[PDLM]

Originally Posted by MrMoo

I know HK'ers are a slow with new technology but it was amazing reading their press announcement for 720p service instead of 1080p.

If you have a way of getting the number of bits of data required for a 1080p service down the grotty old pieces of copper wire that constitute in-building wiring then I'm sure PCCW would love to hear from you.

Oh and of course it would have to be do-able for a few cents because no-one's prepared to pay very much for the privilege.

[KnowItAll]

PDLM - MatrixStream MX 1 HD 1080p IP Set Top Box

Its all in the compression ....

[KnowItAll]

MatrixStream CLEC IPTV Solution

Might be a better link..

[MrMoo]

Originally Posted by PDLM

If you have a way of getting the number of bits of data required for a 1080p service down the grotty old pieces of copper wire that constitute in-building wiring then I'm sure PCCW would love to hear from you.

Technologies do exist, the laziest being over compression like the companies in the US are using. However PCCW can easily just demand fibre to the premises like their premium Internet services.

It could easily run over the 100bb links from HKBN.

[PDLM]

Originally Posted by MrMoo

Technologies do exist, the laziest being over compression like the companies in the US are using. However PCCW can easily just demand fibre to the premises like their premium Internet services.

It could easily run over the 100bb links from HKBN.

Not sure what you mean by "demand fibre to the premises". Demand from whom?

And how much is the user prepared to pay to have fibre to the premises? At less than $500 per month that is going to be quite a long payback period.

[Boris]

On the basis of the original thread.
Whats the basis for claiming a contract on a phone call, recorded or not?
Personally, when its been tried on with me I just tell them to " fill their boots " and see you in court. Yes - you get lots of newbi CS agents repeating the mantra but it eventually goes away.

I am sure it would be valuable for all to understand the legal basis of this tactic. I cannot believe that any court would consider a conversation the basis for what is , on paper, a complex document. So can someone post the Ordinance that makes this legal.

[sullivanl]

From what I can still recall from HK law class- under common law a verbal contract holds just as much weight as a written contract. Though the trouble in court ususally comes to proving you said what you said.

However they have all the conversations recorded, so that wouldn't be a problem for PCCW.

Even though I agreed to the plan, I was completly unaware that I would still be paying my old TV plan on top of the HD charges (and they took away my old TV box too!! I wouldn't have had to think twice about saying no if I had known this was the case!

I still don't know what to do, it is so frustrating! Anyone else have expirence cancelling contracts? I have tried saying I will get SCMP to do an editorial, etc, they don't care, saying "do as you like, but we can't cancel your agreement".

[PDLM]

Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap.26 s.5 Mode of making contract of sale.

Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and of any enactment in that behalf, a contract of sale may be made in writing (either with or without seal), or by word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be implied from the conduct of the parties:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the law relating to corporations.

I think you'll find something very similar in UK law.

[Boris]

Thanks to PDLM for providing this " writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be implied from the conduct of the parties:"

So - my advise would be to require a transcript of the conversation. Your ambition would be to see that the agent DID NOT SPECIFICALLY state to you that the HDTV charge was in addition to the regular charge incurred at Now TV.

My guess is, looking at your surprise at receiving a dual charge, that this was indeed the case. Then its simple. Without that specific explanation and your specific agreement of that understanding, there is no case for them to enforce such a contract upon you.

[PDLM]

Not really true. I think it comes down then to what "a reasonable person" would have understood from the conversation as recorded.