US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy 280
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."
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:2, Informative)
DMCA does NOT require disconnection (Score:5, Informative)
People should drop this company, ASAP.
Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (Score:5, Informative)
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
New Domain (Score:2, Informative)
suddenunlink.com is now a registered domain name that points to the original article.
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Informative)
A DMCA notification requires:
Notice the placement of the "and". To make the precedence explicit:
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.
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:3, Informative)
You assume the complaints are illegimate. But where is the proof your assumption is right?
No, the problem is that you ASSUME that *each and every single complaint* is *always* legitimate.
They've already had cases thrown out of court because they got their basic facts wrong. So there's *at least* one case of proven failure to be 100% correct - therefore the ASSUMPTION that they're always correct is INVALID.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:4, Informative)
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:This is actually not that bad (Score:2, Informative)