Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Comprehensive-Leg752 t1_j90x6dz wrote

Overview: The Contract was annulled (it seems) because Spectrum failed to uphold the initial end of the bargain by providing a service of a much lower quality than what the customer paid for. The contract only allowed for a limited reimbursement, and his internet service had been dogwater the entire time. Every possible fix kept pointing towards Spectrum as being the source issue as to faulty hardware or wiring. Essentially, the gentleman paid for Champaign and Caviar but was given Malt Liquor and Cornbread by Spectrum. Because Spectrum didn't uphold their end of the bargain by providing him with the Champaign and Caviar he paid for, the judge ruled that the contract was unenforceable. This has set a precedent that ISPs must either come through with the service quality the customer paid for, or face potential legal repercussions. While I know that there are businesses out there that still operate by the Henry Ford school of "best goods possible, lowest price possible, highest wages possible", alot of these companies will most likely condense their top service to urban areas and offer nothing but mid level to low service to more rural or out of reach areas, or require additional hardware purchases on the part of the customer to facilitate the delivery of top service to a rural area.


vrenak t1_j90y2id wrote

The way around that is to condition access to serving denser areas by also serving less populated ones. So if they want to be able to service the good areas they take their share of the bad ones.