pass, either, to combative, so perhaps Phorm have ditched their flying PR monkeys.
|
I think we should be encouraging Kent Ertugrul to say as much as possible, preferably live. He's turning into a great asset for the anti-Phorm/Webwise cause. I want to see more of this guy!
I've popped a comment on the Guardian blog.