Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Maybe next election don't vote for a party that made it easier for such frivolous copyright lawsuits to happen.

PAP is good as long as it's a company who is good with billing.

Forcing? No. You're a new member on the forums or a new account. Though i may be wrong, i cannot properly guess how long you've been a TSI customer, but there was a time where TSI ONLY accepted pre auth or credit card as well. "sucking" the money as you say out of the customers.

This isn't uncommon practice. In fact, i find this helps me with paying bills on time and not "forgetting" to pay them

Can't you just change your username bud.

Long time no talk... glad to see you are still dropping in.
:)

Martin

Not at all... I'm just pointing out some interesting fact. It's also an interesting fact that Distributel has a very bad reputation for a number of things, such as forcing customers to give them their banking information so that they can suck the money right out of their bank account each and every month, even after they've cancelled their service. I've seen this far too often.

Of course, you could decide to go on a monthly bill provided that you both have a sufficient credit rating and you pay for 6 months at a time. This is just one such example of the many things that Distributel does that they don't tell their customers about... or at least not up front anyway.

So as for "appearing better than TSI", that's got nothing to do with my gripe.

You make it sound like they are doing customers a favor. Since when is any business doing a customer a favor? I run a business to make money, i'm not giving it away, they're paying for it. Our business bends over backwards to keep customers when something goes wrong.

I'd say it'll be fun to watch, but not at the expense of two IISP's and their customers. Honestly i hope both win in their different ways of approaching it. I'm sure as heck not voting against either of them.

I didn't say they opposed Voltage, they're letting it play it out in the courts.

Just how far should an ISP be loyal to a paying customer? How far backwards should they bend over for customers?

They're job is to secure your information and not give it out to anyone without just cause. They're job isn't to define what that just cause is. That's the courts and legislators jobs to do.

Your boss pays you a salary and expects you to do your job. He doesn't care of you're loyal or not. I can guarantee you he isn't loyal to you.

You pay Teksavvy for a service, which does not include loyalty. Maybe I'm an idiot and I missed that in the fine print somewhere or don't understand what to expect from an ISP.

Legally, they can't. And they haven't. They've simply delayed the inevitable.

@QuantumPimp: I think you may be slightly "off" with where my position rests.

I am a loyal supporter of my own wallet. Bravo to Distributel but unless they are cheaper, I am not switching yet.

quote:

---

21. (1) A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except,

a) upon the prior written request or consent of the individual, if the record is one to which the individual is entitled to have access;

b) in compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual, if upon disclosure notification thereof is mailed to the last known address of the individual to whom the information relates;

c) personal information collected and maintained specifically for the purpose of creating a record available to the general public;

d) under an Act of Ontario or Canada that expressly authorizes the disclosure;

e) for a research purpose if,
     (i) the disclosure is consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of disclosure under which the personal information was provided, collected or obtained,
     (ii) the research purpose for which the disclosure is to be made cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the information is provided in individually identifiable form, and
     the person who is to receive the record has agreed to comply with the conditions relating to security and confidentiality prescribed by the regulations; or

f) if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, s. 21 (1).

---

(EDIT: I also forgot to mention... TekSavvy had to be ordered by the courts to disclose any such customer information prior to having done so... This was not the case with Distributel originally. That's another key difference to be pointed out there)

The article in and of itself contains certain claims that are not entirely accurate, while "conveniently" omitting other key elements of the case to try and make the situation appear better than it is.

1. I have serious doubt on the credibility of the source.

2. It's posted on a BlogSpot, with no published source reference, which means that anyone could have written it and made this claim, but it isn't necessarily accurate, and there's no way of being able to provide recourse for error.

3. Further, it makes NO mention about Distributel having rolled over and forked out information upon the first request that they received.

4. I suggest you check your facts and follow-up with your sources before trying to make a claim about a product or a service (or service provider), when the information contained within contradicts MANY other credible sources.

5. (EDIT: Upon closer examination, it seems that there are actually statements against TSI within this article that are inconsistent with proven fact, as cited within the publicly accessible court documents... It's sad really.)

I have serious doubt on the credibility of the source. This link directly contradicts just about EVERY other link that I've seen with respect to Distributel.

It's posted on a BlogSpot, with no published source reference, which means that anyone could have written it and made this claim, but it isn't necessarily accurate, and there's no way of being able to provide recourse for error.

Further, it makes NO mention about Distributel having rolled over and forked out information upon the first request that they received. I suggest you check your facts and follow-up with your sources before trying to make a claim about a product or a service (or service provider), when the information contained within contradicts MANY other credible sources.

(EDIT: Upon closer examination, it seems that there are actually statements against TSI within this article that are inconsistent with proven fact, as cited within the publicly accessible court documents... It's sad really.)