If You Don't See The Terms Of Service Until After You Buy, Are They Valid?
from the seems-a-bit-unfair dept
There have been lawsuits over software packages that only allow you to see the end user license agreement (EULA) after you've already paid for the software, but does that apply in other situations as well? Broadband Reports points us to the news that for people who sign up for Verizon's FiOS fiber optic broadband, you don't get to see the full terms of service until after it's installed. Verizon claims it's just easier this way -- and that all the important points are explained ahead of time. It also says that users can cancel within 30 days with no penalty if they're uncomfortable with the terms. However, that leaves out the fact that a lot of time and effort went into installing the actual FiOS system, which could also disrupt other systems (in fact, in a few cases -- though certainly not all -- a FiOS installation cuts the old copper line). So, in that case, it would be difficult to just go back to what you had before.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eulas, fiber optic, fios, terms of service
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What am I agreeing to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What am I agreeing to?
Were you going to run a website?
I think they want to charge more for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What am I agreeing to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What am I agreeing to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What am I agreeing to?
I run an entire imaging workflow remotely 3-4 days /week, all I have to do is call ahead and make sure platesetters & plotters have plenty of chemistry and ink, then I just let it fly. I connect to 4 machine simultaneously having them open in a different tab of Firefox. If I wanted I could connect to as many at once as I desire.
In a sense I could run multiple locations at the same time if desired. You no longer need to serve your own web and ftp, this is P2P at it's best. You can even try out this service with the totally free client. It just does not have the file transfer built in, but it will give you a great idea of it's capabilities.
https://www.logmein.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What am I agreeing to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toss the TOS
We're led to believe we need to trust them over the mom and pop ISP down the road who will provide you with better service.
As for terms of service, Ron Paul was a good solution, but media failed us.
Obama seems to be a good solution. Thoughts?
Keep up the good work, Mike Shinoda...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fye8wWcnvGs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Toss the TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Toss the TOS
Yeah, thanks Falindraun for bringing your views here. I thought you were higher class. better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
Fuck that.
I would have no problem voting for a whitewashed black president, but an islamic one?
Fuck no!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
But what does this have to do with TOS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
Now, I don't put any stock in any holy book, but you should learn to be open minded and actually try to understand the people before you make them out to be something they are not.
If islam is what makes people violent, then why isn't the entire southeast asian area always in turmoil?
Only ~20% of the worlds muslims live in the middle east.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
> why isn't the entire southeast asian area
> always in turmoil?
Umm... it kinda is always in turmoil. Ever hear of Jemaah Islamiyah? Look into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
--
Is that why the religious right is always telling people to kill fags and abortion rights activists?
Who knew that was leaving them in peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
The Abrahamic religions are all very similar (Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, etc..), differing only in seemingly minor ways when compared to each other.
Its like different kinds of apples.
Get an education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
Fuck a Christian
Fuck a Catholic
Fuck a Pagan
Fuck a Witness
Fuck a Jew
Fuck religion!!!!!!!!
Islam is no worse than the rest; They all suck and there is no God. If there was a God, how can any claim to know Him?
My apologies to Tech Dirt for posting this but some people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
I for one see his view as valid points as he was just replying to an earlier post by you asking about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., who is unable to get a top secret security clearance without being president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
So I'll jump on the bandwagon.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
I mean really, this arguement of top secret clearance seems to be one of those circular arguements that only matters if people are led to believe it matters. But in all reality, it doesn't seem like it makes a difference. I have to hand it to the Clinton camp, you almost need a Doctorate in psychology to unravel the BS they are cooking up.
Think of it in a transitive property/subconscious fashon.
Why does Obama need a clearance? To protect from disclosure.
Why does Obama need to protect from disclosure? Because Obama will disclose something and let the terrorists win.
Do you have proof of disclosure? Obama HAS disclosed, but HRC has NOT yet disclosed her taxes.
So because Obama disclosed taxes and HRC hasn't (yet) Obama is not fit to run the country..? It's truly weird, but from a subconscious level, thats the message I'm getting from Clinton camp. So where are those taxes anyaway?
