dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31079
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to El Quintron

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by El Quintron:

I'd argue Teksavvy is certainly making a point with 190k as an upfront number.

And by my guesstimate of accountings, that is letting them off cheap.

Only comes to around 95$/IP. I was stating since the beginning it should be above $100-150.

But TSI also added there could be more costs. So good.

So at least we know Voltages legal team wants about $2000 per court appearance.

So guess that brings them up to $4,000 dollars now, then a hearing to see if CIPPIC should be granted, so $6,000. And that's just to get the ball rolling in regards to what the judge said, "to try and get this right".

Unless Voltages lawyers are working pro-bono (or accepting a cut from the extortion), voltage will be out of pocket an easy $215k before they get a name.

But voltage will still make a nice profit if they get those names.

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Nitra:

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.

That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.

1. Voltage will leave owing money

2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.

3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine".


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by hm :

said by Nitra:

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.

That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.

1. Voltage will leave owing money

2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.

3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine".

The issue of whether or not Voltage is going to sue should also be a matter argued before the courts. If there is no intention to sue then they have no right to the names in the first place. Why is no one arguing PIPEDA in this case?

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

said by rednekcowboy:

said by hm :

said by Nitra:

Well, the judge if proven guilty could simply award a paltry amount like $100 for each.
Even if all 2000 names/people are turned over, at $100/each, they are already in the hole by several thousand dollars.

That is the gamble. A few scenario's play out.

1. Voltage will leave owing money

2. Voltage is abusing the court, not going to bring anyone to court, and just getting names so they can send extortion letters demanding $5,000 from each person.

3. Voltage will indeed bring people to court demanding the max possible, $5,000. Unless they magically prove each of these people were in it for commercial gains which would bring it up to a max possible of $20K per person (highly unlikely). How likely is it that a court will award the max possible of $5,000? Geist is saying the courts are more realistically going to give the minimum, $100. But I doubt what Geist stated since these people have real costs associated and would show this to the court, thus upping the "fine".

The issue of whether or not Voltage is going to sue should also be a matter argued before the courts. If there is no intention to sue then they have no right to the names in the first place. Why is no one arguing PIPEDA in this case?

Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

Apparently the Appeals court in the BMG case stated there's no merit in arguing that.

How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA? This is what we are talking about, correct? Customer's privacy and whether or not to disclose this information? If it doesn't meet the guidlines outlined in the act itself it most definitely has merit.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by rednekcowboy:

How can there be "no merit" when it is one of the stipulations outlined in PIPEDA?

Precedent: As in it's already been argued, and it was not seen as valid then.

Remember these proceedings are about Voltage seeking damages, as far as Voltage sees it the courts are probably not their only recourse to seek damages. (eg: Extortion letters)

Teksavvy, I think, by setting a bill of 190K for IP lookups is trying to make this route as unappealing as possible to Voltage, but to say that Voltage's only option is to sue you in a court of law is probably the legal equivalent of walking across the street without looking both ways.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

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

From the BMG appeal itself:

quote:
The privacy issue was an important consideration. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), ISPs are not entitled to "voluntarily" disclose personal information such as the identities requested except with the customer's consent or pursuant to a court order. Privacy rights are significant and must be protected. The delicate balance between privacy interests and public interest has always been a concern of the Court where confidential information is sought to be revealed. Privacy concerns must yield to public concerns for the protection of intellectual property rights in situations where infringement threatens to erode those rights. In other words, the public interest in favour of disclosure must outweigh the legitimate privacy concerns of the person sought to be identified if a disclosure order is made. Where plaintiffs show that they have a bona fide claim that unknown persons are infringing their copyright, they have a right to have the identity revealed for the purpose of bringing action.
»www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/200···193.html

Previously, they needed to show a bona fide claim of infringement. Which is solid evidence. That was changed to prima facie, which essentially means it looks valid at first glance without rebuttal. Which, unfortunately, the affidavit does meet.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


random

@teksavvy.com
reply to El Quintron

This also brings up the question as to how do we make sure that Canadian subscribers info is handed over to non-Canadian entity - Voltage is to obey PIPEDA - Canadian law? May be the info should only be forwarded to their Canadian law firm and there should be conditions on how that is being used.

IMHO the jugde is also dropping hints about the court does not understand how an IP is associated with a person. This is a good time for CIPPIC or TSI to bring up some expert witness(es) and/or point out case file(s) that shows the uncertainties.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by random :

This also brings up the question as to how do we make sure that Canadian subscribers info is handed over to non-Canadian entity - Voltage is to obey PIPEDA - Canadian law? May be the info should only be forwarded to their Canadian law firm and there should be conditions on how that is being used.

IMHO the jugde is also dropping hints about the court does not understand how an IP is associated with a person. This is a good time for CIPPIC or TSI to bring up some expert witness(es) and/or point out case file(s) that shows the uncertainties.

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

At this stage of the game, Voltage is having a tough enough time as it is. So much so that they are accusing the other side of creating a conspiracy against them, not once but several times. They are making wild accusations and calling names. If they thought they were going to make a "quick buck" with this, then they were sadly mistaken. They would be better off cutting their losses now....it's only going to get worse for them the longer this goes on as they don't really have a leg to stand on as demonstrated by their attitude befitting of a todler in court today.

This is the type of scrunity that I was looking for on this request. I also do have to admit that Teksavvy is putting up somewhat of a fight, which is decent, however I still feel that they should be fighting with more of an emphasis on their customers privacy protection and validity of the "evidence" that Voltage possesses rather than how much they should be allowed to charge for said information.


hm

@videotron.ca

I am betting Voltage drops this case.

The furthest this will go will be to see if CIPPIC is allowed to get in on the action, it ends there if they are granted intervenor status.


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

said by rednekcowboy:

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

You do realize that the original judge denied the court order, and that the appeals court reversed that denial, right? Appeals court has more say than Federal Court.

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity. For example, you can't libel someone or make death threats online anonymously, and expect that PIPEDA is going to keep your identity safe. Its ridiculous. PIPEDA is not the be-all, end-all, get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

said by rednekcowboy:

I too think the judge was dropping some hints that an IP does not correlate to the account holder even being involved in the infringing act, which is a good sign. If Voltage thinks this part of their journey is tough, they haven't seen anything yet.

I'm glad there is a different judge presiding over the case. I'm not even sure whether or not he agrees with the original court order being issued for the information in the first place.

Also to the rest, precedent is one thing, but it can also be challenged and overturned. Just because another court said a part of the law is irrelevant does not make it so. You can't simply dismiss a section of the law. It was put in place to prevent this very type of trolling. Which is also what the judge is hinting at, I believe. If you can't prove an IP is a person, then you have no case and no right to the information in the first place.

You do realize that the original judge denied the court order, and that the appeals court reversed that denial, right? Appeals court has more say than Federal Court.

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity. For example, you can't libel someone or make death threats online anonymously, and expect that PIPEDA is going to keep your identity safe. Its ridiculous. PIPEDA is not the be-all, end-all, get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.

I do realize what you are saying, however I'm just stating what PIPEDA says, nothing more. We are not talking murder/death threats here, we are talking about a group of IP addresses that prove absolutely, without a doubt nothing. Just because someone is an account holder does not actually prove that person was the one who committed the infringing act and without that proof, no one is entitled to the account holders information, as outlined in PIPEDA because they have no proof the account holder did anything wrong.

At the same time your example about death threats....If I made a death threat, say by leaving a message on voicemail, that person would have a recording of that for evidence. Similarly with other crimes, there would be evidence that the person responsible was the likely culprit via hard evidence (ie photos, eye witnesses, etc,etc). In this case there is none of that.

You can't just go around and make allegations against anyone and expect their head to be handed to you on a silver platter for you to dismantle and financially ruin and defame. At this point in the game, it's not about what tort was committed but if they can prove that they have actual evidence that an account holder committed the tort which they need to do in order to have access to their information, again, according to PIPEDA.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

PIPEDA was never meant to shield you from doing whatever the hell you please on the internet with impunity.

While you are correct in that regard, I do believe TSI has some sort of obligation to protect the information they have from frivolous lawsuits.

Let's be honest here, what Voltage filed about people profiting and wanting all their bank records and financial history is pure rhetoric. These aren't professional commercial counterfeiters here. These are likely kids, a neighbour on your wireless, or someone spoofing your IP (relay/proxy/bounce).

While it may not be up to TSI to weigh the merits of piracy, it is TSI's responsibility to weigh what is being sought, why, and if it passes the giggle test in order to release peoples private information.

This doesn't pass the giggle test.

So TSI does have a responsibility in protecting people from vultures looking for easy money via obtaining their private information.

Is a couple of weeks or a few days notice protection to you?

Sure it's a hell of a lot more than what Videotron, Bell and Cogeco did. But, is notice all that is required under PIPEDA when a vulture comes knocking saying the accounts receivable of the IP is the person behind the IP?

TSI knows it's BS

You Know it's BS

I Know it's BS.

The Judge even said it's BS.

So did TSI "protect" their customers as required under PIPEDA, Resa?

What is the requirement under PIPEDA? And to what extent?

