Absolutely agree re: abusive TOS clauses. My question is this: if you were on a panel evaluating whether it's more abusive to a) migrate customers to a plan that's $10 more or b) end their service because the vendor no longer offers that service, which would you vote for?

Note that consumer panels will have less ability to force a vendor to set prices or provide specific services, so there will not be the third option of c) force the vendor to continue providing the service at the contracted price.