Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Not saying a test in court wouldn't be useful
Personally, my issue is the outcome the OP is expecting.
What he is asking for is not full re-instatement of his original contract but partial re-instatement based on one part of the service - the Traffic Managment.
This request seems to be based on the fact that the ability to vary the terms is unfair.
Surely if a court rules that the right to vary the terms is unfair, and re-instatement was required - this would be full and complete reinstatement
This means the OP could end up with a unlimited, free from STM 1Mbit line (depending when the original service was taken out). You can't have it both ways.
|
The difference here is change of terms for duel benifit (ie upgrading custmers from 1 mb to 10mb benifits the custmer directly (for obvious reasons) and benifits the company (for marketing and retention reasons).
or the change of terms for a 1 sided benifit for example STM company gets benifit (cheaper bandwith/peering costs) custmer gets no actual benifit.(im not saying they did or not change the terms just using it as an example).
example 1 would bee a perfictly acceptable change of terms as both partys are benifitting equally (though if you think the marketing benifits outweigh your speed increase then you may still have a case :P)
example 2 would almost deffenatly bee concidered and unfair change of terms as the benifit is purly1 sided with the other party now LOOSING someof the service they contracted for.