I imagine many of our previous presidents couldn't get a top secret clearance either. Hell, George Washington owned slaves. ...and that's not politically correct!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
I forsee the country being forced into more taxes, more war and a declining economy in the next 4 years. I was actually a closet R.E.P. supporter, but knew he had no chance of getting the nomination, so was hoping the sheeple of the U.S. would vote for Romney, but that didn't happen either. So I'm stuck with another election of blindly voting for the Libertarian party, to say to people I voted my principles instead of the lesser evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Toss the TOS
> slummin over to 4chan.
What exactly was racist about what Falindraun said? He said Obama couldn't qualify for a security clearance if he went through the normal process. There's nothing racial about that comment.
Or have we at long last reached the point in this country where merely criticizing a black person about *anything* or declining to vote for them is de facto racist?
It must be tough to be a liberal these days. You have to decide whether you're voting for Obama because you hate women or you're voting for Hillary because you hate blacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'security' ... yep..
No problem, just run your webserver on port 31337.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read much?
And since he doesn't get to see the agreement until after the service is installed, how is he supposed to know that? You do understand that is the entire point of his post, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read much?
The communications infrastructure has always been a one-way proposition. You have a copper phone line in your house, but that doesn't mean you can run a phone center off of it. Same applies to internet service.
Users who insist on violating their ToS can obtain a dynamic DNS service and that will allow them to run their server, albeit on a different port. Or they can use a remote control program like LogMeIn.com for free or pay for a more robust service.
This really is a non-issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any company that wants me to abide by an EULA had better make the sale conditional upon acceptance of the EULA "before" any cash changes hands. Otherwise I just ignore the EULA and do as I damn well please with the product. It should go without saying that I could care less if the company does, or does not, like it.
I suspect there are more than a few million other people who both feel and act the same way I do. I also suspect that as a practical matter "After The Fact" EULA's are completely unenforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Could care less" implies that you actually care. "Couldn't care less" implies that your level of care is 0.
Seriously, this mistake is becoming more and more popular lately and it's a really, really silly one. Even more so than too/to/two or there/their/they're.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ignoring the useless, if not idiotic, comments about syntax I can see that you actually got the point.... As in my level of care under the described circumstance is 'zero'. Hmmm, I guess, if we ignore your snobby elitest comments (or however else you want to describe them), that means the phrase "couldn't care less", served to get the point across, even to you.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, how about concentrating on the subject of the blog post and skipping the snotty syntax lessons. This is isn't a forum on English syntax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Valid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Valid
No EULA constitutes a valid contract. (despite what some legal beagles may believe.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOS TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOS TOR
From what I've read, when the fiber is installed at the house, I can't go back to copper. Is this true?
I don't own a car until papers are signed which allow for agreed upon rates for financing, etc, but even if it's not paid off, I still have the right to sell the car if wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Port 80
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So.....
EtG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does TOS & EULA have to do with the upcoming election?
I am not a lawyer, but from I've read the EULA is not a binding contract. Contract law requires an agreement between two parties. There can not be an agreement upon undisclosed terms. As far as I know, whether the EULA is binding has not been tested in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They consider web hosting to be BUINESS class service, and will be happy to sell you such service. But not on DSL or FiOS.
You can argue for or against such a policy, but that is how it is. Personal Web Space is what they offer to DSL users, and though I could not find it looking at their support site, I wouldn't be surprised that it is the same.
You can ask about this before you buy, and the sales rep will be able to answer this for you.
Please note that I am not saying I agree with this, nor disagree. But your expectations about what you can do with the service you buy are yours to manage. Don't expect to be able to do just anything--it's their network, and they make the rules. Your choice is whether to live with those rules or not.
The best advice I can offer, for what it's worth, is to go into it expecting that you are paying for a client-based service, not a server-based one.
I'm not apologizing for Verizon, nor for any other broadband provider for the matter. But bear in mind that the consumer service is designed for consumer use. That is, the network is designed for the things the typical consumer would do. In their minds, web hosting is not a consumer activity, it is a business activity. Their network, and the services provided on it, are based on that.
