Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online

US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy 280

Posted by timothy
from the them's-our-rules dept.
Andorin writes "Suddenlink, a United States ISP that serves nineteen states, has implemented a three-strikes policy. Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months. According to TorrentFreak, the takedown notices do not have to be substantiated in court, which effectively means that subscribers can be disconnected based on mere accusations. In justifying the policy, Suddenlink turns to an obscure provision of their Terms of Service, but also claims that they are required by the DMCA to disconnect repeat offenders."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy

Comments Filter:
  • by Briden (1003105) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:11PM (#33693340)

    If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:12PM (#33693346)

      Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.

      • by zill (1690130)
        Until him, or another neighbor, takes down your internet connection.

        In the end, only the ISP and the ??AA wins.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by boxfetish (903697)
          How does the ISP win by having no customers?
          • by zill (1690130) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @12:31AM (#33694934)
            From the summary:

            Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months.

            So the ISP wins by collecting money without having to provide any service to their "customers".

            In fact, after banning everyone, the ISP can just sell all its assets to a new company for $1, and transferring all the employees to the new company. Lather, rinse, repeat.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by cgenman (325138)

              You'd be hard pressed to find a court that would require you to keep paying for a service that the company specifically decided not to provide.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by ultranova (717540)

              So the ISP wins by collecting money without having to provide any service to their "customers".

              Is this legal, even in the US? I realize that he who has the gold makes the rules, and it's a corporation versus a mere mortal, but even so this seems to be going a bit far.

      • by vux984 (928602) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:26PM (#33693458)

        Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.

        Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button? ;)

    • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:25PM (#33693450) Journal

      I doubt that'll get enough response to hurt them - the subscription fees of a few tech savvy customers don't amount to that much. Ideally a few rich and powerful businesspeople would lose their connections because of this; once the lawsuits start flying that should take care of things.

      • by westlake (615356)

        Ideally a few rich and powerful businesspeople would lose their connections because of this; once the lawsuits start flying that should take care of things.

        The rich can always afford something better than residential grade Internet service at the mass market price. P2P is irrelevant when you have $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 and up invested in front projection home theater.

        • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:54PM (#33693624) Journal

          On the other hand, there are all the (very valid) reasons that Slashdot so often points out for DMCA takedowns being a bad thing: open WiFi, kids using the computer, automated takedown bots, faulty IP address gathering, and probably many others that I've forgotten to mention here.

          Just because Dr. Rockerfeller J. Richington doesn't need to turn to P2P for a copy of The Hurt Locker, it doesn't mean he's immune to DMCA letters.

    • by darpified (698235) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:30PM (#33693494)
      Suddenlink is my provider. They are my *only* choice for reasonably fast internet service. The DSL service here is capped at 1 Mbps and spotty at that. Satellite service is out of my price range, and there is no wireless provider. I'm not happy with them over this, and will send them a message, but cancel my subscription and not have Internet isn't an option. It's an effective monopoly, and they know it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DeadPixels (1391907)
        Many people are in your exact situation, and it's a tough one to be in. You'd like to tell them that you'll be taking your business elsewhere, but when they're the only ones who offer that service, you have no choice but to stick with them or go without. Perhaps you could send them a strongly-worded letter expressing the flaws in this policy and voicing your displeasure? If enough people make enough of a fuss, something might get done - particularly if the news outlets get wind of a 'big company exploiting
      • by hoeferbe (168081) on Friday September 24, 2010 @09:01PM (#33694054)

        It sounds like Suddenlink has somewhat of a monopoly in your area. If that is the case, they are probably regulated by your local government. Although I am not optimistic this will have much effect, you should complain to the franchise authority / regulatory commission that oversees Suddenlink.

        If enough people did, Suddenlink would have no choice but to deep-six this program.

      • but cancel my subscription and not have Internet isn't an option.

        What will you do if they kick you off in a few weeks?

      • by clarkn0va (807617) <apt.get@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday September 24, 2010 @09:08PM (#33694102) Homepage
        Start your own WISP then. It's easier than you might think. I got sick of the lack of options here (6/1, reasonably reliable, in fact), and now I provide internet to my neighbours, 100% legally. It cost me a couple thousand to get started and some sweat ethic, but I now enjoy a 30/4 connection and my neighbours are good enough to pay the bill for me.
        • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Friday September 24, 2010 @10:40PM (#33694514) Journal

          You make an intriguing suggestion - I (and presumably many other /.ers) would very much appreciate a bit more info; how did you get the main connection, how's it shared out, did you come up against any particularly significant red tape, what's the rough cost breakdown (hardware/installation/monthly connection), and so on?

          • by Oceanplexian (807998) on Saturday September 25, 2010 @01:24AM (#33695100) Homepage
            Step 1 - Order a DS3 in a metro area (roughly $2k-3k)

            Step 2 - Go buy some cheap equipment and antennas ($100-1000 for a AP, ~$150-200 for each CPE)

            Step 3 (optional) - Get an FCC license for some licensed spectrum if you're not using 900mhz/2.4/5Ghz. It's actually pretty inexpensive, maybe a a few hundred
            dollars at most and that's it.

            Step 4 - Rent tower space, depending on the area it could run $500-$10000. I'll guesstimate for a few antennas, probably $2000

            This is all assuming you're a typical /. reader and build your own routers, run open-source software and can build enclosures and don't have
            a fear of heights.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by X0563511 (793323)

              ... and can safely climb a 200' tower without significant risk of killing yourself...

              Yea. Not for everyone, even those that don't mind heights. Climbing a tower is NOT the same as climbing a wall, or looking over the edge of a skyscraper roof...

      • by mysidia (191772) on Friday September 24, 2010 @10:32PM (#33694476)

        If you have not, consider heading over to the FCC's Broadband website [broadband.gov], and report a broadband dead zone, run their speed tests, etc. Get all your friends to do the same, even if they have to sign on with a dial-up internet connection to do it.

        Who knows if it will make any difference, but they are building a database of underserved areas.... and there may be government action, incentives, etc, to improve matters now or in the future. I assume the more reports they get for an area from different people, the more likely someone is to take notice and move that area "higher up on the list" of areas that are suffering from poor choice, incumbent monopolization, etc.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by smallfries (601545)

        No worries, if you tell us your IP address then we can cancel it for you. In fact as there is no penalty for submitting incorrect DMCA takedown requests the best thing to do would be to start reporting *every* suddenlink subscriber. I bet they would change their policy quickly enough.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by freeballer (1160851)

      now that I have some options (dsl, cable) I'd immediately cancel if my isp followed suit.
      Its not that I'm for or against dmca, frankly to me its a pandora box they can never close imo.
      If people were proven without a doubt violated copyright then I could see disconnections. But without a
      trial or whatever there is nothing to the accusations. No real proof, or even a proponderance of evidence.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toppavak (943659)
      Even better, file 3 DMCA notices against their own website =)
    • by westlake (615356) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:02PM (#33693674)

      If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.

      That it does.

      It tells them that they have shed another geek who clogs their pipes and will never upgrade his service.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nimey (114278)

      I'm a subscriber, and this is easier said than done. My only other choice in this locality is AT&T, who are infamous for bending over and spreading for Bush's illegal wiretapping.

      • by daveime (1253762)

        I'd like to point out that Bush is no longer in office, and in any case, do you really think Bush or anyone else gives a fuck about your score on Farmville or your Slashdot murmurings ?

        Really, you DO have a choice, and a lot better one than a lot of people here ... not wanting to take it because it might upset the delicately balanced tin-foil hat you are wearing is a different issue.

    • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wSLACKWAREorf.net minus distro> on Saturday September 25, 2010 @12:57AM (#33695014)

      If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.

      Even more interesting would be to examine their IP space, and send DMCA notices to all of them. This could be something that 4chan can do. Eventually, you'll have 3 notices sent to each and every IP address which should mean they've disconnected everyone. After all, if they do it blatantly, they might just not bother doing the necessary legwork to verify every notice.

      Let's just see what happens when their entire customer base gets disconnected and start filing petitions with their state attorney-general over loss of service they've paid for.

      Keep doing this and they'll find out what life's like to be without revenue for 6 months - disconnected users won't continue paying for service they don't get, after all.

  • by schon (31600) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:14PM (#33693362)

    OK, everybody start submitting DMCA reports. They'll be out of subscribers in no time flat.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...

      • by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:48PM (#33693594)
        Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.
        • by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday September 24, 2010 @11:07PM (#33694652) Homepage

          Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.

          I think you may be understating a characteristic of the United States legal system. When an oligarch harms a peasant, the peasant is found guilty. When a peasant harms another peasant, or when an oligarch harms another oligarch, the written code of law is used. In the case of one peasant accusing another peasant under the DMCA, the accusing peasant is subject to legal accountability.

      • by suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:05PM (#33693698)

        Isn't that technically committing perjury?

        Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.

        Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:35PM (#33693880) Journal

        A DMCA notification requires:

        `(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

        Notice the placement of the "and". To make the precedence explicit:

        `(vi) A statement that (the information in the notification is accurate) AND (under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.)

        You only perjure yourself if you misrepresent yourself as representing a rights holder. Any other specific claims in the notice do not matter. If you represent a rights holder you can accuse whoever you want without fear of being prosecuted for perjury.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        That would only be the part about being the copyright holder (or on their authority) of the work you claim is infringed. To be sued for any of the rest you have to match:

        (f) Misrepresentations. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
        (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
        (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
        shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyri

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dcavanaugh (248349)

        Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...

        It is, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the bogus DMCA complaints. If large corporations are getting away with it, why shouldn't everyone else?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)
        Only if you're in the USA. Fun fact: If you submit a DMCA takedown notice from outside the USA, then the court that would find you guilty of perjury has no way of enforcing that judgement.
    • by zill (1690130)
      Call off the DDOS attack. I'm pretty sure my complaint about the IP range *.*.*.* took care of everything.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm sure that if someone went to 4chan, the /b/tards would happily take up the cause after their fine effort against Aiplex.
    • We might want to save that power for when we really need it. The first time we use it will also be the last, before it's quickly put into law that only large corporations get the power to censor the net through DMCA.

    • by Dynedain (141758)

      Better yet, issue DMCA takedown requests for the board of directors.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:15PM (#33693364) Homepage

    ...but the reference to the DMCA is horseshit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zill (1690130)

      ... DMCA is horseshit.

      I wholeheartedly concur.

    • by Sancho (17056) * on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:39PM (#33693534) Homepage

      They are probably referring to this, in section 512:

      `(i) CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY-
      `(1) ACCOMMODATION OF TECHNOLOGY- The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider--
      `(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
      `(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

    • the reference to the DMCA is

      At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate

  • School Rules. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by centuren (106470) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:16PM (#33693368) Homepage Journal

    Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.

  • by the linux geek (799780) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:16PM (#33693370)
    Time Warner's Roadrunner service has had a similar policy for a while, and it's really not that bad of a deal. Basically, if the RIAA/MPAA sees your IP address, instead of trying to extort you for money, they just tell TWC, who redirects you to an angry-sounding webpage next time you try to use the Internet. You click "Accept" or whatever, and then the problem goes away. No subpoenas, no lawsuits. You can do this twice. It's not until the third time that something actually bad happens, and if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:19PM (#33693394)

      > if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet
      Three accusations. Not three convictions.

      • by arbiter1 (1204146)
        really? i could send in 3 DMCA notices on same persons ip and get them kicked off for 6 month's. cause most companies take them at face value and don't even check to make sure the notice is even legit.
    • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:20PM (#33693418) Homepage

      You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.

      • by MoonBuggy (611105)

        Incidentally, why don't we hear about people pursuing that "penalty of perjury" bit in the more obviously spurious takedown letters?

        • Because you don't have to have evidence. You have to have a "good faith belief" that someone is doing something wrong. A "good faith belief" can be justified with minimal information. It's another result of this poorly written DMCA.
        • I would guess that proving--beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is a criminal matter--that it was willful rather than a mistake is difficult in most cases. After all, it is not illegal to make a statement that is false if you genuinely believe it to be true.

    • by melikamp (631205)
      And what do you do when they report you the third time, even you did not break any laws?
      • by Lehk228 (705449) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:40PM (#33693544) Journal
        you subpoena your ISP for a copy of the complaint and sue the filer for libel, tortious interference, harassment, and lobby your state's AG to investigate them criminally for filing a false instrument.
        • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:07PM (#33693710)

          Ah yes. You plan on filing those lawsuits yourself? Be forewarned - he who represents himself has a fool for a client. Not to mention that they can be time intensive. You plan on hiring someone? That'll cost you a pretty penny. And lobbying your state AG? He's too busy running his campaign for governor. Now if you can contribute a few 100k to his campaign, maybe something can be arranged...

          tl;dr: this works only if you're rich and connected. Otherwise, you're part of the unwashed masses, unfit to be paid attention.

    • by Crypto Gnome (651401) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:33PM (#33693858) Homepage Journal

      it's really not that bad of a deal. Basically, if the RIAA/MPAA sees your IP address, instead of trying to extort you for money, they just tell TWC, who redirects you to an angry-sounding webpage next time you try to use the Internet. You click "Accept" or whatever, and then the problem goes away. No subpoenas, no lawsuits. You can do this twice. It's not until the third time that something actually bad happens, and if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet.

      You sir are a complete idiot.

      I've had noticed issued against IP addresses on my network that *have never been active*, not ever.

      It is literally not physically possible for said IP address to have *ever* issued a packet. Their reporting mechanisms are *broken*, it is not just possible, but *likely* that you will be "issued with a notice" even though you have never violated copyright ever.

      Some people will have their only possible internet connection dropped with extreme prejudice for at least six months even though they have not done anything wrong.

  • Countdown to someone sending DMCA takedown notices for random Suddenlink customers begins now...
  • The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:19PM (#33693400)
    Their network is overloaded and it easier to trim the fat (heavy downloaders=pirates after all) then to build out their network.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      heavy downloaders=pirates after all

      Or maybe netflix users. I replaced cable with internet video including netflix, I bet I am quite the heavy downloader.

    • by Khyber (864651)

      "heavy downloaders=pirates after all"

      Yep, lemme tell you, I'm pirating those HD videos off of Vimeo, OFFERED FREELY FOR DOWNLOAD.

    • That's true, but also consider that the heavy downloaders are also willing to pay the most for their Internet connection. I got the fastest Internet I could find in my area, I'd gladly pay more if FiOS or U-Verse build their networks out a few miles, and I figure that the most ISPs end up making bigger profits off of people like me, despite the additional bandwidth usage.
  • Do they serve business customers as well? Because if they do, this is probably going to get them sued before long.
    • ...only if there are SLA agreements. That, and most business customers of a (generally) consumer ISP are going to be fairly small, and without a war chest for litigation. There are exceptions (Verizon stands out as one), but mostly this is the case.

      Most of your bigger businesses (and therefore those more able to litigate) will have providers who also provide SLAs, and have contracts that can actually be negotiated, given the money involved (ISPs such as Integra, AT&T, et al). The smaller guys with the "

  • by seeker_1us (1203072) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:20PM (#33693414)
    And getting a takedown notice (or multiple takedown notices) has NO indication of guilt. There are plenty of cases where MAFIIA robots have sent automated takedown notices without anyone actually taking the time to find out that they didn't own the material in question.

    People should drop this company, ASAP.

  • by viking80 (697716) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:31PM (#33693496) Journal

    Submit DMCA reports on the board and management of suddenlink. They all most likely have full speed connections. Maybe you think they are misusing your IP.

    The policy allows no review of the DMCA, so it would be interesting to see how that develops.

    Company name:
    Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC
    and from their web page:
    Mr. Jerald L. Kent Chairman
    Mary Meduski EVP - Chief Financial Officer Age: 51 314-315-9603
    Mr. Thomas P. McMillin Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Age: 48
    Ralph Kelly SVP - Treasurer 314-315-9403
    Mr. James Fox Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 40
    Mike Pflantz VP - Corporate Finance 314-315-9341
    Mr. Terry M. Cordova Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 49

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by MacGyver2210 (1053110)

      There's the problem right there - they're all old people. If only old people knew how awesome pirating was, they'd probably jump on board instead of trying to shut it down.

