Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.attws (
More info?)
"Jeff" <jpburk@nospam.att.net> wrote in message
news:9Kouc.11254$_k3.263024@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Scott Stephenson" wrote:
> >
> > "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:
> > news:rmarkoff-1CB7ED.05261730052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> > >
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=5&u=/nm/20040528
> > > /bs_nm/telecoms_att_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
> > >
> > > LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two California women have sued AT&T Wireless
> > > Services Inc. (NYSE:AWE - news), claiming the cellphone company got
too
> > > big too fast and let the quality of its service slip.
> > >
> > >
> > > This could be an interesting case, as if it succeeds (or appears that
it
> > > might), many more suits for other carriers in other areas where they
> > > oversold their service could result.
> >
> > You sure have a knack these days of pointing out the most frivolous of
> > lawsuits and regulations. This is about the most ridiculous yet. The
> next
> > thing will be seeing is a lawsuit over the inability of carriers to
> provide
> > blanket coverage across the country, or one that claims that someone was
> > financially harmed because their phone was disconnected for non-payment.
> >
> > It would seem that cellular service in the State of California might get
> > very expensive for everyone, if this type of stupidity is allowed to
> > continue. Here is a case of everyone in the state (not just cellular
> users)
> > having to pay for the inability of the government to draw a line in the
> > sand.
> >
> I don't think this lawsuit is as ridiculous as it might seem, and there is
> precedent for this type of suit succeeding. As I see it, the basic issue
is
> a contractual one....what did AT&T Wireless contract to do for its
> customers, and was it able to deliver on its contract even with the
> expansion of service? I think the courts would be willing to overlook a
> relatively brief "blip" in service if AT&T worked hard to correct the
> problems and if the disruption of service couldn't have reasonably been
> anticipated. I remember several years ago, when AOL changed from an hourly
> fee structure to a flat-fee unlimited use strucure, the infamous "AOL busy
> signals" began. Not only did AOL not rush out more modems and phone lines
to
> handle the increased usage, they decided to place limitations on the
> supposedly "unlimited usage" plans (e.g., automatic logoffs after X
minutes
> of no activity, no "unlimited access" during peak usage times). One (or
> more) lawsuit was filed because AOL had basically breached its contract
with
> its customers to provide unlimited access for its flat-rate fee customers.
> If my memory is correct, the lawsuits were classified as class action, and
> AOL ended up refunding a portion of each customer's monthly subscription
> fee. AOL also made massive changes to its user agreement and Terms of
> Service to protect itself against future lawsuits (e.g., defining
> "unlimited" as "unlimited, except that we can't guarantee that it's
actually
> unlimited"). AOL should have anticipated that changing to a flat-rate fee
> structure would result in tremendous increases in usage. And, even if it
had
> miscalculated, it should have started working immediately to improve
access
> rather than trying to force people offline. Corporations have a
> responsibility to their customers, not just to their shareholders, and
> sometimes it takes lawsuits like these to reacquaint them with that
> responsibility.
>
You're comapring apples to oranges. AOL made a dramatic change to their TOS
by offering unlimited acces, and then violated their own terms by putting
restrictions in place after the fact. ATTW has not done anything close to
that.
In this lawsuit against ATTW, it is being requested that the courts
establish what a reasonable amount of growth is for a company, which is
completely laughable given the flat growth and subscriber decrease ATTW has
shown over the last year. And proving service degradation that is due to
the actions of ATTW is going to be almost impossible to prove. Is the
service wrose because of construction and growth by third parties that
interfere with service quality? If so, how is the company liable? Is there
a clause in the TOS that guarantees service to continue when outside
influences have an effect on coverage? Does the TOS guarantee blanket
coverage, regardless of influences outside of the company's control?
With this logic, television stations would have been exposed to the very
same types of lawsuits before the advent of cable. Service did degrade due
to a number of situations outside of the station's control back in the day.
And I guess I can sure the developer of the new neighborhood that gets in
the way of my view of mountains. I'll sue the city as well, because they
have grown too quick and degraded the quality of my surroundings. Sound
stupid? Of course it does, but no more stupid that what has been filed in
California.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram