dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Tx

Re: Time to start shopping for a new isp.

said by Tx:

I do not see Rogers named. The response was also pertinent to his statement he knows for a fact it will happen this time around as well.

We can't go by history either. Teksavvy had a history as well of doing things that it no longer does. So let's ignore the "they have a history of..." stuff.

When a bold statement such as "fact" is said pertinent to recent events, it tell's me one has more information then the rest of us know.

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by resa1983:

said by Tx:

I do not see Rogers named. The response was also pertinent to his statement he knows for a fact it will happen this time around as well.

We can't go by history either. Teksavvy had a history as well of doing things that it no longer does. So let's ignore the "they have a history of..." stuff.

When a bold statement such as "fact" is said pertinent to recent events, it tell's me one has more information then the rest of us know.

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.

Then maybe for once Rogers has the right idea?... You answered it yourself if true. I think it should be more, and that said i'm rather curious what Marc will be charging per

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by Tx:

said by resa1983:

said by Tx:

I do not see Rogers named. The response was also pertinent to his statement he knows for a fact it will happen this time around as well.

We can't go by history either. Teksavvy had a history as well of doing things that it no longer does. So let's ignore the "they have a history of..." stuff.

When a bold statement such as "fact" is said pertinent to recent events, it tell's me one has more information then the rest of us know.

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.

Then maybe for once Rogers has the right idea?... You answered it yourself if true. I think it should be more, and that said i'm rather curious what Marc will be charging per

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.

ISPs in Australia implemented a similar system....It costs them money to provide replies to 3rd parties on copyright grounds just like it cost TSI to identify, email, etc those 2000+ subscribers. I doubt Voltage paid TSI a cent....In Australia, those ISPs just started charging like $50 per request even and they saw the number plummet...It seems like these trolls and their movie studio employers are really really concerned with privacy...Until they gotta put money where their mouth is...

said by Tx:

said by Amou:

You could just stay and don't do illegal things but bye and good luck.

Wow.. I'm just lost for words...

Educate yourself, then post...

Wow...seriously. I always knew there were sheep online but they got that guy hook line and sinker...
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by d4m1r:

said by resa1983:

Nobody goes after Rogers. I suspect this has something to do with the rumour that Rogers requests $200 per IP to get a subscriber name.

ISPs in Australia implemented a similar system....It costs them money to provide replies to 3rd parties on copyright grounds just like it cost TSI to identify, email, etc those 2000+ subscribers. I doubt Voltage paid TSI a cent....In Australia, those ISPs just started charging like $50 per request even and they saw the number plummet...It seems like these trolls and their movie studio employers are really really concerned with privacy...Until they gotta put money where their mouth is...

Once TSI submits costs to the court, the judge will make a decision as to how much TSI will get, and then make an order.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
said by resa1983:

Once TSI submits costs to the court, the judge will make a decision as to how much TSI will get, and then make an order.

I'm not so sure TSI have to lose money by insisting on notifying their customers, as Marc stated.

When I called PrivCom about the Videotron, Bell & Cogeco Hurt Locker suit, they said they have a responsibility for protection of info, which Videotron, Bell and Cogeco chose to ignore.

Now I'm sure Marc got sound legal advice and Bean-counter advice, however, I just question this.

Protection can come in many forms. In this case protection came with your right to be informed (as Marc has done) when your private info can end up some place shady, and it's up to you to get legal counsil to quash.

Thus, Marc performed his duties under PIPEDA (as I see it).

Or as the Ontario Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC.on.ca), Dr. Ann Cavoukian, would state: Marc performed his duty by having privacy built into the process as best he could under the circumstances.

So as far as I see it both fed and prov (although this is Fed regulated) Marc did his duty. Up to people to pull up their socks as well.

So, should these monies be claimed? Of course. Protection, as it pertains to Fed reg's (and even prov) has been completed.

Marc seems to think otherwise, but I would fight this and claim the cost of notice as well since it served also as protection (which many may just ignore, their choice).

Anyhow that's just my argument into the cost and why it should be costed and not come out of TSI's pocket.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.

Well considering they're being asked to associate 2300 IP's to accounts be it a 10% margin of them are the same user, high paid techs and "administrative fee's" could easily be pushed to a level of which is fair to TSI but absurd for Voltage to pay in order to get.

I'll be honest, i'm surprised a judge hasn't looked at Voltage's history over the last 6 years and seen that they barely produce movies anymore, they are just going after people as the new business model and this is not what copyright was intended for.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by Tx:

said by resa1983:

The thing is, its only to cover COSTS, not to make the IP->subscriber prohibitive.

Its really up to the courts what costs are assigned.. ISP will submit their actual costs, and it may be that an ISP has to 'eat' some of it. Rogers is extremely inefficient. We've seen this with 2011-703, where they go back and do things multiple times (running up costs of doing things). Its very possible that Rogers had to eat some of the costs of the IP->sub as they were already insanely high.

Well considering they're being asked to associate 2300 IP's to accounts be it a 10% margin of them are the same user, high paid techs and "administrative fee's" could easily be pushed to a level of which is fair to TSI but absurd for Voltage to pay in order to get.

I'll be honest, i'm surprised a judge hasn't looked at Voltage's history over the last 6 years and seen that they barely produce movies anymore, they are just going after people as the new business model and this is not what copyright was intended for.

Nobody but CIPPIC has brought up history, therefore the Judge can't really use it to make a decision yay or nay. Once CIPPIC becomes an intervenor, and a mini-trial of evidence prior to the court order occurs, only then can all this be brought up.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP