dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
8202
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to jkoblovsky

Premium Member

to jkoblovsky

Re: Voltage v. Does

Ah, so you're on Teksavvy's side now I see.

Flip. Flop.
jkoblovsky
join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON

4 edits

jkoblovsky

Member

said by MaynardKrebs:

Ah, so you're on Teksavvy's side now I see.

Flip. Flop.

I'm sorry what? The only side I'm on is the consumer side, unlike some people Krebs, who have been painted in court docs as a TSI shill. Both parties have been acting like twits IMO. A pox on all your houses as far as I'm concerned. Since both sides lawyers are following these threads, just wanted to make it clear where I stand, in case there's any miscommunication towards the court on this since both parties don't seem to be reading past what they can make a buck off of. You want to know why I hate telecom in general, you now know the answer. Profit over consumers! Goes to all telecom, not just TSI.

This is why I choose a much different career path. Greed is an answerable sin, in which is not honourable, and never justifiable. The financial sector is even worse. At least TSI doesn't engage in midget tossing. That I'll give them credit for. Not sure about Voltage. They seem to want to crush the skulls of midgets no matter what the cost. Krebs, it's the holiday season, hug your family and be thankful you have at least one person on the wall, that can't be intimated or controlled by either party. A rare quaility in Canadian telecom/copyright law these days unfortunately, and one quaility I've actively faught for at great personal cost in this situation. You're welcome! And TSI should be thankful I'm treating this as politics on thier assistance of a laughable "acedemic" from York U with a questionable record/background and with no acedemic standing on copyright/privacy law. As far as I'm concerned I've earned every penny TSI and Voltage are asking for. I'll leave it at that. If I was half as greedy as both parties in this, a statement of claim would have been filed a long time ago to both parties.

In reality we've all lost as a result of how TSI and Voltage have played this to date. Government has sinced pushed through legislation against online privacy with little to no objection from the telecom community, in fact it looks very much like telecom lobbied for it. I wonder why that is when telecom (especially TPIA) has tradtionally been huge on customer privacy. I haven't seen any public /political statement by TSI or any TPIA objecting to the use and sale of thier customers info under proposed legislation. I find that very, very interesting. I guess Canadians need to get comfortable with the elf on the shelf.

»www.q107.com/2014/12/15/ ··· e-state/
Expand your moderator at work

huh_wha
@108.168.105.x

-2 recommendations

huh_wha to jkoblovsky

Anon

to jkoblovsky

Re: Voltage v. Does

said by jkoblovsky:

In reality we've all lost as a result of how TSI and Voltage have played this to date. Government has sinced pushed through legislation against online privacy with little to no objection from the telecom community, in fact it looks very much like telecom lobbied for it. I wonder why that is when telecom (especially TPIA) has tradtionally been huge on customer privacy. I haven't seen any public /political statement by TSI or any TPIA objecting to the use and sale of thier customers info under proposed legislation. I find that very, very interesting.

I personally don't expect much better out of Hollywood, and par for the course for a company like Voltage and a fly-by-night outfit like Canipre who will be crucified on cross-examination.

But TSI's posture on all of this is beyond reprehensible. They've monetized their customer's information, just like Bell Rogers and Telus. The amount they are seeking for costs on this case is so ludicrous it isn't even funny. As much as I dislike Voltage, I hope they, and the court, rake TSI over the coals on the costs. Pure unadulterated greed, customer service be damned.
69230940 (banned)
join:2014-12-10

69230940 (banned)

Member

said by huh_wha :

said by jkoblovsky:

In reality we've all lost as a result of how TSI and Voltage have played this to date. Government has sinced pushed through legislation against online privacy with little to no objection from the telecom community, in fact it looks very much like telecom lobbied for it. I wonder why that is when telecom (especially TPIA) has tradtionally been huge on customer privacy. I haven't seen any public /political statement by TSI or any TPIA objecting to the use and sale of thier customers info under proposed legislation. I find that very, very interesting.

I personally don't expect much better out of Hollywood, and par for the course for a company like Voltage and a fly-by-night outfit like Canipre who will be crucified on cross-examination.

