said by Matt :

I think this is a perfectly acceptable solution. If you STILL don't get it after 3 warnings ... you need to be removed from the internet to protect you from yourself because you are an idiot.

said by swhitney2003 :

Agreed. Users get ample warning before getting booted. I'm not too keen on the walled garden though (especially if you have viruses and need to download an AV). I think a warning letter (3) should be enough to inform users about the activity going on.

said by TKJunkMail :

A walled garden may be the only way to get people to act. Many users would just ignore letters, especially where a virus/spam problem is concerned and not a DMCA problem. When internet access is cut off, people will then act.

said by thevorpal :

Then write it into law. I don't want pseudo-laws being established between corporations based on what they want/don't want.

Or would you prefer to be regulated by a corporation in which you have no representation?

said by TKJunkMail :

Then don't do business with them.

said by thevorpal :

Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.

If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.

Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement.