dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
Reviews:
·Acanac
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to TSI Marc

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else.

Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP.

I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:26

1 recommendation

said by rednekcowboy:

said by TSI Marc:

just reading at the link you provided.. seems to me that's in total. not per IP.

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

While I am happy that you are at least growing somewhat of a backbone, I have a sneaky feeling that had more to do with CIPPIC stepping in than anything else.

Your reputation has taken a serious nose-dive, IMHO. To let a motion for a court order for your customers private data go unopposed and only fight on what you feel you should be paid for selling out their privacy (something that you are legally bound to defend) is extremely disheartening. Then, to top it off, you come on here and the only comment you make is about price per IP.

I'm not your customer (thank god) but you have some serious explaining to do to your customers. AND don't try and spin this off as a piracy debate with me should you chose to reply as we all know that is complete BS. At this stage we are talking PRIVACY, not piracy and you most definitely have an obligation to fight for that, not how much you can sell it for.

pfft! fuddle duddle.

You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Ormond Beach, FL
reply to rednekcowboy

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.


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

said by peterboro:

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.

Thank you for saying out loud what most people with *some* exposure to the legal system are thinking.

@ rednekcowboy See Profile discussing a legal strategy in plain sight of your opponents is a bad idea, because, uh, they can use it against you.

I'm sure TSI would love to tell its side of story, but it can wait until this whole mess is over.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

bparanoid5

join:2009-07-17
reply to peterboro

said by peterboro:

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

He shouldn't be commenting at all. I'm sure he is biting his tongue every day.

I find it amusing that some people feel entitled to know the details of Teksavvy's legal strategy whilst still in the courts. Speculate all you like, only a fool would go against their counsels recommendation to keep their mouths shut. IMHO
I reserve my Judgement on Teksavvy's stance in all of this once the books are open. Until then I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy

said by rednekcowboy:

I find it amusing how, out of this whole thread and the other one, that this is what you chose to comment on......

Come on. Cut some slack. He replied to an obvious math and reading error I made. It's plain for all to see.

I have a whole list of questions for both Marc and Voltage, but no one is going to respond now.

In regards to what you and some others *perceive* to be profiting off of privacy, really all I can say without spelling it all out time and time again is to look at it with blinders off, or from another point of view.

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

Keep in mind, TSI will also have to retain all this data separately for 6 months to a year due to voltages request. Data retention, record retention, and date destruction in 6 months to a year. This is legislated and now voltage will have to pay this as well since they made the request for this. This may not have been costed in yet.

Prices are set to rise yet again.

TSI, as said in court, wanted 190K for work performed *to date*. I hope TSI realized that work performed, under the new copyright law, includes the retention for 6-12 months + destruction. I hope Voltage read the copyright law and some of the costs they will incur for their request.

Search the forum for costing and I think you may find a whole lot of itemized things that have to be costed. Real world costs. You work for free?

In six months maybe they will get a request for another 10,000 IP's. Retention and destruction will require a person. Has to be costed right so TSI isn't paying peoples salary for voltage for free. And the costing of will take a bean counter who doesn't work for free.

Lots of real world costs, rednekcowboy. Try and look beyound the pain old myopic view of "selling off privacy". It's far from it in the real world of accounting.

MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

pfft! fuddle duddle.

You have no idea how much backbone this has all taken. Once it's over. You can bet your ass I will explain.

+100

Don't take the bait, Marc.

MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to hm

said by hm :

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by hm :

So far $190K for ~1000 IP's total. That is around 190$ per IP to date (and due to increase).

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

Original 2300 IPs? The original number was 4k sent by Voltage in Nov. Voltage then gave an updated list with only ~2300.

Whether TSI got to any/all of the removed IPs, who knows, but that would count towards the 190k in costs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Ormond Beach, FL
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

It's $190k for the original 2300 IP's, as even the ones which were crap had to be researched in order to distill the number down to what TSI says the reasonable efforts search turned up.

TSI should be charging based on the total number of IP's Voltage submitted because there was effort involved in researching each and every one - even if that effort was as trivial as finding out that an IP which was submitted by Voltage isn't in TSI's IP blocks.

If TSI had an actual posted price list - say $300 per IP researched - TSI would have no a priori knowledge of whether the IP submitted to them was good, bad or indifferent. They'd still have to research it, and that costs money.

Correct. Also a party to a proceeding such as this should ask for a deposit or an amount held in escrow before initiating any action to link IPs to a customers.

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

said by peterboro:

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

I would simply tell Voltage that they don't have any credit at my ISP. They're a foreign company with dodgy financials.
Cash or wire transfer up-front.

Plaintiff's lawyers ask for cash up-front and on-going progress payments such that the lawyer's trust account never goes negative for the plaintiff.

Could a court order an ISP to hand over customer PI info when the plaintiff doesn't meet normal commercial terms of service - ie. acceptable credit rating, non-foreign entity, payment in advance?
If the court orders this and the plaintiff stiffs the ISP, who does the ISP sue?

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by peterboro:

In essence the respondent would argue that best practices and previous court filings will substantiate that each IP requires X dollars to verify and the respondent will comply with handing them over provided the applicant (Voltage) puts that amount up front.

I haven't checked the case law in comparable proceedings but I have done numerous privacy cases and it is standard procedure to be paid up once an estimate is provided of cost to search and copy material.

I would simply tell Voltage that they don't have any credit at my ISP. They're a foreign company with dodgy financials.
Cash or wire transfer up-front.

Plaintiff's lawyers ask for cash up-front and on-going progress payments such that the lawyer's trust account never goes negative for the plaintiff.

Could a court order an ISP to hand over customer PI info when the plaintiff doesn't meet normal commercial terms of service - ie. acceptable credit rating, non-foreign entity, payment in advance?
If the court orders this and the plaintiff stiffs the ISP, who does the ISP sue?

A court can order a bond be made by the plaintiff, yes. Its happening right now in the US.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP