dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3548
share rss forum feed

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

Bravo Distributel!

Great to see that Small ISPs are actually Opposing instead of rolling over...

Bravo bravo Distributel!!! All the best.. Hope good things to come

»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2013···html?m=1


MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

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.)


Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

That news is all over the place. I'm not sure what would consider as creditable source.

»Distributel Fights Back in File Sharing Case

Read it yourself.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

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.)

lol it's everywhere bud. It's not just some random blog one one site.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

I'm well aware that it's everywhere... This particular blog on the other hand tries to make Distributel look better than they are and tries to make TekSavvy look like they're not doing anything. What it doesn't mention though is that TekSavvy was actually the first company to stand up and have the balls to say no. It also doesn't mention anything about the fact that TekSavvy has NEVER just rolled over and handed out such information... Just sayin'


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to JohnDoe187

TSI did not say "no" maybe you should check your own sources. They only delayed to inform customers there was no action for opposing... That blog is Howard Knopf's maybe you have heard of him wtf... Fan boy much?


camelot

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to JohnDoe187

I'm not sure where the idea came from that TSI is "rolling over".

Rolling over would be blindly handing over the subscriber info, and not demanding a court order. Remember, TSI's job is not to "defend" you in the alleged infractions, their job is to protect your subscriber information- which is exactly what they're doing.

TSI has done the right thing.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to JohnDoe187

They are protecting subscriber information how? Delaying the hand over until they informed everyone they are handing their info in? I'm not sure what games TSI is playing with their lawyer and I don't care to speculate but everything up to this point shows they have yet to formally opposed. The only way to truly protect subscriber information is to Oppose the motion. Even if CIPPIC gets intervenor status they might not be able to challenge Voltages's "evidence". Anyways if you can't understand the situation I'm not going to summarize it.



TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

You shouldn't assume someone doesn't understand a situation, because it seems you do not either.

TekSavvy has not rolled over, poor choice of words. They are not fighting for privacy rights either. They've taken a neutral stance and have let the ball roll into the court it's meant to: the Federal Courts of Canada. They did not delay handing any information over because they never agreed to hand in information over at all. I am the not sure where you got impression that they did. TekSavvy's message to Voltage was more or less "You want our customers' information? Go have a Judge order us too."

I read Michael Geist's blog post about Distributel: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6781/125/

In it you can read how Distributel initially took the same stance as TekSavvy in November. Now they've reversed. Perhaps the backlash all over the internet about TekSavvy's stance might have changed their minds. I personally question their motives, it could just be a stunt to save face and get a better public image or they could genuinely want to fight to privacy rights.

Also in the the post you'll read that Bell, Cogeco and Videotron did not oppose a similar motion in 2011.

As for fighting privacy rights, whether an ISP does or does not fight for them makes them right or wrong a strictly a matter of opinion. I didn't choose an ISP based on their political stance or whether they would fight legislative and political debate on privacy. There's too many unkowns right now as well in the case that the Judge in the Voltage matter pointed out and will clarify as it moves forward. I believe people are putting way too much on the shoulders of ISPs, you paid them to provide you with a connection the global network.

The matter of privacy rights is a fight the belongs to every single Canadian and the responsibility of every Canadian to protect. Not just shove the burden on an ISP using the lame excuse "I pay you monthly". Of course of an ISP wants to fight in the courts for privacy they can. And if you as a customer and citizen value that, that is your choice as well.

People need to stop being arm-chair laywers/politicians/network engineers/accountants/CEOs on these forums.



eh wut

@videotron.ca
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

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.)

heh wow.

1 & 2: The source is one of the most highly regarded copyright lawyers in all of Canada. The sources (which can be seen on his page since he links to them) are the actual court documents. In addition, the CEO of Distributel even posted there.

3. It does, you just didn't bother reading. It is within Distributels court filing.

4. Sadly, I think you are the one in need to check.

5. Nothing is inconsistent. Unless you wish to say the facts presented there by one of the biggest names in copyright law don't jive with whatever perception you dreamed up.

Do you think it's one of Canada's top law blogs because of fabricated and made up stuff? Or could it be that you lack the comprehension skills to follow it?

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit

Where exactly does it say that Distributel forked over a LOT of customer information? It doesn't... That's the problem. 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.

Further, it's not a matter of "perception" as you put it. I have read the actual court documents and have found a number of things contained within those documents to either be missing from the article, stated differently to make it seem different than it shows in those documents, or otherwise missing from the article.

