As I understand it, usually courts will require that a contract be reasonable. So if you have buried some unreasonable phrase in the fine print on page 949, it might be considered an invalid contract (though usually, "unequal bargaining power" has to be involved). But if you put that as clause 1A) on the front page? Nearly every court in the country would be on your side. I have even been told by attorneys NOT to read the fine print, lest I later have to swear in court that I had seen and understood it all!

I am amazed how many people sign contracts without reading them.

Nevertheless, I think you will find that NO satellite or cell phone company (or even a POTS company) will guarantee 100% access. And a denial of that guarantee is nearly universal in such agreements. Therefore is is usual and ordinary. Try suing your cell phone company because you could not complete a call or a call was dropped. You won't get very far.

Now this case is a bit different, equipment was changed, the Kaufmans were in a remote 3rd world country and didn't get the memo before they set off. To find for the Kaufmans would hold that the provider is responsible for tracking down each and every subscriber and verifying that they did get the new sim card, did install it correctly, did check their service, no matter where or how remote those subscribers were; where failure to do so results in absolutely liability for any subsequent calamity in which the phone might be involved, however tenuous the circumstance?

To me, that is unreasonable burden on the business.

I note that over on SA they have fingered the attorney involved, a well known San Diego ambulance chaser with a bit of "history". Better call Saul.