Hughesnet Class Action Lawsuit is filed + other info
July 28 2009 EDIT: The class action via The law-firm of Pogust, Braslow, & Millrood, LLC , has been canceled. Contact your provincial consumer protection for help if the product does not meet advertised expectations.
This new forum is setup to allow users to easily find information on this Hughesnet Class action lawsuit that has been filed...
And Yes. Users on various types of Xplornet services are signing up as well.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hughesnet satellite Internet in the United States.
The law-firm of Pogust, Braslow, & Millrood, LLC, recently filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a lawsuit against HughesNet, Inc., Hughes Communications, Inc., and Hughes Network Systems, LLC, for breach of contract and fraudulent business practices involving the marketing of the HughesNet® Satellite Broadband Network System.
Following the filing. People from Canada started to inquire about Canadians getting in on the lawsuit.
HughesNet Canadian Class Action? Xplornet, C-Com, and Galaxy Broadband
Following the HughesNet Class Action lawsuit filed by the law firm of Pogust, Braslow & Millrood, LLC, which in part asserts claims by subscribers for unlawful early termination fees (ETF) and fraudulent business practices involving slow-broadband service, lack of Internet accessibility and connectivity, there have now been a number of inquiries from Canadian residents with similar Complaints.
If you or someone you know is a Canadian resident, subscriber of a HughesNet authorized channel provider(Xplornet, Galaxy Broadband,C-Com) and have experienced similar service related complaints, please contact our law firm for a free evaluation.
There must be plenty of Xplornet users contacting this Law Firm after the initial filings.
Overselling of Broadband Involving Xplornet’s Partnership with Motorola: Wireless Broadband Subscribers also at Risk?
If you or someone you know is a Canadian resident, Xplornet Wireless Broadband Subscriber, or any HughesNet authorized channel provider and have experienced similar service related complaints, please contact our law firm for a free evaluation
The law-firm of Pogust, Braslow, & Millrood, LLC
The main interest in this whole thing is that since our beloved Canadian Government refuses to allow foreign companies in to Canada to set up business to deal direct with the Canadian consumer, companies such as Hughesnet had to do business in Canada via re-sellers. Those re-sellers can now be the target of this class action lawsuit, as the Canadian re-sellers are the ones that 'technically' are providing your service on the Hughesnet satellites. Via billing, advertising, contracts, tech support, and installations.
And the other interesting thing is that since this lawsuit is also based on the same advertising and contracts that Xplornet is using for other parts of it's service, it means that if Xplornet is found guilty, is that other class actions can proceed much easier against other portions of Xplornets service. Be that Wireless or the Telesat offerings.
Telesat Ka band Anik F2. AnikF3..... Wildblue in the States also uses the Telesat AnikF2.
Hughesnet Old KU band satellites and the new Spaceway3 KA band satellite(Which is performing fairly well).
Wireless users are on the Motorola(components supplier) Canopy system.
So what 'could' be the outcome of a lawsuit? Well maybe contracts being torn up. Or maybe the longest term of contract could be 6 months. That way no one could be locked in to a service that does not meet advertised expectations. But will install/service prices go up with short term contracts? Could be. But non-terrestrial Internet has got people by the short hairs. So if prices were to be $10 a month higher,There would still be people to sign up for it. Providing that the service is reasonable and that comes with minimum speed guarantees and speeds that stay within the tiered pricing package...
Adding another comment that comes from Lurker types(generally just readers) on the Internet. This question comes up when someone has said goodbye to the slow satellite thing and hello to high speed wireline Internet.
"Were you through with your contract? If not, did you get out of it in someway? Just wondering. Thank you."
A note that Xplornet did change it's cancellation fee system a while back to be '$25 per month' of contract time left, to a dollar figure of no more that $450....But some early users paid out more than that to cancel for bad service(They could sign up for the class action as well).
But Xplornet also changed the contract portion of 'Service' to read as 'Service and speed', where it pretty well blames everything else, but Xplornet, for slow speeds on the service.
And how about that undocumented FAP policy on Telesat satellite or Xplornet Wireless? It is possible to publish the numbers for the general times of day. But Xplornet will not publish them. People have discovered the FAP levels via FAP testing, which is to do a download with a bandwidth monitor to see when FAP is applied.
And due to the package tier system, If you are subscribing to the 3Mbps package, your speeds should not drop below abouts 1.7Mbps(unless extreme use by you is happening). For your speeds to routinely drop down to 800Kbps is fraud for the 3Mbps package.
Xplornets contract with you says Xplornet is not responsible for Bank overages. But if Xplornet takes out more money than Xplornet is entitled too. Xplornet is responsible for overage charges.
Does just using the service constitute that you agree to all portions of the contract? Judges have disagreed with that.
This portion of the contract....
26. SEVERABILITY: Any provision of this Agreement, which is unenforceable shall be ineffective to the extent of such unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
Means that if part of the contract violates laws or regulations, that the particular portion is then deemed void. So what you initially have is a company expecting to just have parts declared void while still forcing the remaining portions of the contract on the customer.... But Judges do agree that putting a contract out that has many 'flaws in law', that the entire contract can be voided, due to a company having the disrespect to put out a contract with many flaws in the first place.....
Another one to note is the Anikast speed test site for satellite users. It is appearing that the test site is not on the Internet and is at the Telesat/Xplornet satellite servers. Users have noticed that the Anikast sites show test results of what should be proper speeds(as in speed matches connection package), while the Internet based test results show 'Actual' speeds(which show the true slowness of the connection during PrimeTime).
Last edited by xplornetsuck : 07-28-2009 at 12:58 PM.