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.