But TSI's posture on all of this is beyond reprehensible. They've monetized their customer's information, just like Bell Rogers and Telus. The amount they are seeking for costs on this case is so ludicrous it isn't even funny. As much as I dislike Voltage, I hope they, and the court, rake TSI over the coals on the costs. Pure unadulterated greed, customer service be damned.

Spoken like a true Canpire/Voltage rep.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to huh_wha

Mod

to huh_wha
I'm quite sure that many of TekSavvy's naysayers will sing a different tune about their stance if Voltage et al come to the decision that they won't pay up for those names. And don't call me a TekSavvy fanboy because I would say the same thing if ANY ISP'S name was in that first sentence. Start, Bell, Rogers, Videotron etc.

The position TekSavvy took was not a premeditated money making venture. After all, when they went into this stating that they wouldn't "oppose" they were taking a stance that said "Our counsel has advised us that we have insufficient legal grounds to oppose the request, and / or that the cost of opposing if we lost could put the company in a financial disaster.

People talk about TekSavvy's costs to be exhorbitant. Well, think about it. If your name was handed to Voltage in error, you would have the opportunity to take TekSavvy to court for releasing private information and the costs of defending themselves in court against Voltage due to the errant release. So, again to protect themselves, they have to make absolutely certain that they are not releasing invalid information.

It's important to remember that IF Voltage goes ahead, that it will be vital that they get more than the speculative invoicing amounts ... they'll almost certainly be forced to court where the costs and rewards go up and they will attempt to recover the costs of getting those names.

The costs as presented by TekSavvy are high, yes, but remember that all the time they spend on this is time they aren't spending on their normal business ... therefore to do both, the labour costs are essentially doubled. After all, if they had to bring people in to do this on contract, they'd be paying more, and if they lose they have no return on their costs to date.

Legal costs are crazy high ... a 3 day civil case in court can cost as much as $60,000. This case has been in court several times now and in prothnotary chambers; it's had two different venues. The cost of getting the people to Ottawa and back is not insignificant.

So, while TekSavvy's costs are high and quite legitimately so, Voltage's counter is absurd ... Considering that that the claim was requested for LEGAL fees, not just court fees. Just look at the man hours that have gone into discussing this here. Now imagine the man hours that high powered lawyers have spent dealing with this ... and they don't bill at $100 per hour!

I'd suggest that TekSavvy's claim is quite legitimate and is not a premeditated money rip off.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000 to jkoblovsky

Member

to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

I wonder why that is when telecom (especially TPIA) has tradtionally been huge on customer privacy. I haven't seen any public /political statement by TSI or any TPIA objecting to the use and sale of thier customers info under proposed legislation.

I think there's two answers:

1) The only telecoms that are big enough to have any kind of political clout are Shaw, Rogers, Bell, Telus (and maybe Videotron or whatever the big ones are in Quebec). These companies also sell Cable TV services. Cable TV is on the decline. They have a financial incentive to stop piracy. The rationale is that piracy leads to few cable sub's. Whether you agree with or not it's most likely how they think about it

2) Teksavvy is too small to have clout. If they had any clout they wouldn't of had to bend over when the CRTC impose those minimum fees for passing data over Bell/Rogers/Telus/Shaw's lines.

I sort of skipped the middle pages of this thread but I think asking for crazy fee's for providing customer data isn't the worst thing. The biggest fine in Canada for pirating is $5k. Whatever they can do to drive up the cost of a phishing company makes it hard and harder for them to turn a profit by going after Canadians. $5k max isn't much to work with.

Technically that supreme court from June state's that ISPs can't give over the IP address without a court order. Thus if someone comes at a telco again they'll need a court order which really removes their ability to fight it. You may as well charge through the nose and cause pain to the other side. Maybe they'll stop doing it.

Zappy
@198.103.223.x

Zappy to sbrook

Anon

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

So, while TekSavvy's costs are high and quite legitimately so, Voltage's counter is absurd ...

Beyond absurd, they closed with "TSI helps pirates pirate therefore they have no costs in relation to this case!"

Desperate flailing from a loser who has lost again.

As for TSI's costs being inflated, somehow I doubt they would try to pull such a stunt, after all it's under scrutiny from the trolls who would certainly pounce.

And the fact that the trolls had to make up nonsensical arguments suggests they can't find legitimate ones.

Also the courts don't want to deal with trolls, the reason why these costs were put in place was to discourage monetizing copyright. If Voltage had a legitimate case, that is the "piracy" was really hurting them, they would have paid the expenses already to stop the bleeding.

But they know just as everyone who knows anything about this stuff that suing people doesn't stop "piracy" anymore than it harms media sales.

I point to the new Hobbit racking in millions last week and Guardians of the Galaxy before it.

The court knows it's all trolling and they've set the troll toll high on purpose.

Which is why they're going to come back in a few months and tell the trolls to pay it or GTFO.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

said by Zappy :

Beyond absurd, they closed with "TSI helps pirates pirate therefore they have no costs in relation to this case!"

They could use that argument and sue Bell, Rogers, AT&T, Hurricane Electric and other tier 1 transit providers, and how about Microsoft and Apple ... after all they all help pirates pirate!

Zappy
@198.103.221.x

Zappy

Anon

And every business that built and sold the pirates their computer!

From Intel to Futureshop, sue 'em all!

huh_wha
@108.168.105.x

huh_wha to 69230940

Anon

to 69230940
said by 69230940:

Spoken like a true Canpire/Voltage rep.

Long time TSI customer that walked away from TSI when the shenanigans began. Actually.

The fact is, the amount they are asking for is padded and inflated unreasonably. It'll never stand up to detailed scrutiny, and the plaintiff is entitled to that scrutiny for the asking. I think the plaintiff has far deeper pockets with far more to gain. I expect TSI and Voltage will lock horns over costs in a big way, and I see Marc getting bit on the ass by this in more ways than lost customer confidence. I mean, at the end of the day, they are going to give up their customers for money. That shit hasn't hit the fan yet.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

And who is to say that all the other IISPs wouldn't take the same road that TekSavvy have "Not Opposing" the request? The risk to these companies is just too high.

I disagree that it is padded and inflated unreasonably. I suspect at the outside it's maybe 10% high ... but then remember the legal bills aren't over yet!

huh_wha
@108.168.105.x

huh_wha

Anon

said by sbrook:

And who is to say that all the other IISPs wouldn't take the same road that TekSavvy have "Not Opposing" the request? The risk to these companies is just too high.

I disagree that it is padded and inflated unreasonably. I suspect at the outside it's maybe 10% high ... but then remember the legal bills aren't over yet!

It's all moot now. Their co-operation is assured thanks to irresponsible legislation by a right-wing government full religious zealots.

There will no doubt be full on hearings regarding assessment of costs that should prove almost as interesting as the main bout.
69230940 (banned)
join:2014-12-10

69230940 (banned) to huh_wha

Member

to huh_wha
said by huh_wha :

said by 69230940:

Spoken like a true Canpire/Voltage rep.

The fact is, the amount they are asking for is padded and inflated unreasonably.

OK, I'll bite.

Tell me how exactly you know their costs are padded and inflated unreasonably?

huh_wha
@108.168.105.x

huh_wha

Anon

said by 69230940:

OK, I'll bite.

Tell me how exactly you know their costs are padded and inflated unreasonably?

Well, we already have an astute DSLr aficionado who, instead of bristling, suggested 10%. In terms of court costs, applying for more than what was expended is unreasonable. Under any circumstance, applying for more of anything than what one is entitled to is "padding". The old adage is ask for way more than what you want, so they whittle you down to your sweet spot.

This isn't rocket science. It's a game.

I'm suggesting that the previous suggestion of 10% is way low.

IMHO, it was quadrupled. And when it's reduced by 60% by the courts, TSI will take the money, give up their clients, and snicker all the way to their federally-regulated brethren, the bank.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

So you are suggesting 90-100 thousand? You're kidding ... the court time alone has cost TekSavvy that and more! Do you have any concept of the legal costs in a case like this?
69230940 (banned)
join:2014-12-10

69230940 (banned) to huh_wha

Member

to huh_wha
said by huh_wha :

said by 69230940:

OK, I'll bite.

