Contract Cancellations

[Tjorriemorrie]

You signed a contract for a set amount of time. There is nothing wrong with being forced to pay out the balance. It is standard practice in most industries.

I agree with him, it's called a contract for a reason. But what buggers me is that you have to pay for the modem as well? u sure? then you'll pay more than just staying on the contract! There is absolutely no point in cancelling the contract now.

I'm sure they moved in this direction to obtain a higher asset on their balance sheet. Their contracts going over the balance sheet date now can have the full value of the contract as if it will be fullfilled. I'm sure the auditors previously capped this asset to the value of the cancellation they will receive per contract on the balance sheet date.

And now they can get better facilities at the bank to sponser VERY shlt programs like survivor. Nice way to waste my money. Why don't they rather put up a new/another northcliff tower. COZ THE CURRENT ONE SUCKS!!

 

[Jongi]

Clearly the policy change must mean that the cost of providing the service is a great deal lower than what we pay.

Assume an average speed of 512kbps on a G3 package. That means that if your connection was downloading for every minute available, you could do 22GB (G1 = 20.2GB and G9 = 27.2GB). Clearly that is unlikely. But it goes to show that there is a great deal of fat they are allowing for in terms of users going past their uncapped bandwidth.

Assuming 1024kbps, G1 = 20.3GB, G3 = 22.1GB and G9 = 27.8GB.



Interesting, if you assume full 1024 average uncapped, the total downloadable on a G3 is

 

[codemonkey]

I'm sure the auditors previously capped this asset to the value of the cancellation they will receive per contract on the balance sheet date.

I'm sure that's exactly what's going on. The bean counters are bending us over.

 

[jontyB]

This is indeed news to me, but I got someone to take over my contract and he is now seemingly quite a happy iBurster.

However, it is my opinion that contracts around a service such as this should be a little looser, due to many reasons:

1. This is a best effort service, and if it goes down, iBurst will refuse liability
2. If you move to an out of service area, and can no longer receive iBurst, then such special circumstances should allow you to break out of the contract with no penalty
3. If architectural changes, like a very large building being erected between you and an iBurst tower causes degradation of service, then such special circumstances should allow you to break out of the contract with no penalty
4. If iBurst retains the right to terminate a contract, then a good lawyer should be able to get you out of the contract on that clause alone.

 

[Jongi]

jontyB says how it should he