US ISP Suddenlink Claims The DMCA Requires They Disconnect Users

from the more-like-Sudden-UN-link dept

Fri, Sep 24th 2010 5:22pm — Mike Masnick

TorrentFreak has the news that US cable ISP Suddenlink has implemented its own form of a three strikes policy, and defends it by falsely claiming the DMCA requires it. Torrentfreak has the transcript of a discussion between a customer who has been cut off and a Suddenlink rep blaming the DMCA:

Customer: I want to reconnect my internet service. They said I got 3 DMCA letters and they said that by law I had to be disconnected. Is that true?

Suddenlink rep: Yes, your internet was disconnected due to DMCA. When the internet is disconnected due to DMCA, it can not be reconnected for a minimum of 6 months.

Customer: The DMCA makes that requirement?

Suddenlink rep: Yes.

Customer: So you're stating, for the record, that by law, the DMCA law, that you have to disconnect users for receiving 3 DMCA letters?

Suddenlink rep: You have no choice in the matter.

Suddenlink rep: It is the DMCA policy that it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink rep: It may be the DMCA policy or it may be the way we go about following the DMCA guidelines.

Customer: The law states that?

Suddenlink rep: Once the 3rd offense occurs, it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink Rep: The information I have on the DMCA states: This law was enacted in 1998 to protect against illegal downloading of copyrighted material like movies, music, etc. As an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Suddenlink , and other ISPs, must implement a policy of terminating internet service of customers who repeatedly share copyrighted files.

This is, of course, not true. The DMCA has no requirement that ISPs disconnect people after three accusations (not convictions) -- and it especially doesn't say that ISPs don't need to offer a refund when they do this. For all the fighting by the record labels trying to get a three strikes policy into law and complaining about the DMCA, perhaps it makes them happy to know that some ISPs are simply pretending the DMCA is a three strikes policy.

Of course, customers may think otherwise, and may prefer to find an ISP that actually believes in due process and actually supports its users against unsubstantiated accusations of file sharing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, disconnect, dmca, isps, three strikes
Companies: suddenlink

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Christopher (profile), 24 Sep 2010 @ 5:46pm

I see a lawsuit over this the first time SuddenLink does this, because there is NOTHING in the DMCA or any other law passed in the United States about this three strikes bull. N O T H I N G!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re:
  Any private company in the US has the right to refuse service. So the only way you could sue is if you proved in your lawsuit that their disconnection was discrimination based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation (and not based on evidence you were pirating).
  
  The law doesn't have to mandate 3 strikes for ISP's to take that up as their policy. You are not guaranteed a contract with an ISP under the constitution any more than you are guaranteed one with the electric/gas company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2010 @ 7:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The law doesn't have to mandate 3 strikes for ISP's to take that up as their policy."
    
    You mean I should be able to send 3 letters with no proof and have them boot everyone off of their service? "Because I said so" does not make it true.
    
    Merely accusing someone of something does not make it true.
    I could call you an idiot shill for stupid ideas, but that does not make it... er bad example.... nevermind.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 2:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Any private company in the US has the right to refuse service. So the only way you could sue is if you proved in your lawsuit that their disconnection was discrimination based on gender, race, age, or sexual orientation (and not based on evidence you were pirating)."
    
    The US doesn't have law protecting private individuals from breach of contract? Those poor people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 5:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, we do.... which is something that Anonymous missed. This can be held as 'breach of contract' because the ISP is not waiting until a COURT DECISION before cutting off service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 26 Sep 2010 @ 1:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yes, we do.... which is something that Anonymous missed. This can be held as 'breach of contract' because the ISP is not waiting until a COURT DECISION before cutting off service."
        
        Kinda funny, because if they had just cited their TOS then they'd probably get away with it (despite most TOS' being oh so one sided and potentially unfair contracts).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cdaragorn (profile), 26 Sep 2010 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thankfully, we still have laws that make things like this illegal, even if they have it written into a contract. They can say whatever they want in their TOS, that doesn't immediately make it enforceable in court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Martin H, 26 Sep 2010 @ 6:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    yes but suddenlink is not purely a "private company" It operates by benefit of of a cable franchise. One requirement of the franchise (monopoly) is that it does provide services to anyone that wants them. if it is technically feasible in the franchise area.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - georgee, 18 Jan 2018 @ 5:01pm
    
    Any private company in the US has the right to refuse service.
    YES, but, most ISP like mine in Phoenix is an "monopoly" in that, Cites, not you choose who they allow to lay cable. Not sure if Courts have ruled on MONOPOLIES WHERE ONE HAS NO CHOICE BUT Politician do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 24 Sep 2010 @ 5:52pm

SuddenLink is a private company and reserves the right to refuse service to anyone based on TOS policies.

If you have violated those terms of service by pirating, and do not stop after repeated warnings, they are well within their rights to disconnect you.

It is well known ISP's often profit from piracy. I commend SuddenLink for standing up for what is right in these actions, and not just what brings in the most money.

I hope more ISP's will take the initiative to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Sep 2010 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  SuddenLink is a private company and reserves the right to refuse service to anyone based on TOS policies.
  
  Indeed. They're absolutely within their rights to do so.
  
  But claiming it's because of the DMCA is a lie.
  
  It is well known ISP's often profit from piracy.
  
  Huh? It is not "well known." Please prove it. As far as I can tell, ISPs lose money from such activities, since it tends to use more bandwidth for the same fees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 27 Sep 2010 @ 6:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps he is confused and referring to ISP's profiting from PTP file sharing services - which are, in fact, more efficient uses of bandwidth and probably save ISP's money.
    
    However, I think I am attributing far more reason and intelligence to this particular person.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 27 Sep 2010 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    "But claiming it's because of the DMCA is a lie."
    
    They were probably fed that line of bull sh!t by some studio or label type wanting to get 3 strikes implememnted at that ISP. We know the content poviders are "Negotiating" 3 strikes with the ISPs here in the US. Perhaps SuddenLink doesn't have a very large legal staff and accepted them at their word.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re:
  It's kind of amusing how backwards you think.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2010 @ 8:34pm
  
  Re:
  "If you have violated those terms of service by pirating, and do not stop after repeated warnings, they are well within their rights to disconnect you.
  "
  
  You see, the problem is that I don't need to do anything. They don't need any proof to kick me out, just an accusation.
  
  How funny would it be if you got sent to jail just because the cops overheard some guy mentioning to some guy that he heard from an alleged cousin that maybe someone that looked like you was smuggling crack? Not so funny huh?
  
  Well, that's basically what you are supporting here. Good luck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 2:41am
  
  Re:
  "It is well known ISP's often profit from piracy. I commend SuddenLink for standing up for what is right in these actions, and not just what brings in the most money."
  
  Followers of the pedobono cult.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike rice (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: Maybe Anonymous Shouldn't Be Anonymous
  What part of the copyright holder industry do you work in? There is really no incentive for an ISP to cut off a customer. There is no incentive to 'misread' the DMCA rules. Why should an ISP give up revenue for a rule that isn't really a rule? Answer: There isn't any reason and it won't happen very often.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  "SuddenLink is a private company and reserves the right to refuse service to anyone based on TOS policies. "
  
  If said TOS policies state that alleged DMCA violations will result in disconnection then yes.
  
  If the TOS contains no such clause and they're only using the DMCA as the reason for disconnection then no.
  
  There is no suggestion in the above conversation that a clause in the company's TOS states any such thing, and so the company are in violation of the contract, and guilty of fraud if no refund is offered.
  
  "If you have violated those terms of service by pirating, and do not stop after repeated warnings, they are well within their rights to disconnect you."
  
  Please point to the section of the DMCA that requires them to do this, or failing that the part of the company's TOS that states this.
  
  "It is well known ISP's often profit from piracy."
  
  Only in the minds of desperate **AA members, unless you have any proof that this is true (and no, "people like to use fast broadband" is not proof).
  
  "I hope more ISP's will take the initiative to do the same."
  
  Fraudulently take money from consumers without offering service? Funny way to run a business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cyryl, 26 Sep 2010 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re:
  Only Anonymous cowards post such bullshit.
  
  The company is well within it's right to do whatever it wants to the customer.
  
  Hell... I have the choice and the right to go out and stab someone in their fucking face any time I want.
  
  Doesn't mean that you should and that there aren't consequences.
  
  Moreover... There could possibly be some legalities involved in implicating federal laws as 'requiring' them to take certain 'predisposed' actions against their customers.
  