Tell me how exactly you know their costs are padded and inflated unreasonably?

Well, we already have an astute DSLr aficionado who, instead of bristling, suggested 10%. In terms of court costs, applying for more than what was expended is unreasonable. Under any circumstance, applying for more of anything than what one is entitled to is "padding". The old adage is ask for way more than what you want, so they whittle you down to your sweet spot.

This isn't rocket science. It's a game.

I'm suggesting that the previous suggestion of 10% is way low.

IMHO, it was quadrupled. And when it's reduced by 60% by the courts, TSI will take the money, give up their clients, and snicker all the way to their federally-regulated brethren, the bank.

And that is not what I asked. I want to know how you know "what was expected."

I want to know how you know what their costs are as your comment about their costs came before sbrook's 10% guesstimate.

I would like to know exactly how it is that you know what their legal bills, employee costs, hardware costs, database costs, court costs, etc, etc are.

I highly suspect that you are just Mr. jkoblovsky posting with an anon username and a masked IP, but that is pure speculation on my part.

I'll go ahead an answer for you because there is only one answer you can possibly have. Unless your Marc, his lawyers or his accountant, you have absolutely NO, zip, zero idea what Tek's cost are. Instead you chose to come on here and slander him and his good name.

I only see 3 reasons for doing so:

1. You really are jkoblovsky and are just trying to put on the appearance of someone actually agreeing with you for once (I won't begin to speculate on his reasoning for what he does)

2. You're somehow tied into Voltage/Canpire and are making an extremely desperate attempt to discredit Tek.

3. You are a troll just trying to stir the pot.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The position TekSavvy took was not a premeditated money making venture. After all, when they went into this stating that they wouldn't "oppose" they were taking a stance that said "Our counsel has advised us that we have insufficient legal grounds to oppose the request, and / or that the cost of opposing if we lost could put the company in a financial disaster.

People talk about TekSavvy's costs to be exhorbitant. Well, think about it. If your name was handed to Voltage in error, you would have the opportunity to take TekSavvy to court for releasing private information and the costs of defending themselves in court against Voltage due to the errant release. So, again to protect themselves, they have to make absolutely certain that they are not releasing invalid information.

....

The costs as presented by TekSavvy are high, yes, but remember that all the time they spend on this is time they aren't spending on their normal business ... therefore to do both, the labour costs are essentially doubled. After all, if they had to bring people in to do this on contract, they'd be paying more, and if they lose they have no return on their costs to date.

Legal costs are crazy high ... a 3 day civil case in court can cost as much as $60,000. This case has been in court several times now and in prothnotary chambers; it's had two different venues. The cost of getting the people to Ottawa and back is not insignificant.

So, while TekSavvy's costs are high and quite legitimately so, Voltage's counter is absurd ... Considering that that the claim was requested for LEGAL fees, not just court fees. Just look at the man hours that have gone into discussing this here. Now imagine the man hours that high powered lawyers have spent dealing with this ... and they don't bill at $100 per hour!

I'd suggest that TekSavvy's claim is quite legitimate and is not a premeditated money rip off.

@sbrook
Why present facts in the debate when certain people assert that facts aren't what matter? We've seen this 'from the gut' behaviour before.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· TF4Oz4dI

CuriousMoi
@178.162.193.x

CuriousMoi to huh_wha

Anon

to huh_wha
said by huh_wha :

There will no doubt be full on hearings regarding assessment of costs that should prove almost as interesting as the main bout.

Interesting tid bit on the political side. Geist posted today on the notice to notice costs. It seems like government or regulator hearings might be a strong possibility especially if telecom's don't get their way in court and try to pass the buck on to the consumer:

»www.michaelgeist.ca/2014 ··· -launch/

There are fears that Internet providers will be inundated with notices, particularly since the government decided against establishing a fee for forwarding them. That could lead to increased costs for consumers.

and

Should these concerns materialize, the government will need to revisit some of the notice-and-notice regulations.