      Well, maybe. But they're the ones with the money to actually pay for that shit, so they might not.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Nyder (754090)

        There's the problem right there - they're all old people. If only old people knew how awesome pirating was, they'd probably jump on board instead of trying to shut it down.

        Well, maybe. But they're the ones with the money to actually pay for that shit, so they might not.

        Old people only care about getting up early, and ruining the fun of anyone younger then them.

        They don't actually care about this stuff, but they do enjoy pissing off the younger generation.

    • by codegen (103601) on Friday September 24, 2010 @10:05PM (#33694380) Journal
      Not enough imagination. Of course they are not going to cut off themselves. Same with efforts to DMCA random customers. If you really want to cause trouble, you DMCA the mayor, members of the city council (where the board and exec live) and the local boards in charge of allocating licenses for ISPs. And after a while, you DMCA the children of the first round. Get the people who have the power angry at them.
    • by cosm (1072588)
      Contact them. [suddenlink.com] Emails or live chat or phone. Let them know who pays there bills.
  • New Domain (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    suddenunlink.com is now a registered domain name that points to the original article.

  • New name? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ErikTheRed (162431) on Friday September 24, 2010 @07:37PM (#33693526) Homepage

    Maybe they should change their name to SuddenDisconnect?

  • Major Areas of Operation: Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma

    Oh.

  • I see tons of frivolous items that could be reported on throughout their site to the DMCA. Just start submitting and eventually 3 notices will make it through....Should be great to see Suddenlink have to take their own site down.

  • Of course, it's not like so many ISPs don't have a ton of other obscure terms that allow them to terminate your service on a whim.

  • by Lukano (50323) on Friday September 24, 2010 @08:03PM (#33693682)

    I've been reading the TF thread for about an hour now, and I still can't help but think this is a horrible and stinky decision;

    I've written Suddenlink to communicate my dissatisfaction :

    @SuddenLink : "I've contacted Suddenlink in order to communicate my dissatisfaction. I was given the opportunity to move to an area for a job, that was serviced by Suddenlink. Their policy was the deciding factor in me choosing to reject the job opportunity.

    Way to go Suddenlink, not only have you cost yourselves a reliable customer - your policy is affecting immigration to your country."

    Their response was to play dumb ;

    "I apologize, sir! But I'm not quite sure as to what disconnect policy you're referring to. We do not have any cancellation fees or contracts, and you're free to leave our company without any charge or penalty. "

    To which I replied and pointed them in the direction of the TorrentFreak article ;

    "The disconnect policy in which I refer to, can be found here;
    http://torrentfreak.com/us-isp-disconnects-alleged-pirates-for-6-months-100924/ [torrentfreak.com]"

    And their reply was ;

    @SuddenLink : "Thank you for your email in regards to the DMCA Violation. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you today.

    I apologize that you do not approve of this, sir.'

    wow... I'm glad that they 'apologize' that I don't approve of their policy. Great customer service skills - both on a CSR level and Company-Wide, that this is the best response they can come up with.

  • I got a notice from Time Warner about three years ago regarding a movie I was supposedly sharing. They suspended my internet until I clicked a button promising I wouldn't pirate anyone. They also warned me I only had one warning left (i.e. on my third strike they would discontinue my service).

  • Whoring themselves out to this kinda of organized crime.

    NONE Of the *big* service providers, who run a large, successful, and well managed network are jumping on this bandwaagon.

    This ias *nothing* to do with "catching criminals" or 'stopping piracy', it's a trivial manner for them to legitimize disconnecting the heavy users so they can continue to run a network without having it implode.

    Failure to run your business properly is not a good reason to pound your customers in the ass.
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday September 25, 2010 @12:20AM (#33694892)

    1. Get customer list.
    2. Send three DMCA takedowns per customer, no merit to claims required.
    3. PROFIT!

This is a good time to punt work.

Working...