Compuserve Information $ervices doth also suckle
Contractors and Responsibility
and co-conspiracy       This is the old, I'm only doing my job, gambit. First you get a big name with a large following, such as Rush Limbaugh, to say, "in addition you get access to forums." That brings in people who want access to those forums.
      Then one discovers that one does not have the contracted access to those forums save at the sufferance of people who are not employed by CI$. Say for example I take your money and in return I promise to give you some service. After taking your money (CI$ is prepay) you discover that one of my independent subcontractors can tell you that you will not be given what you paid for.
      Now in the ad there is never a mention of "other terms and conditions may apply." Nor is there a 300 word per minute mumbled statement at the end of the commercial. But once you have paid for something you discover that someone else will decide if you get it.
      In my book that is plain and simple theft and in this case as a result of fraudulent representations. These independent, accessories to the fact contractors have two stock lines, I am responsible for my area and I am prohibited by contract from explaining my relationship with CI$ further. A more appropriate answer might be, "I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me."
      Now this is not an accusation of multiple criminal acts. Rather it this is a description of acts that may or may not be in law, criminal. Were it not for the prepayment, token or otherwise, it might be otherwise.
      To give the devil his due CI$ knows the likely criminal situation it is in. They will not pursue a refusal to pay the amount over the $10 a month if denial of service is cited as the reason. If anyone has had a contrary experience or has one in the future, report any attempt to collect to your local prosecutor's office.
      Your report is simple. You were offered X, you paid for X, you were denied X, they are trying to collect for X. It is not different from people trying to collect for that building lot they sold you after you discover it is a swamp, or after you discover the odometer has rolled over a couple times.
      Complaints are dealt with a certain degree of sanctimony, an appeal to the necessity of keeping order. However, appeals to "where is it written" in the rules are rejected, the arbitrary powers of the moderators are not to be limited by rules that apply to mere mortals.
      The other bit of sanctimony is "you agreed to the rules." No, I did not. I accepted the contract as advertised which was without any further terms or conditions or notification of their existence. I am not bound by any additional terms or conditions, noting the moderators are not bound by them.
      It is a matter of time before CI$ and its co-conspirators in false and misleading advertising are called to account for their actions. Join the crowd before it becomes a stampede. Besides, if you subscribe to any major service, you are paying too much to read this on the web.