Consumer Law, Warranties Slow internet service

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrtn

New Member
I'm served by Frontier Communications, which says I can "expect download speeds of up to 6 Mbps."

However, Frontier installed special switches to limit people in my area to 145 kilobits per second. Most of the time I get about 20 to 60 kilobits per second.

Can I sue them?
 
mrtn said:
I'm served by Frontier Communications, which says I can "expect download speeds of up to 6 Mbps."

However, Frontier installed special switches to limit people in my area to 145 kilobits per second. Most of the time I get about 20 to 60 kilobits per second.

Can I sue them?
Click to expand...

You can sue anyone you want to sue, a slong as you fill out a few forms and pay some fees and costs.

I wouldn't waste my time on this.

Why?

A small claims court has no "power to compel".

Even if you prevail, all you will get is a "THEY-OWE-YOU" judgment.

If I were you, I'd find another provider.

You're just going to further frustrate yourself.
 
I'm with army judge, if possible, change internet providers.
 
They advertised a maximum speed, but did they guarantee a minimum speed? Have you spoken with them about the problem?
 
army judge:

Thanks for the response!

Of course I'd get another provider if one were available. But all I want them to do is to remove the switch that limits my bandwidth- I was here first, I had good enough bandwidth, then they put more people on the lines and installed the limiting switches. I could get satellite, but due to bandwidth limits they aren't feasible (worse than sticking with 30 kilobits per second).

So: am I limited to small claims court? Are there any other options? I was thinking more along the lines of false advertising or something. They say I can expect up to X bandwidth, then make X technically impossible.
 
Last edited:
mightymoose:

I've spoken with them many times. They didn't guarantee a minimum speed, but they did make a false statement: that I could expect up to 6 mbps. In fact, I could expect no more than 145 kbps.
 
Last edited:
mrtn said:
I've spoken with them many times. They didn't guarantee a minimum speed, but they did make a false statement: that I could expect up to 6 mbps. In fact, I could expect no more than 145 kbps.
Click to expand...
You have a good point. How do you know that they have switches that cap the speed? 145kbps is incredibly slow during this day and age.

Unfortunately this is probably a consumer class action and it would be a very small class - only those affected by the switch. It is possible that there are other switches but you'll need to do some homework to convince an attorney to take your case. But there may be other options.

Your best bet is to start with the Utah Department of Consumer Protection. What you might want to do is to first write to Frontier Communications and have them write back to you an answer regarding the advertisement, the agreement and the cap that you claim is in effect. This way you don't just have hearsay but a formal response in writing.

You can file a complaint with the Division of Consumer Protection and they may investigate for you.
 
thelawprofessor said:
You have a good point. How do you know that they have switches that cap the speed? 145kbps is incredibly slow during this day and age.

Unfortunately this is probably a consumer class action and it would be a very small class - only those affected by the switch. It is possible that there are other switches but you'll need to do some homework to convince an attorney to take your case. But there may be other options.

Your best bet is to start with the complaints/"]Utah Department of Consumer Protection[/URL]. What you might want to do is to first write to Frontier Communications and have them write back to you an answer regarding the advertisement, the agreement and the cap that you claim is in effect. This way you don't just have hearsay but a formal response in writing.

You can []file a complaint with the Division of Consumer Protection[/URL] and they may investigate for you.
Click to expand...

Cool, a lot to research there and thank you!

I know the cap speeds both from experimentation (145 is the absolute max you ever get, but only for a few minutes) and because the linemen told me, so that is firm knowledge. As you say getting it writing would be good.

I will follow your leads, and keep Frontier updated on the process in case they want to put me on a faster switch or upgrade the community (putting me on a faster switch would be relevant in court in case the community wanted to sue, wouldn't it?).

They put me through to a local engineer (when I read them the petition I'm writing for the community), who said it would cost them a million dollars to put fiber optic cable 13 miles out to our community, and it's not cost effective for the company. That's why I thought of legal options. We're a small community, and probably they would get 50 or 100 households online eventually, but they only have 25 now.
 
I also have Frontier.

Read your contract - they make it very clear that the "up to" part is just that. No guarantee at all.
 
Proserpina said:
I also have Frontier.

Read your contract - they make it very clear that the "up to" part is just that. No guarantee at all.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure they do, no need to read. They nevertheless say that I should expect "up to" when I sign with them. Which seems like a direct lie considering they make it technically impossible. Now if they'd installed switches which limited us to 6 megs but we got only, say, 1% of that well then that wouldn't be a lie just bad service.

Let me put it another way:

You go to a restaurant, and they have on the menu "up to 44 oz drink" for $1

What they do is give you a 44 oz cup and you go to the fountain, and sometimes the fountain will fill the cup all the way, sometimes just a little bit.

But you're willing to take your chances, even if you just get a teaspoon.

All well and good.

But here's what Frontier did:

They told me "expect up to 44 oz"

Then they handed me a 5 oz cup.

I thought, okay, whatever.

Then they took back the 5 oz cup and gave me a one oz cup.

Then they said, "go fill up to 44 oz."
 
Last edited:
Your recourse appears to be one months service. You cannot successfully file for a court order to compel them to install fiber optics for 25 people sorry. I realize the difference is dramatic, but Time Warner just installed fiber optics in my area and stopped at the first series of homes under $120k. I think Hell will freeze over before it ever gets close to me.
 
disagreeable said:
Your recourse appears to be one months service. You cannot successfully file for a court order to compel them to install fiber optics for 25 people sorry. I realize the difference is dramatic, but Time Warner just installed fiber optics in my area and stopped at the first series of homes under $120k. I think Hell will freeze over before it ever gets close to me.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless you're not in the position of having them artificially lower your bandwidth, right? How is it not deceptive advertising to say you can expect up to a certain amount of bandwidth, then install hardware that prevents you from getting anywhere near that much?
 
Recourse is probably remuneration for the lowered speeds as well as an adjustment going forward on pricing since it's clear that he could never obtain the advertised speed.

The analogy isn't actually a good one. It's like paying for an all you can eat buffet up to 5 plates for 30 days and finding out that they don't have any more food after you've finished one plate. The reason it's priced at the sales price is because the customer is expecting to be able to be at an all you can eat, not an "all you can eat up to one plate." Using your fountain example, there needs to be a time when you can actually reach 44oz. and reasonably approach that limit.

The issue here with cable companies is that they do have monopolies in certain areas. Consumers are not able to switch hence they require being regulated like a public utility. There are laws and requirements that deal with this issue and it's why you may want to speak with them and tell Frontier that if they want to have a PR nightmare, they should continue to challenge you and then see what you can negotiate.

disagreeable is right on when he talks about the remedy obviously not being making the service fit the ad. It's about remunerating you for the value based upon the service delivered under the service promised. With regard to the false advertising and being spanked for that misconduct, that's what the state attorney general is there to accomplish.
 
Your problem to further expound, is you are aware of the problem, yet you keep buying the service month after month. Consider a station that sells bad gasoline. You cannot argue you are entitled to a refund for all the gasoline you have purchased at this station because it is cheap gasoline. You admit in spite of the known poor quality you keep buying it, because it is the only "gas" in town.
 
disagreeable said:
Your problem to further expound, is you are aware of the problem, yet you keep buying the service month after month. Consider a station that sells bad gasoline. You cannot argue you are entitled to a refund for all the gasoline you have purchased at this station because it is cheap gasoline. You admit in spite of the known poor quality you keep buying it, because it is the only "gas" in town.
Click to expand...
In this instance he may be able to. You can get gas elsewhere and drive into town. Here's an interesting page from the FCC on Regulation of Cable TV Rates. New York City has been an excellent example of cable monopolies. Much of this is changing with the introduction of FIOS and now wireless technologies becoming affordable. (Personally I'm concerned about my health with all this wireless stuff happening.) But that's the gist of it. Government is his friend here or the renegotiation of the price directly with the cable company who may provide him with some discount.
 
You're giving me great ideas and ammunition :D. That is a better example with the buffet. I wish I could cut a deal with them to get satellite internet without the bandwidth restrictions. That would be a just remedy.

Okay so they couldn't be ordered by a court to improve their equipment.

"There are laws and requirements that deal with this issue"

I realize it may be too technical or broad a question, but is there any rundown of such laws you can point me toward?

I don't know how to proceed beyond filing a complaint with the FCC like you told me to, and with the Utah Dept of Consumer Protection about deceptive business practices.
 
I should say one other thing, which is that this is an Indian reservation. So things like the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy (you have to go to the Wayback machine for the page for some reason, the Sequester?) might be relevant.
 
I'm still curious what your contract says about available speeds and minimum speed, as well as anything about dispute resolution.

You don't likely have an actual contract... I suppose it is the terms of service that you agreed to that needs to be reviewed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ask a Question

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top