Slashdot Mirror


UK ISP Disconnects Customers For File Sharing

think_nix writes "Karoo, an ISP in Hull, in the UK, is disconnecting subscribers without warning if they file-share, or are even suspected of file-sharing. Karoo is the only ISP in the area. Copyright owners are working with the ISP helping them identify and report suspected filesharers using their services. In order to get service restored, subscribers have to go to Karoo's office and sign a form admitting guilt and promising not to do it again. The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." Update: 07/24 16:29 GMT by KD : The Register is reporting that Karoo has relented and has changed its policy. A spokesman said: "It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."

11 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. A right not a privilege by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't understand that, if theirs only one ISP it should be a requirement to maintain at least basic service. Considering how much government business is moving online, this is now a requirement to function.

  2. Legal CYA by Etrias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What struck me about this whole thing is the alleged file-sharer has to sign a document admitting guilt and then the promise that they wouldn't do it again.

    Seems awfully heavy handed to me, not to mention legally tricky for those who are accused. What's to say that by signing that document, they won't open themselves up to legal motions by the multinational entertainment companies.

    1. Re:Legal CYA by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cross-out the offending portions and write, "admits no guilt" above them. Then sign.

      If they still refuse to restore service, hire a team of lawyers and sue them under antitrust/antimonopoly legislation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. I don't understand by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users. Why don't the ISPs just say "It's not our problem" to the copyright holders presumably just as the Postal Service would say if people were sending copyrighted documents, CDs, or DVDs through the mail.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:I don't understand by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the ISP's want to be in the business of being copyright holders. ISP's are trying to apply the cable TV business model to the Internet. I hope they fail. I think they will, but am concerned about some things I have been seeing that seem to indicate that they are having some success.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:I don't understand by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users.

      You're assuming it costs more money to police them than it does to kick off the heavier bandwidth users and then have a larger profit margin. 90% of the users pay for the 10% who use bandwidth heavily. Get rid of the 10% and profits soar. Ah, but you assume internet access is a regulated public utility and so they have to be fair and impartial? Te-he. Silly techie, trix are for kids!

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Karoo is NOT the only ISP in the area. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary is incorrect. They still have the option to use dialup from some other company, or satellite.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Re:so? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the U.S., you typically have both the cable company and the phone company vying for Internet business.

    WTF are you basing this on? DSL only ranges about 15,000 to 18,000 feet from the DSLAM. There are huge swaths of land that don't receive DSL service, even in fairly suburban areas. The telco can install remote DSLAMs if they want to but many don't make the effort because there aren't enough potential customers in the area to justify the expense.

    There are many areas where the cableco is your only choice. Worse, the cableco knows this. In my area you can usually get Time Warner to lower your rate if you threaten to move to DSL -- but if you live in an area where DSL isn't an option they refuse any sort of rate deal because they know they have you by the balls.

    You are also discounting the remote areas that have DSL service but are stuck with slow service because of the distance and/or provider policy. I can get DSL where I live -- at a whooping 1.5mbit/s for the same price that Time Warner can deliver 8.0mbit/s. 1.5 isn't really enough to watch decent quality video. So I'm stuck with Time Warner even though DSL is an option.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  6. Guilty until proven... by wjousts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    well, guilty actually, since there doesn't seem to be any provision for proving your innocence. So, guilty until admitted guilty.

  7. What's wrong with saturating your bandwidth? by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't that why you pay for bandwidth? If a company advertises I can buy 5 liters of Coke a week for $2, and I drink five liters of Coke a week, and pay my $2, who are they to complain that I'm drinking more than my fair share of Coke? If they cannot afford to actually provide me 5 liters/week for $2, then they should change their advertising and product offering to something more reasonable.

  8. Re:A modest proposal by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not trying to belittle the problem of moderators censoring what they don't agree with, but have you tried posting on sites that use different moderation schemes? Slashdot is well above average when it comes to giving all sides a voice, probably because the relative scarcity of mod points encourages people to mod up rather than mod down. It's a lot like democracy being a horrible form a government (but the best one that we've found); Slashdot's moderation system allows for abuse and community censorship, but it is the best system I've seen on the Internet.