dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
343
share rss forum feed


Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA

Cox is lying: a lawyer's view

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE:

Cox has no obligation or liability whatsoever regarding their user's use of their internet service for alleged copyright infringement. This was already litigated and decided in the RIAA v Verizon case. ISPs cannot be held liable for their users, and therefore are not forced to police those users.

What Cox is doing here is completely voluntary. They are lying to their customers, and to BBR.

How is it that they have terminated only 0.1% of users when we all know that hundreds of times that number of users are actively using p2p software to download copyrighted material? The likely answer: because Cox is selectively targeting only certain kinds of downloading for its own selfish gain. Cox is using its effective monopoly on high speed internet to leverage its cable tv business.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:

I have Cox cable service and internet. The cable tv jack in my room does not work, so I simply download the shows I want to watch. I have had my internet cut off twice in a row for downloading the last 2 episodes of Entourage. I have been downloading for years, including Entourage, without anything happening from Cox. When I called them to get my service turned back on, I was told that this policy has existed and been enforced for years: a blatant lie. It didn't happen for years, but now twice in a row? Also, it does not happen when downloading music, movies, or non-cable tv shows, only Entourage.

We should take advantage of the community here at BBR to establish WHICH shows/movies/music and WHICH p2p software is triggering Cox's policy. I think if and when we do so, you will find that this is NOT a widespread policy, because if it was, MOST of Cox's users would get cut off. Instead, I think what is going on here is that Cox, which knows FULL WELL that it cannot be held liable, is using supposed DMCA claims as a scalpel to target only particular p2p activity that it deems is hurting its CABLE business.

My cable internet service is in my own name, and the Cable TV service is in someone else's name, so to Cox, I appear to have only internet and no TV service, when in fact I pay for both. This might be an additional criteria they use in selecting who gets cut off, as a means to coerce people into paying for cable TV service. Note the download that got me in trouble: a television episode of a CABLE channel I would ordinarily be paying COX to watch on tv.

Therefore, I believe that:

1. COX is selectively targeting users only for certain kinds of downloading that it believes is impacting it's own profits, and

2. COX is blatantly lying about it's selfish motives by trying to pass the blame for its actions on to the copyright holders.

3. COX has a monopoly on cable service in a large area here, so I cannot simply switch to another provider. DSL internet is extremely inconsistent and grossly inferior in this area, albeit cheaper.