Re: "customers suspected of illegal file-sharing"
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but read your quote again
Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law"
Copyright infringement is a civil offence not a criminal one. Personally, I'd consider it simply a matter of semantics (in that it should apply to both) but those in a position to abuse the difference seem perfectly willing to do so.
Considering how much is online nowadays, it'll be interesting to see what happens if people are cut off. As a UK example, you can only file a VAT return online now. If I'm cut off based on suspicion and then get fined because I filed my return late (though you'd need a good reason why you couldn't use another connection) could I then attempt to pass the charges onto the media companies?
If I'm cut off (again based on suspicion) and my (theoretical) gran's posh new pacemaker can't connect to the net, causing a minor panic at the local surgery, who's fault is it? They've already shown that they can get false positives, just as RBS has shown the world that any system can fail. So what happens when they fuck up?