  As it has already been said: There is NOTHING in the DMCA law that should/could be construed as any kind of advisement to ANY company on how to proceed in dealing with any situations that are related to the DMCA laws.
  
  I would actually like for you to also provide us with some kind of documentation that supports your statement that ISP's profit from piracy. Be specific. "It gives them a customer base because it gives people a reason to need an internet connection" doesn't count, either.
  
  I'm sure you won't be responding, though. Anonymous cowards like to post bullshit and never back it up when they're called on their own bullshit.
  
  Suddenlink has their views on DMCA all fucked.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2010 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  Suddenlink is misrepresenting the law, which is an actionable offense for civil liabilities. They decided not to indicate in their TOS that this was the action they would take, and inside moved that over to a falsification of law to relinquish itself of a trouble customer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sally, 6 May 2013 @ 9:11pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous on Sep 24th, 2010 @ 5:52pm
  Oh please get off your high horse
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:04pm

Sigh
This is why the solution is to ensure competition--something those socialists across the pond have figured out, oddly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bigpicture, 26 Sep 2010 @ 9:23pm
  
  Socialists?
  Socialists, because the government elected "by the people" actually represents "the people" and not the pretentious good old USA government that represents BIG BUSINESS only, and tries to sell these policies world wide, where everyone else is NOT BUYING. (and they don't even have "by the people" in their constitutional documents, imagine that)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Sep 2010 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: Sigh
  +1000
  
  Most geographic locations have a maximum of three, count them THREE internet choices, not types mind you (although they usually match types: Cable, DSL, satellite), but there will only be three companies providing service to a particular location, due to govt. granted monopolies. Such bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:06pm

Some math
Depending on the market, the average ISP customer is worth $600 to $1500 per year. By definition, when you kick off a customer, you have already invested in building out to that customer's location. The marginal cost of serving that customer is most likely close to zero, and most of that investment can't be transfered to another customer. Furthermore, you have a relatively fixed sized market. Once an area is well served, it is hard to get new customers in that area. So, when a cable company kicks off customers it is hurting its own bottom line pretty severely.

I am guessing that either a)they got a new lawyer who is being over cautious or b)someone from the recording industry got to a naive executive in the company and convinced them that DCMA required the ISP to kick off customers.

If they kick off many customers, someone on the finance side of the company is going to look at the revenue line and bring the ISP to its financial senses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:10pm

actually the ISP has a contract, and they can't just disregard that contract because someone else "told them to"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry (profile), 27 Sep 2010 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  They CAN but it does not mean that they will get away with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:21pm

I can see where this is going. Let's say you have a contract with an ISP which extends over a certain period of time and there is an ETF. They get three accusations and cut you off, but claim that you must still continue to pay the monthly fee because the contract stipulates such. Beware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:23pm
  
  Re:
  They already clarified in an email posted on TorrentFreak they have no disconnection fees and you are free to cancel your account at any time.
  
  So they don't really force you to do anything. If you don't like the disconnection, you can take your business elsewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 24 Sep 2010 @ 8:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "If you don't like the disconnection, you can take your business elsewhere."
    
    For now ... as clearly stated in the post - in the future your ass is grass
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ofb2632 (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 4:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    In some markets, suddenlink is the only isp available. So if they disconnect you, you have no real way of getting back online.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Liz, 6 Sep 2011 @ 10:02pm
    
    Dumb
    So disconnection is a feature now? If one is disconnected they'd sort of have to, wouldn't they? That's a stupid thing you said.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 24 Sep 2010 @ 6:42pm

VOIP
I wonder how long until someone claims their ISP hosts their phone service and disconnected their only emergency line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re: VOIP
  Ah! I didn't think of this, but it is VERY possible that this could come up.
  
  Really, I don't have a problem with them dropping pirates.... if they are proven to be that in a little thing called A COURT OF LAW!
  
  Unfortunately, SuddenLink wants to say "Just because someone accuses you, you are guilty!" That don't fly and could very well lead to a civil suit that they would LOSE IMMEDIATELY!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spike, 24 Sep 2010 @ 7:49pm

What a moron. ISP's actually profit off the grannies that have high speed connections that just check email and their facebook. These people maybe use 1GB a month.

Profiting from piracy? Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some one with more than three brain cells, 2 Jan 2016 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  They absolutely profit from it because more than a few people would not keep a steady internet connection if they couldnt get content such as movies and software for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 2:34am

One more pirate is born.
I doubt he will pay for content in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 3:46am

I wonder if there is no such thing ass wrongful termination and statutory damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  It is VERY possible that someone could sue SuddenLink for wrongful termination of services and statutory damages. That is why the SMART ISP's have said that absent a court order, they won't do jack!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 7:27am

those of you who think that they are 100% within their rights... you are sorta right, but only sorta (mostly).

In something like this, they are ironclad safe if they just make it part of their TOS and then point to the TOS when it happens. but by making their customer service reps lie and point out that its because of the DMCA they in fact do open themselves to liability.

can they legally cut people off like that? oh hell yes.
are they complete MORANS for telling their CSRs (most of whom think DMCA is a rap group from the 80s) to lie? absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, they cannot. Someone can posit that it goes against the whole "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing, which contrary to popular belief, does apply to private organizations.
  
  It's like a private organization firing you because you were arrested for pandering.... until you are CONVICTED of that, they are bucking for a civil suit against them!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PrometheeFeu (profile), 27 Sep 2010 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Many of us have "at-will" contracts. Which means baring specialy protected classes (ethnicity, handicap, sexual orientation) they don't need any reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 7:35am

If mommy and daddy catch your hand in the cookie jar, they don't need any reason to ground you for 6 months. They can just do it because they are in control.

Likewise if Suddenlink decides it doesn't like pirates using their service then they have the right to kick people off just because for no good reason. The fact that God told them to do it or because the DMCA says so is completely irrelevant.

Does that make them a bad ISP? You can't answer that without knowing if the person was actually doing any sort of illegal downloading.

I would still like to believe there are good people in this world who are working in good businesses. As an ISP, I think Suddenlink can easily determine who is doing what and kick the baddies off their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  I would think you could make the decision on if they were a "bad ISP" by examining their cowardly lying to their customers.
  
  Perhaps you support that, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  That's bullshit of the highest order. I wonder how much you were paid to say this shite?
  
  There have been many cases where the information sent to the ISP is wrong; or where the information linked to by the DMCA notice sender has it wrong; or where there's copyfraud going on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  They don't need proof to kick you out. You are a paying customer, and suddenly they _claim_ (no proof) that you were doing something wrong and kick you out. Oh, and their justification is "because the law says we must".
  
  Do you see a problem here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 9:55am

Glad they're not my ISP. Pity the suckers forced to use them.
Sounds like they're a bunch of dull-witted nincompoops to me. Where the hell are they based? Some backwater in Alabama? Suddenlink - what a stupid name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: Glad they're not my ISP. Pity the suckers forced to use them.
  Suddenly linkless is more like it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
brrruce (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 11:24am

Suddenlink is not alone in this
Mediacom (cable provider in the midwest, USA, one of two ISP's in this area) does this too. They send one letter, then disconnect the offending customer temporarily (until they sign a letter that essentially says they know how to secure their connection against unauthorized use).
Three strikes and you're out. No proof, no method of redress with the provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: Suddenlink is not alone in this
  Except a LAWSUIT agianst the company, which could lose this company more money that it is worth!
  
  The companies who are doing this are STUPID because under the DMCA, they are golden! If these companies wish to do something to someone? THey can sue them, NOT extrajudicially have the ISP's cut someone off.... which by the way, is ILLEGAL, TOS or no, until someone is proven in a COURT OF LAW that they are infringing.
  
  It's like someone yelling "THAT PERSON IS A CHILD MOLESTER!" and they are automatically thrown into prison without any real proof.
  
  Even private corporations and citizens cannot do that bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TruckeeTrash, 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:18pm

Sudinlink Killed my dreams
I have suddenlink because there is no other option where I live in Truckee CA. They both suck and blow at the same time.
They sued the public utility district because they were going to bring cheap fiber to my doorstep. Pore sudden links crappy service couldn’t compete so they have been tied up in litigation milking me dry for over five years.
There tech support sucks, there installers are worthless and their service is unreliable.