From the way Geist is framing this, it seems to me that if telecom doesn't get exactly what they want out of the deal (meaning making a buck off of notice to notice) than consumers will have to pick up the tab for all of this through higher prices on internet packages. That's a very interesting assertion, and doesn't seem rather fair on the consumer side.

In that case than yes; the costs associated with notice to notice will be very publically scrutinized, and should be. TSI will remain a benchmark on these costs. Even if the courts awarded TSI a fair deal, they are going to have a hard time justifying this to the public re: sale of subscribers personal information in public hearings before elected members of parliament (if and when that becomes the case) or before the CRTC. TSI isn’t a small company. It’s expanded into the US market, and has just recently acquired businesses to add to its value. Adding the sale of customer information shouldn’t be a surprising move by anyone. It was made legal by bill S4. C'est la vie!
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to jkoblovsky

Member

to jkoblovsky
jkob,

The thing you're missing is that this process is FAR from over. TSI has a roll to play yet. s.2.7 & PIPEDA are still in play and that has been ignored to this point. Just because it has been about dealing with who pays what for the work that was already done doesn't mean it stops there.
JMJimmy

JMJimmy to 69230940

Member

to 69230940
btw regarding the various costs... TSI will get most of what it's asking for. It won't get marketing costs, it likely won't get additional support costs (unless they framed it properly as TSI being targeted), and it may not get their in house lawyer costs. Everything else I suspect they will get without issue or at most slightly reduced. Courts have a lot of case law to draw on for this type of costing as it's done in criminal trials all the time - those run from $100-$150 per IP and the courts consider that reasonable.

Zappy
@198.103.221.x

Zappy

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

and it may not get their in house lawyer costs.

I think their legal costs were specifically allowed by the original judgment?

Also the courts put these costs in place specifically to discourage trolling, be strange to walk that back.

huh_wha
@108.168.105.x

-3 recommendations

huh_wha to sbrook

Anon

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

So you are suggesting 90-100 thousand? You're kidding ... the court time alone has cost TekSavvy that and more! Do you have any concept of the legal costs in a case like this?

I know this.

I am a reasonable, well-centered individual. Both TSI's behaviour and costs request offend me greatly. How much? I put them in the same band as Rogers, Bell and Telus. They've monetized their customer data and are selling it, just haggling over the price. Sickening. Period.

That's all I need to know.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to Zappy

Member

to Zappy
said by Zappy :

said by JMJimmy:

and it may not get their in house lawyer costs.

I think their legal costs were specifically allowed by the original judgment?

Also the courts put these costs in place specifically to discourage trolling, be strange to walk that back.

The in-house lawyer I suspect might not be allowed because TSI pays them whether they do work or not, but more so that they did not track their hours and only estimated them. These days it's expected that lawyers use some program like "TimeMatters" or similar to track exactly how much time they work on specific files.

Zappy
@198.103.221.x

Zappy

Anon

said by JMJimmy:

The in-house lawyer I suspect might not be allowed because TSI pays the

Ah, I see but that's just a retainer isn't it? If they actually have to go and do stuff that retainer gets eaten up pretty quickly and regular billing kicks in?

Considering all of this was new untested law it's not unreasonable that they had to do a lot more research and prep for their court appearances.

The other thing is each time the Trolls have gone to court they've come away with less and less, I don't expect that trend to change.

But we'll see!

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to JMJimmy

Mod

to JMJimmy
CuriousMoi, I think you are maybe conflating two issues. Maybe your post belongs in a separate thread? The current case has nothing to do with notice and notice and its costs.

Back to the case at hand ..

I do not believe that TSI are monetizing customer data. I think they are reasonably charging what this is costing them. The court has told them they can bill for the costs to provide the data and TSI has said we will not drop data without extreme scrutiny.
Expand your moderator at work
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to Zappy

Member

to Zappy

Re: Voltage v. Does

said by Zappy :

said by JMJimmy:

The in-house lawyer I suspect might not be allowed because TSI pays the

Ah, I see but that's just a retainer isn't it?

According to the court documents they have a salaried lawyer in addition to the council they retained.
JMJimmy

JMJimmy to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

TSI has said we will not drop data without extreme scrutiny.

Where did they say this? I'm curious to know the context.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Their behaviour says this.