Home > CDNTech, Copryight, P2P, Teksavvy, Voltage > Teksavvy Vs. Voltage Update #2 December 2014

Teksavvy Vs. Voltage Update #2 December 2014

It’s important to note before I start this blog, that as of January 1st, Canadians will start to become familiar with copyright notices if you download through the P2P networks.

I’ve gone through a lot of the court documents.  This blog has been referenced in court several times on both sides.  Seems that the Teksavvy and Voltage lawyers have been taking note of my journalism.  While I appreciate the readership, I am not happy on how both parties are using this blog, to essentially bill out and gain the upper hand in court.  For TSI’s part it billed out the court to essentially read an online debate with David Ellis I had on this blog regarding his mis-interpretation of copyright/privacy law.  For Voltage’s part, they look to be using one of my blogs they dubbed the “Koblovsky Post” in which I came up with some very limited hypothetical numbers they are trying to use to justify low balling the court. The conduct of both parties in this case is “outrageous”.

I’m still reading through these documents, however I’m writing one final post on this subject.  The rest I will keep to myself, and read whenever I feel an urge to go to a 3rd party ISP.  I will quote from my post on DSLR in which there are serious questions about TSI billing the court for fee’s associated with a new computer system they claim was needed to fulfill the courts request, because TSI is claiming it had a data corruption problem in one of their log files:

The courts in Canada are likely to rule on actual costs (or closest to them). TSI looks to be shooting very high and trying to get as much as they can, while Voltage is shooting very low and trying to pay as less as they can.

TSI will essentially play anything less than what they are asking for as a loss, and Voltage will play anything more as ridiculous. The PR on all sides is becoming rather child like in behavior, representative of how incumbent ISPs act, and does nothing to inform, nor protect affected customers.

I’m still pouring over these documents. I still don’t see any valid justification for a new SQL system. I’m also flattered both parties like my blog, and the hours of personal time correcting Ellis’s views on copyright, to which I didn’t receive a dime for. What I don’t like is TSI trying to get money from the courts to essentially read my blogs, and Voltage trying to use my blog to low ball the court. The purpose of the blogs were meant to inform the public and raise questions on both parties in a public forum, and not to be used in consultation for this case with TSI’s or Voltage’s lawyers. Too me that speaks volumes to the “merits” of both parties in this case, and others involved with it.

There are about 1000 different ways to solve IT problems. Part of what a System Analyst does is go through each of those ways to find the best fit for the best price for the problem and budget. Or if you like, the best and most efficient cost effective way to solve system or data flow problems. Usually new system development takes years of planning, and often is a result of changes in technology. A new system is hardly ever the solution to solve one or a few data problems. Data is data and can be very easy manipulated with existing tech. It’s usually several problems that also effect day to day operations before a new system is considered. There is no justification for purchasing a new system to solve one problem. So arguing costs and tech is exactly what both parties want, but I haven’t seen any justification nor process TSI had to go through (yet) in determining how they reached the ultimate solution of a new SQL system. I haven’t found any technical documents that usually accompany a decision to go to a new system, submitted by TSI.

If I’m missing something here, please quote relevant testimony. I’m still going through everything. I haven’t found one DFD or for that matter one flow chart. These documents are usually drawn up while troubleshooting a data related corruption problem, even if the previous system didn’t have documentation. All I see is hearsay on the justification of a new SQL system, met by a cross examination of a forensics expert on that hearsay evidence (which was a complete farce for both parties). I can’t seem to find any scientific imperial data or documentation that usually comes with the decision for a new system, which should be needed before the court considers any costs associated with the IT of this IMO.

Knopf has also posted on the recent court docs here:

»excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014···its.html

While I’m still reading up on the case, I will not be commenting any further on this blog, or to anyone else for that matter. Like Knopf I’ve also said enough in the past.  I’ve just about had enough of being used to add to the bottom lines of both parties, and this blog being used as a pawn in a proceeding I very much disagree with and how both parties have been acting. Giving any more air time on this blog or elsewhere to the two parties involved would be an utter sin without billing $346,480.68 in consultation fees.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: