This is how each ISP is implementing the six-strikes anti-piracy program

ispcas

Now that the “six-strikes” Copyright Alert System has gone live, and we know exactly how some of these alerts will look like, it’s about time that ISPs revealed how they’ll be implementing the system. Let’s go through each of the participating ISPs one by one and see how each of them will go about enforcing the new CAS. Take note that these are the fifth and sixth alerts, which fall under the mitigation phase.

We’ve already covered how Verizon will be implementing the system, and those details  still hold true now that it has officially launched. Verizon will be the only ISP that will be temporarily capping users’ speeds. While they will also force repeat-offenders to watch videos to inform them about copyright and legal avenues to download content, customers that continue to pirate will see their speeds reduced to “near dial-up” speeds.

Cablevision is taking a more heavy-handed approach by completely disabling users’ Internet connections for 24 hours after the 5th and sixth alerts.

Time Warner Cable will not be capping data speeds and instead will implement a “browser lock” which users can only remove after calling a Time Warner representative for a “instructional conversation about copyright and legal methods of downloading content.”

Comcast is also choosing not to throttle Internet speeds and instead will be issuing constant in-browser alerts until they call Comcast Security Assurance and have a similar conversation to that of Time Warner’s implementation.

Finally, AT&T will be forcing users accused of piracy to “take an extra step to review materials on an online portal that will educate them on the distribution of copyrighted content online” before they can access other websites, which sounds pretty much like the browser lock of Time Warner Cable.

So now you know how each ISP will be implementing the system, who do you think is the worst? Best? Or are they all just wasting our time and inconveniencing users? Let us know in the comments!

[via Mashable]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

4 comments

  1. josh

    It isn’t theft if you accept a new service agreement (which I’m sure all ISPs legal departments will be insisting they distribute to their customers) which will stipulate that you agree to the terms. If you don’t, then you can, of course, feel free to discontinue using them as a service provider. As private companies, they have every right to run their business as they choose. If you don’t like it, you have every right to stop being their customer. Also, there is no monopoly. That would mean that only one company provides internet service; which is, of course, not the case. I also doubt that they are making money from content providers, as what they are doing seems relatively tame in comparison to what we’ve seen from groups like the RIAA. Anyway, my point is that internet service isn’t a right or an entitlement. It IS our right to purchase it, however, just like any other goods or services; and it IS our right to decide if the company we have been giving our business to will continue to have us as a customer. Other then that, we have no recourse and that is exactly how it should be.

  2. floydwil

    I believe they should not be in the business of policing the internet by denying paying customers their due service. That is theft. It is the job of law enforcement agencies to govern that. To take a pro-active role in law enforcement is not right and not their job. They already have a monopoly on being a service provider to the world wide web. If a law enforcement agency requests data on specific individuals breaking the law then they should provide that data(only after Law Enforcement gathers enough probable cause that it will stand up in court). Then their job is done at that point. They certainly make enough money without caving in to the content providers witch hunting tactics. I believe that copyright rights should be upheld just not by the service provider. That’s a job for Law enforcement. The real Law breakers will find a way around anything they try to do. So in the end it is pointless to educate.