Is taking the position to not oppose (as TSI did) protection?

This person states it better than I could:

Judge grants new adjournment in TekSavvy illegal downloading case
»www.pogowasright.org/?p=32685

quote:
... Supporting the right of subscribers to privacy protection from frivolous or erroneous lawsuits does not equate with condoning piracy. It merely recognizes that before ISPs turn over subscribers’ details, there should be solid evidence supporting allegations of copyright infringement by the subscriber. ...
TSI, as they stated in these forums, wanted to stay neutral on the piracy issue. Yet they chose to ignore the privacy issue before them.

So here we are. ~50% of the people cheering for them. ~50% of the people asking what their malfunction is and why they aren't protecting info from these vultures.

TSI played a dangerous game here by making a deal with Voltage not to oppose. As the Judge stated, "Hearing a motion on a one-sided basis is risky".

Sure TSI deserves some kudos for what they did, but did they do the right thing?

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

@HM / Resa:

+1 on what HM said; and I don't believe PIPEDA should be used to shield people from committing crimes on the internet but I do believe it should be used to protect the general public from extortionist with bad evidence. I fully expect a child pornographer to get caught by the RCMP and have his info turned over when he's suspected of such criminal activity but I don't expect the same treatment of a someone who's downloading a copy of "True Justice" with Steven Segal.


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

said by m3chen:

@HM / Resa:

+1 on what HM said; and I don't believe PIPEDA should be used to shield people from committing crimes on the internet but I do believe it should be used to protect the general public from extortionist with bad evidence. I fully expect a child pornographer to get caught by the RCMP and have his info turned over when he's suspected of such criminal activity but I don't expect the same treatment of a someone who's downloading a copy of "True Justice" with Steven Segal.

We know its probably bad. But the court order doesn't usually require a full trial of the evidence to issue the court order.

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to Nitra

What everyone is missing, it's not about the money, the first round will no doubt be a money loser. It's about setting precedents. If after all the legal wrangling on Voltage vs TSI subscribers is done, and if the courts rule in the favour of Voltage, they can they walk up to the next judge, whose hands will be tied by the previous ruling, and get their requests rubber stamped.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.

And unlike Ellis's latest puff piece (writer for hire?), the only reason for this is CIPPIC and the fight they brought with them.

CIPPIC could have been tossed out at stage one, and stage 2 (yesterday).

They can still be tossed out at the next court date.

Has nothing to do with TSI. TSI chose not to oppose.

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

1 recommendation

said by hm :

said by resa1983:

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.

And unlike Ellis's latest puff piece (writer for hire?), the only reason for this is CIPPIC and the fight they brought with them.

CIPPIC could have been tossed out at stage one, and stage 2 (yesterday).

They can still be tossed out at the next court date.

Has nothing to do with TSI. TSI chose not to oppose.

They can, but I doubt CIPPIC will get tossed.

As for David, he's semi-retired, and a York U professor who teaches Tech and background to communications students. Their courses get pretty deep surprisingly. Last summer I went and spoke to one of his classes as he was trying to do some 'current' tech news.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

said by m3chen:

@HM / Resa:

+1 on what HM said; and I don't believe PIPEDA should be used to shield people from committing crimes on the internet but I do believe it should be used to protect the general public from extortionist with bad evidence. I fully expect a child pornographer to get caught by the RCMP and have his info turned over when he's suspected of such criminal activity but I don't expect the same treatment of a someone who's downloading a copy of "True Justice" with Steven Segal.

We know its probably bad. But the court order doesn't usually require a full trial of the evidence to issue the court order.

The fact that this judge is recommending special court days to look at the evidence and such before a court order can be ordered is pretty big.

But that's just it, this isn't a "normal" proceeding. You can't compare it to criminal, civil or traffic court because, at this stage, it's all about Privacy which has very stringent rules that must be followed that is already laid out for everyone to abide by so you do need to examine the evidence before making a ruling.

AND, in fact, before police get a search warrant, etc, in a criminal case, they have to show a judge what they have for evidence otherwise the application for the warrant gets refused. IE, they have eye witnesses that someone committed a robbery and can ID the suspect. They have a last known address for that suspect and apply for a warrant and get one. They can't:

a) go to the judge and say we want to search 111 Troll Alley because I think that someone that lives there may have committed a robbery
b)it's been reported that the person that lives at 111 Troll Alley may know someone that committed a robery. Give me a search and arrest warrant for the owner of that house so we can force him to tell us where the person is that we think committed the robbery

Example B is exactly what Voltage is doing. They want the account holders private info because someone at that IP may/may not have downloaded their movie for commercial use. So they want to either extort the account holder and force the account holder to tell them who is responsible or sue the, quite likely, wrong person based on questionable evidence obtained by questionable means for questionable motives. Until you can remove all the questionables in that statement, Voltage should not be allowed within 1000 miles of any information whatsoever.

No matter how you slice it, someone saying something is so, without evidence, and expecting their case handed to them on a silver platter is just not how the world works.

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

You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?

With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?

With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.

AND obviously THIS judge does not, this is a very good thing and the way it should be.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

You do know that twice now judges have issued court orders in copytroll suits here in Canada in the last 1 1/2 years right?

With the same evidence (they rarely change much of anything minus the IPs, company name, and the movies being sued about), they got court orders, without the evidence being tried. Obviously the judges in both cases believed that the Companies suing for remuneration of copyright infringement, was more important than the users' privacy issues.

That is because the motion went unopposed. Nothing more.

In the Bell, videotron and Cogeco case, they didn't even bother to show up in court. It defaults.

With Distributel (owners of Acanac) and ACN, this was likely the very same thing. Went unopposed and no one bothered to show. Never even made a ripple in the news world or forums because no one knew and they kept their mouths shut.

resa, if anything goes unopposed, it gets granted. That's the way it works. That is the reason why we had what you stated above. It was not based at all on merit.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Front page:

TekSavvy Gets More Time to Battle Copyright Troll
»TekSavvy Gets More Time to Battle Copyright Troll


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

I would have figured that even if it went unopposed, the judge would have to think about a person's privacy.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy or an unexpected but pleasant turn of a events for them (and really for us as consumers).

I gotta say though, I'm very happy that the judge is asking about the IP address / account holder issue as it does relate to whether or not this information should be given out in the first place.


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

said by m3chen:

It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy or an unexpected but pleasant turn of a events for them (and really for us as consumers).

I gotta say though, I'm very happy that the judge is asking about the IP address / account holder issue as it does relate to whether or not this information should be given out in the first place.

I'm sure that TSI & CIPPIC lawyers will make sure that comment gets into the judge's adjournment & comments when all 3 lawyers write it up together (group communication excerise for being bad & not communicating well). heh
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to m3chen

said by m3chen:

It appears that letting the motion go unopposed and showing up to court to say so may have been a part of TSI's strategy

With CIPPIC in the picture, yeah. With CIPPIC not in the picture, no.

But as said above, if this back-fired, which it still could (but doubtful now based on the judges comments), then what? They made a risky move instead of just opposing.

With cippic involved, cippic can examine TSI's info as well without it appearing as collusion (which Voltage is claiming, btw).

This is the only thing I can think of for why TSI made this risky move of not opposing.

Don't think we will ever get an answer to this.

However, if CIPPIC is allowed in (which could still be denied), then the answer will play out and we will then see why TSI & CIPPIC chose this risky move.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

I would have figured that even if it went unopposed, the judge would have to think about a person's privacy.

Well, let's check out the docket for the unopposed NGN vs Distributel case: »cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In···-2062-12

Pay particular attention to how long it took for the motion to be reviewed and passed: "Duration per day: 19-NOV-2012 from 09:30 to 09:33" So all of 3 minutes... Do you think the judge bothered to look at any of the paperwork, let alone think about anyone's privacy implications?

If the alternative is a 3 minute "Have you paid your court fees? Ok then, here's your court order to print money Mr Copyright Troll" then ISPs MUST stand up for their customers.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

said by hm :

With cippic involved, cippic can examine TSI's info as well without it appearing as collusion (which Voltage is claiming, btw).

This is the only thing I can think of for why TSI made this risky move of not opposing.

said by tired:

ISPs MUST stand up for their customers.

Since you make the statement, and since I'm trying to find reasons for why TSI decided not to oppose the motion, one thought given to me by "someone" was the the following:

"My bet is that is that Teksavvy doesn't want to set a precedent for having to engage in litigation every time a copyright troll decides to go after subscribers."

Since precedent is being set here in Canada with the troll lawsuits, what is stated above seems to make perfect sense to me when one thinks about why Bell, Videotron, Cogeco, Distributel, ACN, and now Teksavvy struck a deal with Voltage and chose *not* to opposed this.

So far this is the best reason to date.

I wonder if TSI would care to chime in?

So, "tired", I'm getting the feeling they don't want to be in a "MUST" situation, as you stated. Or have precedent set where they "MUST".

Best guess to date.

TSI, or some other ISP in the "know", or even a lawyer like Howard Knopf would have to chime in with their view on this...

Anyone have Howard Knopf's ear? If so, care to shoot this one at him and see if he has a take on this?