Anyone who’s ever dealt with an internet company knows that canceling a contract can feel like trying to escape a cult. One woman in rural Canada discovered that firsthand when Rogers, her internet provider, refused to let her terminate service after she moved to a farm “in the middle of nowhere.”
Their rule? You can only cancel if they can’t provide service. Her solution? Let them try. What followed was a saga of snowdrifts, stubbornness, and one very expensive lesson in corporate arrogance.
An internet provider refused to believe a rural move meant “no service,” so this determined customer proved them wrong
Service contracts for utilities and internet providers are designed to protect both parties, but they often contain clauses that are rigidly enforced, even when real-world conditions make performance impossible.
In this scenario, the customer attempted to cancel her internet service because she was moving to a rural farm without the provider’s infrastructure. Despite her logical explanation, the provider initially refused, citing contract terms that allow early termination only if service is unavailable.
Legally, most Canadian provinces, including Ontario, where Rogers operates, require providers to honor contract termination when service cannot be reasonably provided at the new address (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 2023).
Misunderstandings often arise when postal addresses differ from actual service locations, which can cause unnecessary disputes and customer frustration.
Malicious compliance, in this case, involved the customer requesting the service that the provider’s contract implied was available, high-speed internet, forcing the technician to attempt installation at an impossible location.
This approach illustrates a practical tactic to enforce compliance while highlighting flaws in contract enforcement.
Organizational behavior studies show that literal compliance with unreasonable rules can serve as both a corrective mechanism and a way to draw attention to systemic inefficiencies (Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2018).
From a consumer rights perspective, the situation emphasizes the importance of:
- Documenting service limitations: showing clearly that infrastructure does not exist at the new location.
- Understanding contractual language: identifying clauses that allow termination when service cannot be provided.
- Using creative compliance or negotiation tactics: to expedite resolution without legal conflict.
These are the responses from Reddit users:
These commenters swapped funny stories about battling stubborn ISPs
This group vented about Rogers’ terrible customer service, from dismissive reps to fraudulent charges
These Redditors shared emotional and frustrating experiences
Sometimes the sweetest revenge isn’t shouting at customer service, it’s letting corporate arrogance implode under its own weight. This woman didn’t argue. She just said, “Sure, come install it.” And in doing so, she turned a company’s stubborn policy into an icy, time-consuming lesson.
Would you have let the tech drive out there, or would you have fought harder on the phone?
