Subject: RE: USADish - New Phone
From: MTM (mtm1018@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2008 - 06:28:54 CST
So what I'm hearing is in order to upgrade to HD it would be easier to move?
I'm joking but as ridiculous as that sound given the history of events it's not unlikely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@math.niu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:59 AM
To: Vanguard Lofts Listserv <vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: USADish - New Phone
Some brief answers to a few of the questions that came up regarding
USADISH:
1) To break the contract, we need to demonstrate a contractual failure
to provide service according the agreement. The contract doesn't require
upgrades, which can be offered at the sole discretion of USADish.
As frustrated as we may be, the contract binds us, and it's not a good
contract.
2) If there are complaints of failure to provide service, the contract
specifies that we send a letter of complaint specifying the problems
that violate the contract, and USADish then has 30 days to rectify those
complaints. The First Properties attorney sent the last letter
toward the end of 200. USADish responded to resolve the complaints
within the 30 day time frame sufficiently to comply with the contract.
It appears that billing issues with aren't subject to contractual
complianace requirements.
3) If we move unilaterally to break the contract, there will be
litigation. Without strong grounds, we could lose. If we lose, we
pay our attorney fees and the fees of USADish. We'd still be bound by
the contract and would have to pay, if we lost, and lost revenue.
4) Litigation can drag on for several years, as we've seen with the
Rezmar litigation. It would likely drag on well past the contract's
expiration date. Litigation may sound good, but it's a possible
lose-lose, even if we "win."
5) We have explored alternate providers. All have said that they would
not come in as long as we had a binding contract with USADish. This
means that unilateral breaking of the contract could leave the building
without service until 2010.
6) The recent FCC decision does not, legal counsel tells us, apply
to voiding exclusivity contracts with satellite providers. It applies
only to cable companies. A ruling may come out on satellite providers,
but not in the near future.
7) Although Comcast expressed willingness to come in, and although
the initially indicated that they might be willing to provide service
despite ou
[The entire original message is not included]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jul 27 2009 - 12:45:41 CDT