(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)



QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to TypeS

Let's be very clear of the position you are advocating. That privacy is the sole responsibility of the Canadian whose privacy is being violated.

I think that is a realistic view if we're talking about all of the spyware that permeates the internet. That's why you need add-blockers, and cookie managers, and browser security plug-ins, etc. Even this situation is being challenged quite strongly by EU governments.

In addition, it appears, your view is that all law abiding Canadians must also protect themselves from the information collected by their ISP?

Hmmmm. An ISP has a very special relationship with the subscriber in that they have direct access to a vast array of personal data. There must be high standards applied so that any information is not disclosed to third parties without close inspection; particularly in the case where the data is proprietary to the ISP.

If you disagree then you've become an advocate for the ISP. How does this position serve you as a Canadian consumer?



eh wut

@videotron.ca
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

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.

You are right. It's a conspiracy started by the biggest name in copyright law in Canada.
*shrug*


eh wut

@videotron.ca
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

(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)

Yes, of course, NGN Productions never went to court. The court never told Distributel to hand over their customers info.

*shrug*


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to QuantumPimp

You're twisting my words, as you have in other threads.

And making rather clueless assumptions too.

I have not said it is the sole responsibility of a Canadian consumer to protect their privacy but they share the same responsibility. A lot of anger towards TekSavvy is because people expected TekSavvy to launch legal action on a cause that is not theirs directly. They are NOT a law firm. They are NOT a civil rights group. They are NOT a consumer group. They are NOT a think tank

What I am saying is that is neither right or wrong to do what TekSavvy is doing or what Distributel is doing. Distribuel 180 degree stance now is admirable (but I myself question the motivation).

We already expect all TPIA to fight for against things like UBB, throttling, fair data usage, pricing, competition in the broadband access market. Now we want to become legal experts and fight in the courts too? That wasn't what they sold you, and I challenge you prove me wrong with a ToS from ANY ISP.

You are right about one thing, there is a special relationship between the ISP and the customer because of the sensitive data they are preview too. And that was is PIPEDA is there for. Their responsibility is to safeguard their database so that unauthorized eyes dont ever see that data. This includes safeguarding from external attacks (something many companies have failed if you've kept up with companies like Sony being breached). And they did fulfll their end of the bargain by not handing any information to Voltage. They told them to go to the courts where a Judge can decide if Voltage's motion has any merit (for the record, I believe the don't).

You forget there is legislation there for a reason, to settle disputes and crimes.

Someone commits a crime against you (assault, robbery, B&E, etc). Do you become a vigilante and take the law into your own hands? Do you conduct your own investigation to identify a masked assailant? No, you report it the police.

TekSavvy has sent Voltage to the courts where matters like these belong. And there are groups like the CPPIC that are made of citizens who do care about the privacy of all Canadians and are willing use their own time and resources to fight against Voltage. Instead of just sitting in a chair slandering an company on a forum.



apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to JohnDoe187

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


MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to QuantumPimp

@QuantumPimp: I think you may be slightly "off" with where my position rests. While there is a certain amount of effort that needs to be made by each individual through various means (including those that you mentioned), it is not solely the responsibility of that person to ensure their privacy.

Where the "issue" of privacy violation comes in lies with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). In particular, FIPPA s.21(1) where it states:

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).

The issue comes in whereas an IP address alone cannot identify the user who actually established the connection. For this reason, unless a court order were issued to force the disclosure by a company such as Distributel (among others) just forking out this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy due to the lack of proof of who it was who physically initiated the connection.

The short version is, while there are some responsibilities that the end-user has to protect their own privacy, there are actually also some responsibilities that the provider has as well.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to apvm

said by apvm:

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

They are indeed less expensive, and Acanac, which shares their cable network, is even cheaper for unlimied 28/1 with a free vpn thrown in for good measure.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

Just beware though... You either have to directly link them to your bank account (or credit card), or be forced to pay for 6 months of service in one shot up front. This is part of why I chose TekSavvy over Distributel. Some of their business practices can be quite shady, especially if they don't stop the billing for your internet, thus continuing to charge your bank account directly month after month, even when your service has been cancelled. I have seen this myself. That's not to say it's going to happen, only that I have seen horror stories surrounding this policy.



QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to MrMazda86

said by MrMazda86:

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

MrMazda86 your views are based on sound information and are consistant with mine. I suspect we may disagree with the necessary standards to be applied. I haven't organized my thoughts on that matter so won't bother posting. I'll definitely research the material you posted.