Web hosting has a great potential for clogging up their network. The typical home user loads their pages up with graphics and other busy things, all of which hit the network. They are looking out for all customers with their policies.
Woadan
(former Verizon employee)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rules
> it's their network, and they make the rules.
> Your choice is whether to live with those rules
> or not.
No one's disputing that Verizon can make whatever rules it likes with their network. The whole point of the article is that they (and other providers) should provide those rules *upfront*, rather than make the customer agree to them only after paying for the product and having it installed. (Especiall with a product like FiOS, which, from what I understand, requires physical alterations to one's home which can be difficult-to-impossible to reset if the customer doesn't agree to the rules.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like it matters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it says ok or cancel..
The EULA is a joke, along with software licensing and most everything else they try to get away with on a regular basis.
Ok, JoeSoftwareInc, I just bought some of your crap and now it doesn't do as you promised. Do I get my money back?
No. I opened the package. Well, how can I even see the EULA if I do not open it.
I have never read an EULA and never will. It's time in my life I will never get back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIOS and cutting the land line
There have been reports (that I cannot verify) that the copper line is almost always cut with FIOS is installed. That line represents an access point that other companies can use to compete with FIOS, so it is possible that cutting the copper line is part of a marketing strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the lies surrounding him remind me of the ones that surounded McCain in 2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to burst your bubbles......
As an executive of an ISP who regularly competes with the likes of Verizon and Time Warner (and who sits on a few industry councils/committees), I hate to overturn the rocks that it seems many of you have been living under, but here are the "unfortunate" facts:
(1) EULAs and TOS are indeed legally binding contracts that are fully enforceable in US courts. Whether you have read them, understand them or comply with them has absolutely no impact whatsoever on their enforceability. It can have SOME impact on how a court decides the fate of the offender.
Along those same lines, and as hard as it is for even me to believe, BOTH contracts can, in most instances, be enforced even if you have NEVER SIGNED A SINGLE DOCUMENT acknowledging you were ever made aware that they existed. I won't go into all the legal justification behind these facts, but suffice to say it all comes down to two very simple concepts:
(a) "Reasonable efforts" must be made by the enforcer to make you aware of the terms in place or being put in place, and
(b) "Reasonable methods" must be provided by the enforcer to allow you to cancel the contract if you do not agree with the terms.
Simply stated, if both of those conditions can be shown to apply, your are fully bound by the EULA, TOS or any other agreement a provider deems appropriate to put in place AT ANY TIME. In the parameters of the current blog, that means even if an end user never sees an EULA before buying the product, all a software vendor has to do is place a copy of the EULA in front of the user before the software can be used and require the end user's acknowledgement of acceptance before installation can be completed OR the option to disagree with the EULA and automatically prevent installation. You've all seen this. The fact that you've probably clicked 'I Agree' without reading the pages of EULA is not a defense in court.
It is interesting to note that a few courts initially decided that it was not "reasonable" for someone to read and understand a multi page legal document when only being able to view it a paragraph (or sentance) at a time on a screen. In response to this, the software industry has pretty much adopted the capability of allowing you to print a copy of the EULA for your records BEFORE agreeing to it. There has not been any successful defense in US courts against enforcement of any EULA or TOS with this "printability".
Perhaps just as disturbing is the fact that MOST EULAs and TOS contain clauses that state they can change terms and conditions at any time by merely posting same to their web sites 30 days in advance of such changes, and that if you continue to use the product, service or whatever beyond that period, you automatically accept the new terms and conditions !!!
Good, bad or otherwise, this paradigm has made its way into far more aspects of our lives than you might imagine. You need only look to the credit cards in your wallet for proof that terms, conditions and rates can change and your continued use after the change (without you otherwise "agreeing" to or "accepting" the changes) constitute proof that you've nonetheless accepted them.
Bringing this concept directly to the discussion of ISPs in general (and Verizon in specific), there is nothing which prohibits them from using the exact same paradigm. In its simplest derivation, that means that any ISP can change its TOS at will and your continued use of the service constitutes your acceptance. In other words, an ISP does NOT have to explicitly state that you can not run web servers, etc... or that it will block port XX, YY, or ZZ in its TOS. This is partially because what constitutes "Internet Access" remains a legal enigma. Generally speaking, if you can read a web page and send/receive a personal email, you have "Internet Access".
Legally speaking, if you want to run a web server, mail server, game server or whatever, your ONLY protection to be able to do so is to demand such specific capabilities (or support for them) BEFORE (or as a written part of) any order you place for such services. Then, and ONLY THEN, do such factors become part of the vendor's requirement in supplying you service. Without those conditions, an ISP who permits you to runs these services one day can literally turn them off 30 days later and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it other than to pay your bill (including any early termination penalty should you chose to disconnect).
It may seem unfair. It probably is. But those are the facts and the law (as currently in place in all 50 states) supports it.
So how might Verizon (or ANY ISP) get you to agree to TOS that you didn't sign BEFORE ordering said service? Simple, if an ISP takes you order over the phone or web and in so doing, makes you aware that all terms and conditions are listed on their web site, they've generally met their requirements for enforceability if those terms and conditions allow you to cancel service within 30 days of installation. Another method is if the ISP forces your first connection to the Internet to be redirected to their TOS page (this is most often used in hotels for temporary Internet Access, but nonetheless applies in this instance too). There are many other methods which reduce cost and labor for the ISP over getting a signed, written contract, but you get the idea.
Finally, how does Verizon get away with cutting the copper lines to your home? Well, once again I want to stress that I can NOT speak for Verizon in any capacity so my answer below is solely my own and not meant to reflect anything about Verizon's practices. However, that being said, I suspect that since Verizon most likely OWNS those lines (from the pole to your house), they are merely "upgrading" the infrastructure they own and are well within their legal rights to do so. By the way, the same holds true for your local cable company. The reason they disconnect at the pole instead of ripping the lines off your property is that its cheaper for them to leave them there. If they wanted to pull them out, they certainly could.
And for the gentlemen who "could care less about EULAs, etc...", I can only say that he should hope no software company, ISP or other vendor ever decides to use him to set an example of how far they can enforce their contracts. Single users are rarely selected for such actions, but it has happened and will continue to happen from time to time. In those cases (you can look them up yourself), the maximum possible penlty is typically granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate to burst your bubbles......
"There has not been any successful defense in US courts against enforcement of any EULA or TOS with this "printability"."
Has the converse been upheld ? That is, has there been a case were the EULA was determined to be a binding contract between two parties in agreement ?
Lets assume that the EULA is enforcable as you have described. At what point does it become unreasonable, even unconscionable and therefore not enforcable ? For example, the author of the EULA decides to ammend it to say that you now owe a monthly fee. Is the consumer allowed to terminate the "contract" or is it automatically terminated because the terms have become unreasonable ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate to burst your bubbles......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIOS sucks big time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FIOS sucks big time
Can you run the cable modem as a "dumb modem" and use your own router / firewall ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FIOS sucks big time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FIOS FAQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jumping Through EULA Hoops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry to get political...
Like some of the posters said, Obama is NOT a Muslim or Islamic. Like they said, do some research beyond what's fed to you in a chain e-mail. Many reputable (meaning non FOX News) sites clearly show Obama's religious faith, which is NOT Muslim or Islamic.
At the same time, when you say you're not voting for an Islamic, that's the same as saying you're not voting for a Jew, a Methodist, or anyone else because they have a faith that's different from you.
Normally, I would say that this is very closed-minded, but unfortunately, this is the way of life in the United States.
Think about this:
-ALL the presidents have been white men.
-All but one president have been Christian. (The other was Protestant.)
-All but one have been married.
-2008 is the first time EVER that the idea of a woman president has been taken seriously. Yet, the idea of a woman leader has gone back for centuries, including numerous leaders of England (Margaret Thatcher, Victoria, Elizabeth), Russia (Catherine the Great), and even Egypt (Cleopatra).
Welcome to the 17th century where only white males of the Christian faith can be president of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]