On the plus side though they use docsis 1.0 they pants around there ankles from a security standpoint. My suggestion to anyone that got kicked without a refund get a hacked surfboard modem and keep on surfing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2010 @ 12:39pm

USA government will have to bail Suddendisconnect out when they fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 25 Sep 2010 @ 2:29pm

again slander and defamtion of character
sue on the grounds they did not prove you were breaching a contract beyond a reasonable doubt

SUE for the defamation to your character and then when you succeed here go after them for breech of contract and make sure you get a year or two plus lawyers fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm, 26 Sep 2010 @ 8:25am

maybe..
Maybe the overall plan is:

step 1. file hundreds of thousands of letters extorting cash...

step 2. get ppl kicked off their connection incorrectly

step 3. send hundreds of thousands of "we can represent you in a court and get you compensation....." letters

profit all the way...step 1 from copyright holders..step 2 from **IA etc... and step 3 from the customers themselves....

someone finally found a way to turn win-win into win-win-win (at least for the legal firms!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2010 @ 10:22am

probably been said.
but yes...it is withing Suddenlink's right to cut someone off...it's even within their right to lie about the reason to do it....just like it is within your right to broadcast to every single person that is or could potentially be their customer that they follow this practice. Vote with your wallets people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadderMak (profile), 26 Sep 2010 @ 9:38pm

Surprised no one else linked here yet...
http://www.suddenlink.com/terms-policy/

Want to question if the TOS allows disconnect with no refund/rebate?

Answer can be found above (somewhere... gave up after 13 pages and the fact their residental agreement has been superceeded by a "customer" one but cannot find the link)

Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl (profile), 27 Sep 2010 @ 11:59am

In TOS
This is, unfortunately, in their Terms of Service:

6. NO INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

You agree that you will not use, nor allow others to use, the Internet Service to send or receive any information that infringes the intellectual property, including without limitation patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets or proprietary rights of any other person or entity. This includes, but is not limited to digitized music, movies, books, photographs, art or other copyrighted materials or software, including Suddenlink-provided software.
- Acceptable Use Policy

If you continue to transfer Copyrighted Material illegally, you are violating Suddenlink's policies and Suddenlink may take further action, including limiting your Internet download capacity, suspending or terminating your account, or a range of other measures.
- Copyright Infringement Information FAQ

Still, saying it's required by the DMCA is very stupid. (No such claim is made in their TOS, of course.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theodore, 29 Sep 2010 @ 10:17pm

Parents accused of possible bogus DMCA notices/complaints now need info/help to fight against RIAA/MPAA ISP 3 Strikes.
My local and only high speed ISP is claiming that my parents had
downloaded a copy of Inception from Warner Brothers. Because of this
They are claiming that due to the DMCA they "have to" disconnect my
parents internet access. **Now I have done some digging around on this
topic and have come to find out that the ISP's claim is false. No
where in the DMCA does it state that an ISP must disconnect a user
over a DMCA complaint. When I pushed Mediacom over this issue they
claimed their hands are tied. When they receive a complaint they must
turn off the user's internet access because they don't have a choice
or say in the matter. This I find very troublesome. how ever as to
Mediacom's claim that my parents downloaded this movie, not to insult
my mother but she lacks the mental ability to be able to understand
how to even download a movie or use P2P software. My father is just
lucky enough just to start the machine and that's it. Now granted I
don't know if this is just a bogus DMCA or the fault of a
malfunctioning router that allowed someone to get on to the wireless
signal. Either way I feel that this is bull shit of the highest level
for an ISP to be acting in such a way. Now I have filed a counter
notice on my mothers behalf to their "Mediacom Internet Enforcement
Team" "dmcaabuse@mediacomcc.com" I have also called their number
listed on the paper they sent her, (888)759-6135, how ever it only
leads to a customer service rep. who claims they don't have the number
to this department. how ever I feel that because the counter notice
was in a PDF format I think it was auto trashed as spam. If anyone can
help me on how to fight this, to a lawyer who will be willing to help
out please send me something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adair, 21 Oct 2010 @ 8:45pm

I wonder how much the RIAA is paying suddenlink for every customer it disconnects???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grandfather Time, 10 Nov 2010 @ 6:34pm

suddenlink actually does not give any warning. They just restrict your access and make you check a few boxes, enter your account number and wait five minutes on the first offense. They send you something in the mail that includes the name of the file, etc.

They make you basically promise it will not happen again.

I got one of these over a neighbor downloading a film through my wireless network, which is open, because some of my neighbors can't afford cable internet.

Sure, it is my fault for leaving my network open. I don;t deny that. I have since "closed" my connection to my neighbors, so to speak.

It doesn't seem like they really much care, as when I called a rep to inquire about it, he had no friggin' clue what I was talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 29 Nov 2010 @ 3:54pm

opyright Infrengement
After receiving a letter from MC I talked to my son about the law. I then called a computer guy. He came over and deleted all downloads by my son and scrubbed his computer. My son was very sorry for whst he did and will never,I asure you, do it again.
Thank you for letting me know what was going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Pauley, 24 Dec 2010 @ 9:58pm

What can an ISP really do?
So Suddenlink is a private company and if you agree to their service terms they have the right to refuse service to anyone who violates their terms. So in those same terms they also have the right to block sites they deem inappropriate or potentially sources of piracy? This is what's going on now. Suddenlink changes the firmware on the modems they rent out so you can't view certain sites. I know other places this happens, how about Iran or China. I know I don't like half the internet I like it all, I will never be a Suddenlink customer. I've even seen settings changed on routers owned by the customer. What can this isp do if you own both your router and modem. Those things are your property, how can their company service terms give them the right to modify settings on your property????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:17pm

Something is Still Unfair
MC shut off my internet stating that there was a second offense on my account by downloading spartacus. My problem with this act is that I pay for starz and the service to watch this show. I can watch it on demand through cable, but prefer watching it on my computer. I never recieved a first notice. There are truly no freedoms left in the world, everything is controlled by money.

sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DrBam (profile), 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:51am

interesting retroactive termination from suddenlink
I personally had an interesting case with Suddenlink whereas I was retroactively terminated from an alleged 3 strikes DMCA violation from 6 months+ prior after Suddenlink updated their TOS policy to 3 strikes. I initially received 3 notices within a day or so and immediately remedied the situation by updating the security on my WiFi in which Suddenlink stated was sufficient and that they would note my account and it would not affect my service. I actually found out after my internet went down for a few days and after a few hours of troubleshooting, I was transferred to some legal dept who informed me that even though the rep had previously told me it would be fine, they have since updated their policy and my service was terminated to reflect that change, and that they did not have to inform me of the change nor notify me of termination. The funny part was that I was eligible to sign back up in 6 months�

It�s been over a year now, I pay slightly more for slower DSL speeds but, I do not worry about letters (speculation) stemming from an undisclosed business relationship between Fox and Suddenlink in which Suddenlink receives benefits, perhaps VOD selection or rates, in exchange for overly aggressive copyright favoring DMCA policies.

Full disclosure: Former suddenlink employee and still current cable customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elliot, 29 Jun 2011 @ 1:24am

Hi
I got a strike on my account, my internet was disconnected. and I had to agree on a Page not to do it again. 1am morning and I was trying to contact Sudden-link to get the problem fixed. I just singed up last week. I have 30 days money back guaranteed. I canceled at&t DSL because they where capping the internet per month. with penalty. I watch a lot of netflix and I go over my cap. At&t is not unlimited no more.so Suddenlink spys on there users where about witch is wrong.sudden-link started a meter of how much data I use.my strike caused net to be out.and agreement page signed by me at a website. what do you folks think about (EarthLink DSL)Im looking into it.but there all going to do it. Canada was complaining last week millions about all these rules and caps. :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liz, 6 Sep 2011 @ 11:19pm

Anonymous is a stupid goon
Singing... "SuddenLY! You're disconnected..."

Suddenlink's service is a joke. They've called my home at least twice, asking what we use our internet for. I do not download anything at all to be suspicious of. When asked why they were calling me with such a question and they said that they'd noticed a spike in activity.

Uh. I'm sure you did, I just signed back up with Netflix.

I really don't think it's their place to be monitoring what I do and calling me up to demand an accounting for our internet traffic. I've got no kids and my connection is secure. So basically I feel like I'm being berated for a service that I pay for.

I suspect that they've been turning me off when they feel I'm using the service too much, but I can't prove it.

Some of the stories here, in addition to what I've personally experienced, are infuriating.

Listen here Anonymous Fool, Suddenlink treats us like we're thieves---maybe I should send them a bill for all my work hours that their insufficient "service" caused me to lose. Which I might very well be able to do if I can prove that they're cutting me off on purpose.