FYI: If you look again you should see that my post was a "reply to TypeS". He didn't respond nearly as graciously.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

My bad...



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to JohnDoe187

If we changed distributel's name to TEksavvy in the articles/blogs right now and it was Distributel being named and discussed as not defending anybody, everyone would be celebrating and giving TSI a high five.

BUT, because it's TSI that looks bad in this blog/articles going around there are points "missing" there are possible conspiracies. It's a double standard around here. Argue all you want, but if this these things were the other way around no one would be saying shit all.

As far as i'm concerned it's a loose loose for anyone unless it's TSI simply because people can't seem to grasp that TSI's position on this whole thing was a head scratcher.

said by MrMazda86:

I'm well aware that it's everywhere... This particular blog on the other hand tries to make Distributel look better than they are and tries to make TekSavvy look like they're not doing anything. What it doesn't mention though is that TekSavvy was actually the first company to stand up and have the balls to say no. It also doesn't mention anything about the fact that TekSavvy has NEVER just rolled over and handed out such information... Just sayin'

Are you insulted some how that distributel appears better then TSI? Where is your unbiased opinion? Sure a year ago Distributel was mess, so was TSI. They've cleaned up quite a bit and reviews are getting better everywhere, their prices are better then TSI. (i should mention though they are getting better i still choose TSI for my internet)

End of the day they are another IISP trying to make ends meet, no better no worse then TSI. TSI != god. TSI DID NOT say no. They asked for time to notify. That's it. Why should it mention something that isn't truthful? TSI planned to hand over information, they asked for some time once again to hand this information out.

said by camelot:



TSI has done the right thing.

Since you think they did "the right thing". I guess Distributel is doing the wrong thing? I don't get your reasoning.

said by TypeS:

In it you can read how Distributel initially took the same stance as TekSavvy in November. Now they've reversed. Perhaps the backlash all over the internet about TekSavvy's stance might have changed their minds. I personally question their motives, it could just be a stunt to save face and get a better public image or they could genuinely want to fight to privacy rights.

Do i agree they changed their position after the Teksavvy backlash? Yup. Do i agree it was a stunt? Not likely. As everyone so often comments on is TSI's small margins. Same goes for distributel's margins. It's not smart business to try and be a hero over another ISP and go bankrupt to look good. It'll cost them a lot of money if the 'stunt' goes wrong. I think they're doing what should be done. Standing their ground to trolls.

said by TypeS:

People need to stop being arm-chair laywers/politicians/network engineers/accountants/CEOs on these forums.

+1 to this, specifically the arm-chair lawyers. Though i am the owner and CEO of my company and i am as involved as my lawyers in our battles with copyright and my customers, i've expressed my opinions long ago when this all began.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

You once again make the baseless assumption that I am insulted or angered Tx.

I already stated I am neutral whether one company defends or the other sits on the fence. But I question Distributel's motives, mainly because why did they not take that stance back in November when NGN Prima first contacted them?

This the second time I've read that TSI actually agree to handover the information so willingly. Does anyone have a source where TSI actually admitted they planned on just handing it over? I'm pretty sure PIPEDA stops any company from doing that, they'd be in a pretty bad legal bind if they handed any information over without a court order or valid reasoning.

Even the blogger the OP posted a link is showing some bias in his writing in misconstruing the $190k figure TekSavvy brought up in court. And the blogger openly admits to disagree with other notable people as well.

Bottom line, that at least for now, no one is right or wrong. And it merely comes down to beliefs and opinions.

Expand your moderator at work


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to TypeS

Re: Bravo Distributel!

Don't understand the logic here. You paid them money for their service and give them loyalty at the same time! Well my boss pays me salary and he expects my loyalty.

My logic is, I paid Teksavvy money and I expect them to be loyal to me. Maybe I am not a fan boy and do not understand this loyalty thing.

Teksavvy is not going to oppose Voltage, any angle you look at it. End of story.

Expand your moderator at work


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to apvm

Re: Bravo Distributel!

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.

Expand your moderator at work

funny_one
Previously known as 'Deadpool'

join:2010-11-01
reply to apvm

Re: Bravo Distributel!

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.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

said by funny_one:

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.

Your username is confusingly close to a certain other poster on this forum. Your posts are not incoherent rambling as his are, though, so I guess it's not hard to tell you two apart once someone reads what you've written. Perhaps you might consider a name that isn't so similar, however.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org