dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


London, ON
reply to shikotee

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Great write-up by a top lawyers saying what most of us (that are upset with Teksavvy) have been saying. Teksavvy should be fighting this.

I don't know if it is to late for Teksavvy to even change their position at this point, and unfortunately prior to the December hearing most of us were assuming Teksavvy was going to fight the good fight. Then suddenly the day before court we get a mysterious hey guys I'm not going to fight for you tomorrow GOOD LUCK.

This is what really shocked me personally, and made me (and others) go out of our way to let TSI know if they do not fight for us, they won't need to bother next time because we won't be customers anymore.

What everyone posting has to remember is there is a chance that CIPPIC will be denied to even speak or take further action in this case. Teksavvy representatives are the only ones that 100% will have a opportunity to speak.
If CIPPIC is denied to speak and Teksavvy isn't opposing the motion will be almost certainly be granted.



Teksavvy seem to be arguing that they agreed to not fight the motion if Voltage allowed them time to notify the customers affected, which Voltage were (unsurprisingly) reluctant to give.

Essentially this is, yes, a load of nonsense of course, as they had clear grounds to fight given the lack of credible evidence and this represents an abrogation of their duty to their customers.

I believe they are passing the buck to CIPIC in the hope that this other organization will indemnify Teksavvy themselves from involvement in the case, a layer of protection from the whole ordeal.


reply to Arcturus

Well the CRTC is 100 percent to blame for all of this. They approved the cost of the last mile that Teksavvy has to pay to Bell. Maybe the members of the CRTC can fork over all the money for legal fees since they're the root cause of everything as usual.