Goons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riceroni, 25 Nov 2011 @ 7:25pm

Full Of Crap!!
This is bullshit! Suddenlink know they can get away with this shit because in many towns they're the only high speed ISP provider and there's no competitions. Thus they can bully customers like they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am

I got kicked off service twice. One time I did download a movie. The second time I left the movie in my download folder and someone started uploading, they got me for that. I made a simple phone call to suddenlink and service was restored with a stern warning. no more u torrent on my computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max, 10 Feb 2012 @ 7:03pm

Trustworthiness
Suddenlink is not trustworthy. Is barely within the law; pushing at the edge of it. I suspect they are some kind of spyware till they are caught by the justice department. They are especialy incapable email handlers. They are not even qualified to be an email handler in my opinion. They prevent or block the use of any other email handling as if they own the computer real estate te customer uses. As a user I am stuck with them a few weeks till I move on to somewhere I can toss them in the garbage. They are the most insulting orgsniztions I have ever dealt with. They hav in 4 months isulted me in more ways thn all the remainder of my 82 years combined. Very repugnant unworthy satanists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roy C Gilbert, 8 Nov 2012 @ 3:50am

DMCA
Suddenlink I'm already pissed as hell over Suddenlink cutting me back from unlimited usage without my knowledge or consent. Terminate my service for any reason even one fucking time and it will be the last time. There will not be any re-connection after six months there will not be any re-connection period, I will simply put "be a case of gone", and Suddenlink can loose the hog prices Suddenlink already bills me each month for it's scrooge internet service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karey Bolin, 3 Dec 2012 @ 9:05am

suddenlink
Got this notice last night on my internet. Called to get a specific time on this occurance and it was when nobody is home. I have a locked passcode on my WIFI so now their response is someone came around with a sophisticated tool and hacked my WIFI to download a song. Guess who's switching services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rofl, 19 Dec 2012 @ 1:19am

LOL
I work for Suddenlink, and the DMCA is set in place of course to keep users from downloading content illegally.. such as torrents and what not.. However, after 10 notifications ANY ISP is able to ban internet up to 6 months without notice. And Karey that issue is actually very easily done. I know for a fact you can. Its not a sophisticated too at all - you can download it. If you customers would get off your computers, and stop sharing illegal files and downloading porn and stuff maybe you wouldnt have these issues haha. And also, we will not lose any lawsuite in this, as y'all are sharing illegal material - or someone is using ur IP address to do so, so unfortuantly, once again the customer loses haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FALON, 27 Jan 2013 @ 2:45pm

CABLE BEING CUT BACK ON
I WILL BE PAYING MY CABLE BILL ON FEBUARY 1st. WHEN WILL MY CABLE BE CUT BACK ON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 18 Apr 2013 @ 5:48pm

DMCA
For the record, it's 10 dmca violations before your services are shut off. They temporarily suspend your services for dmca violations, but you aren't disco'd until you've recieved 10 warnings for dmca violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 16 Jan 2014 @ 10:44am

Seriously WTF?!?
THEY DO THIS JUST BECAUSE IF THE USER DOWNLOADS PORN OR OPEN A FUCKING NUDE PICTURE ON INTERNET OR DOWNLOAD A FUCKING TORRENT ONLINE THEY DO DISSCONNECT MY FUCKING INTERNET FOR WHAT FOR RUDE WHY DCMA?!? FOR MY SAFETY AND BY THE WAY I'M NOT ONLY THE ONE WHO IS SUFFERING FROM THIS BUT SOME OF THE WORLD I THINK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C, 26 Sep 2015 @ 5:27pm

Suddenlink 3-D MCA strike policy
Three DMCA strike policy by Suddenlink is a load of BS just got off the phone with technical support dues name is Eric from Texas call-center hey was so cool that he change the config file my modem to a higher speed than what I currently pay for on top of that as he was doing that my third DMCA popped up he bypassed it and informed me that not to worry about it I got up to 10 year
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willy, 29 Sep 2015 @ 3:35am

Suddenlink 3-D MCA strike policy
You mentioned due process in a statement. The constitution does have a secret treasure map on it but it isn't on the back and it isn't invisible .It is on the front and in black and white and due process is part of it. Sue in federal court. For big bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Nov 2018 @ 11:51pm

My internet is down and we haven't got any warnings and sure in hell haven't downloaded ANYTHING. stupid Suddenlink gets on my nerves. Like come on I was in the middle of playing battlefield 4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]