Why wouldn't you expect to get warranty support? You don't void your automobile warranty by using another brand of air filter, or not having the plug and wires replaced in a dealer-approved garage, or any number of otherwise reasonable things. So why should installing a 3rd-party app void your warranty?
Why can't we call it a Colbert on land too? "I'm heading to the Colbert to take a Colbert." "Man, my Colbert stinks! I shouldn't have had those tacos for lunch." One if by land, two if by Colbert.
For the record, I love the Colbert Report. Especially the one a week or so ago where he lambasted Glen Beck for making his career off of 9/11. Colbert and Stewart are amazing.
"Part of their Safe Harbon immunity requires them to actively respond to takedown request and to cooperate with copyright enforcement. You might be able to read that as requiring them to participate in this sort of program. I know if I was marketing such a program that that is indeed the spin I would put on it."
Actually no it does not require an SP to "cooperate with copyright enforcement." SPs are required to follow very specific steps to meet the requirements of the Safe Harbor provision. It does not in any way require the SP to cooperate with copyright holders. It requires the SP to receive DMCA Takedown notices, take action against the customer based on those notices (notification, disabling in some cases) but does not require anything beyond that. Like I said in a previous post, all copyright holders include links in their Takedown notices and imply that the SP is required to use that link to provide the copyright holder with customer info. They're relying on at least a few SPs being dumb enough to provide them with said information. They can legally ask for the info in the Takedown notice but it is illegal for the SP to provide it thanks to CPNI. SPs can not provide any customer info without a court order. A DMCA Takedown notice is not a court order. The fine per CPNI violation is extremely stiff. We can all thank former HP CEO Patricia Dunn for that.
For the record I can speak with authority on the topic because I do work for an SP and contract to others. I receive several Takedown notices each week.
"So assisting in enforcement doesn't hurt them."
Actually it may very well hurt them depending on what the ISP does. The ISP can not legally give out any customer info without a court order. A DMCA Takedown notice is not a court order. Providing any customer without a court order is a CPNI violation and hence illegal. All copyright holders provide a link in their Takedown notices implying that the ISP is required to use the form found at that link to provide the copyright holder with the customer's information. They're hoping that there are at least a few SPs out there who are dumb enough to do that. It is of course illegal for the SP to do so.
Back to the topic of the original article, providing any customer info to Nexicon is a CPNI violation. CPNI isn't just for telcos, folks.
On the topic of DOCSIS 3 in general, there is no such thing as DOCSIS 3.1. There also is no such thing as "proprietary extensions" being added to DOCSIS 3.0. The notion is purely horse shit. A CM or CMTS is only certified by CableLabs as DOCSIS-compliant if it adheres to the strict CableLabs DOCSIS spec. There aren't any "proprietary extensions" in DOCSIS. This is exactly what DOCSIS was created to eliminate. CMs are 100% interchangeable. Moto CMs offer no enhancements on DOCSIS that Arris CMs don't already offer and likewise with the other smaller CM manufacturers.
The only things slowing DOCSIS 3.0 deployment are 1) demand or need for the benefits of DOCSIS 3 (bandwidth or IPv6 support for CMs) and 2) cost. DOCSIS 3.0 requires a significant investment in the HE. It's not a simple software upgrade. In many cases the CMTS itself must be replaced and a new investment made in expensive new hardware. If the cost was the same then we'd be deploying DOCSIS 3.0 CMTSs today and migrating CMs as needed. An Arris C4 costs approximately $250,000 for a basic chassis with half a dozen upstreams and a single downstream. The pizza box C3 which does not support DOCSIS 3.0 (and never will) costs $20,000. If the demand was there for bandwidth we'd be deploying DOCSIS 3.0 CMTSs. If we were Comcast and had the world's largest CATV OSP we'd be deploying DOCSIS 3.0 CMTSs for our CM management needs alone (and they are BTW regardless of whether or not they're offering DOCSIS 3.0 to their users).
From TFA "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach." I wonder whether the factual edits were something like the differences mentioned between the two: Dinosaurs Wikipedia "Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago." Conservapedia "They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."