The code was authorized for private use. Any decent lawyer could argue that a retailer reselling them has to obtain permission from Disney. If I pay for a boxing match on pay for view, I can invite as many people I want into my house to watch it. If I am showing it at the bar I own, I need a separate agreement.
Again you want to twist the logic of it, you can try. A court will probably decide differently. And even if you might be right, a shrinkwrap contract is enforceable.
Again, we'll have to let the court rule on this. Argue with the judge afterward, not me beforehand.
So I can't argue your opinion with mine? What world do you live in?
What you're missing (or willfully ignoring) is that the code itself is a fact, not a copyrighted work. That it can later be used (once and only once, mind you) to obtain a copyrighted work is purely coincidental; the copy that is made and distributed as a result of entering that code is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner who, ostensibly, is authorized to do so upon receipt of a valid code.
My point is that you've asserted that this true. I contest that it is true.
There, we agree. And when Disney's authorized partner makes and distributes a copy of the movie when a valid code (which only works once, mind you) is entered, nothing has been stolen.
Except in the exact facts of this case, Redbox did not obtain a valid copy from Disney. Redbox appears to buy combo sets from retail, split them up, and sell them individually. Such a move requires a license or agreement. If you think about it, can Target or Walmart or Amazon can split a physical box set into multiple discs to re-sell without permission of the copyright owner? No. Can I as a private individual? Probably not but Disney isn't going to go after me if I sell the DVD I don't use to a friend.
We agree, there, as well. Of course, it doesn't make Disney's authorized distribution partner any less authorized, either.
My point is that Redbox was never authorized to do this kind of digital distribution and all articles say that.
Actually, Movies Anywhere enforces this by only accepting a given code once.
Movies Anywhere has the support and backing of the studios including Disney to do this. Again, Redbox did not.
On the slip... in the box... That constitutes them being unavailable at the time of purchase, as you're not allowed to see them until after.
Um what? It's on the box. The terms were clearly presented on the box in the photo. There are more terms inside if you open the box but it's clearly on the box that Redbox can't do what it did.>/p>
Linked elsewhere in the discussion. But, since I know you'll just call that a lie, here: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg [freibrun.com].
First of all it was not the Supreme Court. It was the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Facts are important. And the ProCD case held that the defendant Zeidenberg was held liable to the shrinkwrap contract terms even if the telephone listings could not be copyrighted. "The court then held the license valid and enforceable as a contract." The problem with your link is that it is outdated. "This case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. . . . May 1, 1996". ProCD was decided by the Seventh Court on June 20, 1996 and upheld the shrinkwrap contract. Therefore your point about shrinkwrap licenses being unenforceable is not correct.
No, I mean the actual complaint Disney filed with the court. It's linked (by another user) elsewhere in this discussion, I suggest you read it. Redbox is not distributing unauthorized copies of protected works. Period.
I'm certainly never going to take your word for it.
At any rate, it's irrelevant as the codes are facts and facts aren't protected works.
The courts have never decided this exact case. It will probably be new case law; however, I don't think Redbox is going to win because the case you linked ProCD expressly says facts are binding to contracts.
Indeed, it does allow for downloading of a digital copy; a digital copy made and distributed by Disney's distribution partner, who has every right to make and distribute that copy. There are rulings supporting the fact that a fact is not protected by copyright, a fact which you are more than welcome to copy all you want and post everywhere you can once you realize it's true. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [wikipedia.org]
You do realize the Feist has nothing to do with this case? In that specific case, the court ruled that telephone listings which are facts are not copyright-abled in themselves. In this particular case, this is about a code for a unique download of a movie not the facts themselves. Unless you can't acknowledge that distinction then you can twist the logic as much as you want.
The ruling is pretty cut and dry.
No it would be cut and dry if the code itself was the only valuable in question. It is not. The code allows for access to the movie which is the valuable. The movie is copyrighted.
Speaking of pure twisted logic... No. My PIN is a fact and, should you guess it, it's not protected by copyright and I have no legal recourse should to go around giving it to everyone under the sun. Using it to take money out of my account, however, is theft, which has nothing to do with whether or not the damn number is protected by copyright. There are 10,000 possible 4 digit ATM PINs, minus PINs that individual banks choose to disallow (like 1234, 0000, 1111, etc...) and way more than 10,000 people with ATM cards capable of withdrawing money; surely, someone else has and uses my PIN on a regular basis.
You're going to blow a gasket. My point is that publishing a fact does not make stealing more or less illegal according to other laws. Publishing a code does not negate any copyright laws in question.
eDigi was distributing copies of digital media. That is, they were copying and distributing copyrighted works. That's infringement. It's also different than what Redbox is doing.
So you're unwilling to admit that the code being distributed is for one copyrighted movie? And exactly one copy of a movie if the digital copyright system Disney employs works.
Either way, whether the wording I allude to exists or not (and in the complaint it is made clear that it does),
Your entire point was that the wording and terms are not present at the time of sale. If the terms were present at the time that Redbox buys a movie from Disney to be re-sold, then that destroys your point.
It doesn't apply for reasons already ruled on by the Supreme Court nearly 22 years ago.
And what case is that?
I do know what was on the packaging Redbox got for the DVDs in question, because the complaint plainly states such.
According to Disney’s lawsuit, Redbox purchases Disney DVD and Blu-ray Disc “Combo Packs,” which include a code for accessing digital copies of the movies. Redbox then separates the physical discs (which it rents) from the codes, and re-packages the code inserts into Redbox cases for resale, the complaint states. Disney noted that the packaging on the Combo Packs include the notice that “Codes are not for sale or transfer.”
So you've never had a yard sale, lent a book/movie/game to someone, given a book/movie/game to someone as a gift? Because if you have, then by your logic you are guilty of violating copyright law via re-distribution.
Then you don't understand the difference between private use and commercial re-distribution. As private individual, I have more rights than a retailer selling copyright works. Redbox use is clearly not "private" use. It is by definition commercial re-distribution.
The download code is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. It is Disney's distribution partner who is distributing the copyrighted work when they accept the code in exchange for the download.
Well that's pure twisted logic. The code allows for downloading of a digital copy. That's like saying that your PIN is a fact. Me using it to withdraw money from your bank account isn't really "stealing". The fact of the matter are copyright rulings are against what Redbox is doing. See Capitol v ReDigi.
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase.
The digital copy was included in the purchase of box set but in the US, for digital copies, the first sale doctrine does not neatly apply for the obvious reason that a physical copy might degrade over time while a digital copy does not and can be copied multiple times. However, in Europe, if the digital copy could be transferred and made unusable to the previous owner then a re-sell of digital copy is permissible. Now if this happened in Europe, then Redbox could be in the clear because once a code is used from Disney, it cannot be used again.
Redbox goes into Walmart and buys a copy of the same movie. Why are they treated differently?
Redbox is retailer. You are not.There are different rules if you are business or a private individual especially in copyright law. If you did this for a living, I would think the movie studios would go after you.
Except you don't know what's anything that on the packaging that Redbox gets or what kind of distribution agreement Redbox has made. If you've looked at the Redbox discs they are most times not the same as you could buy from a store. They were often made for Redbox (printing the QR codes for example on the disc and minimal art on the disc itself). If Redbox bought normal retail discs, there are terms on the outside cover that address this but also Redbox is violating the copyright on those because those are not meant to be distributed as rentals or sold individually.
In short: If you're going to apply terms to the use of a purchased product, those terms had damned well be available to me in full on the packaging, in which case my purchase signifies an agreement to those terms, or you had damn well better offer me a full refund if I don't agree to terms you didn't provide to me before the sale.
And what if the terms were clear on the packaging: "This product is authorized for private use only. It is prohibited for any other use and cannot be resold or rented individually."
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner. Redbox should know better.
1. I brought up an example of someone laying cable if they were connected enough and could bribe the corrupt system to allow them to do it. This was obvious.
Bahahaha. No you did not. This is exactly what you wrote: "At no point did NN actually stop them. Take the communications enjoyed by New York investment computers for the larger trading houses that do high frequency trading. Think there aren't fast lanes there?"
Nowhere in any this thread do you even mention the "corrupt system". Instead it's been about the false dichotomy of right of way would solve everything and that NN did nothing. And you still miss the point. The question has never been has it been technically possible for someone to get fiber like in HFT. The question is whether it is economically feasible for your average consumer like a Comcast customer to get fiber. Again, I've been able to bypass the oligarchy of commercial airlines for decades if I bought my own plane (and got a pilot since I can't fly). But buying your own plane is a realistic solution to the general public.
Well there's a difference between: "A- Blood type" which conveys information and a DNR which is an instruction. The problem with his particular tattoo is that other than a simple instruction it doesn't have all the legal elements that a DNR form would need including the signature of a physician/nurse or a witness. Some DNR orders specify what can and cannot be done like CPR, etc.
Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?
It benefits the company as to the max they will pay. Also remember a contract is an agreement that should have benefits to both parties. The workers via the union probably got something in exchange to agreeing to cap their maximum bonus.
1. HFT is not what the consumer needs so the exact strictures of that connection are not important. Cost saving would occur there naturally.
If HFT is not what the consumer needs, why bring up the irrelevant point? You keep bringing up this point not me. Second, you have to demonstrate your "cost saving" as this is an argument by assertion.
2. The wires laid were granted license and right of way. Why?
Again you go back to your false dichotomy. You seem to ignore that it's neither cheap nor easy to lay fiber down regardless of right of way.
3. You're implying that ONE average home owner would have the full cost of a connection that actually supplies and entire industry.
I never said that. You keep using strawman arguments because you have none. I said specifically is if you think it's easy and cheap to lay down fiber, why don't you do it for me for $50.
That is such a retarded argument that I actually am starting to feel sorry for you. The connection in comparison would be shared amongst thousands or more people.
Then you would be connecting thousands of people if you did it. Just think of all the money you could make if you ignore the costs.
4. The distance of the wire in question is vastly in excess of what LAST MILE users would need which would also drastically reduce the costs especially on a per user basis.
Bahahaha. Bro do you even do math? The exchange connection is 827 miles. If you are connecting thousands of people how many actual miles of fiber does that require? It depends on population density among other factors but a single 1 mile path will not connect thousands of people. It might connect a few dozen people. And then the more connections you make, the more equipment like junction boxes you will need.
Let's suppose that the nearest fiber connection is 1 mile from my home. All I need is 1 mile right? Well if that only went to my house alone. What about my 20 neighbors? The most logical way is to install a new junction box central to the neighborhood and then run lines from there to all the neighbors. Connecting to 20 homes will require a few hundred yds of line to each person. In the end, it's not 1 mile of fiber, it's several miles. In some places it will be less for more densely populated areas and in the end it might be more than 827 miles of fiber (and equipment) than the exchange used. And that's after you get right of way. See the problem now?
I don't think you understand reality or networking. Just look at networking inside a building. How many cables are there? What's the total cable length required? How many switches are required?
All of this was obvious. You just asked me to explain 1+1=2 to you. Here, I suspect you'll start drooling more vanilla pudding all over the keyboard that your assisted living facility feeds you.
No I'm trying to tell you that you've are saying 1 + 1 = 42 isn't even the problem you're solving. First your math is off and second we are talking differential equations not arithmetic.
You continue to know nothing.
Install fiber to my home to prove me wrong. Or is that beyond your capability?
It is different in that you can challenge an expert witness with your own witness. How can you challenge an algorithm that no one really knows? Considering that the FBI has used flawed statistics in DNA matching for a decade, this is not the first time that there are issues with how forensic science is done.
The 14 million dollar connection you think is a win for you... what is its capacity, shit for brains?
Bahahahaa. Do you even know what a HFT connection is? Let's suppose your average consumer can afford $14M for the connection and the additional money/expertise for all the equipment needed. They hook up to the HFT from home and then they can start streaming Netflix in 4K, right? Fuck no. In the article you referenced but apparently didn't read or understand:
And, says Lewis, they are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to gain this speed advantage - including laying the shortest, and therefore straightest, possible fibre-optic cable between the Chicago exchange the New York exchange based in New Jersey, a distance of 827 miles.
This connection has the singular purpose to speed up the trading between two exchanges. It doesn't do Netflix. It doesn't do Hulu. The average consumer can't physically hook up to the connection from their home anywhere in country. It doesn't matter the capacity of a connection to any consumer if that connection has a singular purpose which has nothing to do with what a consumer needs their internet connection to do. Sounds like you need to review Networking 101 among other things.
This is why your HFT example is irrelevant to the entire discussion. For the average Comcast customer who would be affected by any changes, claiming that there have always been "fast lanes" like HFT is like asserting that there isn't limited consumer airline competition because anyone can buy their own plane. I mean if I buy my own plane, I might be able to sleep on an airplane once I get a pilot. Talk about all the legroom on my own private airplane.
This move seems an usual tactic in a lawsuit: Go after every single thing. Qualcomm accused Apple of violating certain battery patents; Apple counter sues on battery patents they have.
In treating the duopoly in much the way that you treat interstate gas transport lines... you are presuming this similarity at a regulatory level. There is no interest in providing competition in such infrastructure because it is logistically counter productive.
I never presumed that. Please present any evidence that you know what I think.
We saw recently that Louisville Kentucky was not able to get Google Fiber on its poles. Google Fiber is having a hard time getting pole Right of Way despite the city of Louisville wanting them to have it.
And that was Google's only problem? You again are asserting a false dichotomy: It's only this right of way that is the "only" thing preventing many other ISPs from coming into Louisville.You don't think that the existing ISPs aren't doing everything within their power in other ways to prevent Google from coming in. This is extremely simplified thinking.
I'll be happy to answer that after you spell out the chain of logic (cough) leading from anything I actually said to your above conclusion. I'll not hold my breath.
You should scroll up and read what I wrote. If you're too lazy to do that, why should I bother?
You really need to try to focus on my original point rather than whatever sort of caricature you're trying to twist my point into. Right now, all ISPs are basically providing the same service in the same general price band.
That's the first flaw in your logic. Not all ISPs provide the same service. In the exact example of 90210 that I provided:
Time Warner Spectrum cable: 100Mbs at $45/mo
AT&T DSL: 50Mbs at $40/mo (1st year only)
Sonic: 100Mbs at $50/mo (requires 2 lines)
Frontier: 3 - 15 Mbs at $54/month for 24 month with voice purchase
How are they "the same" service? Then there's the inconvenient fact that not all 4 can provide service to the entire area. At best only 3% of the consumers can get all 4.
. If (and this is where you really need to try to focus) at some point in the future conditions change (like rabid NetNeut proponents are convinced will happen) and other providers are able to sufficiently differentiate on either price or content to make them think they'll be able to pull over a large enough chunk of that customer base, they'll expand their own infrastructure and do just that.
So what you're saying is that I cannot use the reality which exists TODAY and instead focus on your wild hypothetical which may or may not exist tomorrow. Or ever.
Two bottom-line points I'll leave you with: (1) market forces still exist even if you personally don't believe in them; and (2) excessive governmental regulation is what gave the incumbents so much of a head start and have prevented market forces from working as smoothly and quickly in this space as they otherwise might. Yet more regulation would take us in precisely the wrong direction.
You need to demonstrate any of that is actually true. This is an argument by assertion logical fallacy. Otherwise your points are moot.
Slashdot Mirror
The code was authorized for private use. Any decent lawyer could argue that a retailer reselling them has to obtain permission from Disney. If I pay for a boxing match on pay for view, I can invite as many people I want into my house to watch it. If I am showing it at the bar I own, I need a separate agreement.
Again you want to twist the logic of it, you can try. A court will probably decide differently. And even if you might be right, a shrinkwrap contract is enforceable.
Again, we'll have to let the court rule on this. Argue with the judge afterward, not me beforehand.
So I can't argue your opinion with mine? What world do you live in?
What you're missing (or willfully ignoring) is that the code itself is a fact, not a copyrighted work. That it can later be used (once and only once, mind you) to obtain a copyrighted work is purely coincidental; the copy that is made and distributed as a result of entering that code is made and distributed by Disney's digital distribution partner who, ostensibly, is authorized to do so upon receipt of a valid code.
My point is that you've asserted that this true. I contest that it is true.
There, we agree. And when Disney's authorized partner makes and distributes a copy of the movie when a valid code (which only works once, mind you) is entered, nothing has been stolen.
Except in the exact facts of this case, Redbox did not obtain a valid copy from Disney. Redbox appears to buy combo sets from retail, split them up, and sell them individually. Such a move requires a license or agreement. If you think about it, can Target or Walmart or Amazon can split a physical box set into multiple discs to re-sell without permission of the copyright owner? No. Can I as a private individual? Probably not but Disney isn't going to go after me if I sell the DVD I don't use to a friend.
We agree, there, as well. Of course, it doesn't make Disney's authorized distribution partner any less authorized, either.
My point is that Redbox was never authorized to do this kind of digital distribution and all articles say that.
Actually, Movies Anywhere enforces this by only accepting a given code once.
Movies Anywhere has the support and backing of the studios including Disney to do this. Again, Redbox did not.
ProCD says that you're wrong in this regard. The final case, not the one you linked.
On the slip... in the box... That constitutes them being unavailable at the time of purchase, as you're not allowed to see them until after.
Um what? It's on the box. The terms were clearly presented on the box in the photo. There are more terms inside if you open the box but it's clearly on the box that Redbox can't do what it did.>/p>
Linked elsewhere in the discussion. But, since I know you'll just call that a lie, here: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg [freibrun.com].
First of all it was not the Supreme Court. It was the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Facts are important. And the ProCD case held that the defendant Zeidenberg was held liable to the shrinkwrap contract terms even if the telephone listings could not be copyrighted. "The court then held the license valid and enforceable as a contract." The problem with your link is that it is outdated. "This case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. . . . May 1, 1996". ProCD was decided by the Seventh Court on June 20, 1996 and upheld the shrinkwrap contract. Therefore your point about shrinkwrap licenses being unenforceable is not correct.
No, I mean the actual complaint Disney filed with the court. It's linked (by another user) elsewhere in this discussion, I suggest you read it. Redbox is not distributing unauthorized copies of protected works. Period.
I'm certainly never going to take your word for it.
At any rate, it's irrelevant as the codes are facts and facts aren't protected works.
The courts have never decided this exact case. It will probably be new case law; however, I don't think Redbox is going to win because the case you linked ProCD expressly says facts are binding to contracts.
Indeed, it does allow for downloading of a digital copy; a digital copy made and distributed by Disney's distribution partner, who has every right to make and distribute that copy. There are rulings supporting the fact that a fact is not protected by copyright, a fact which you are more than welcome to copy all you want and post everywhere you can once you realize it's true. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [wikipedia.org]
You do realize the Feist has nothing to do with this case? In that specific case, the court ruled that telephone listings which are facts are not copyright-abled in themselves. In this particular case, this is about a code for a unique download of a movie not the facts themselves. Unless you can't acknowledge that distinction then you can twist the logic as much as you want.
The ruling is pretty cut and dry.
No it would be cut and dry if the code itself was the only valuable in question. It is not. The code allows for access to the movie which is the valuable. The movie is copyrighted.
Speaking of pure twisted logic... No. My PIN is a fact and, should you guess it, it's not protected by copyright and I have no legal recourse should to go around giving it to everyone under the sun. Using it to take money out of my account, however, is theft, which has nothing to do with whether or not the damn number is protected by copyright. There are 10,000 possible 4 digit ATM PINs, minus PINs that individual banks choose to disallow (like 1234, 0000, 1111, etc...) and way more than 10,000 people with ATM cards capable of withdrawing money; surely, someone else has and uses my PIN on a regular basis.
You're going to blow a gasket. My point is that publishing a fact does not make stealing more or less illegal according to other laws. Publishing a code does not negate any copyright laws in question.
eDigi was distributing copies of digital media. That is, they were copying and distributing copyrighted works. That's infringement. It's also different than what Redbox is doing.
So you're unwilling to admit that the code being distributed is for one copyrighted movie? And exactly one copy of a movie if the digital copyright system Disney employs works.
Not really surprising, as UnknowingFool has a history of not thinking through his replies to my posts before mashing that Submit button.
Not surprisingly you don't know the facts but post anyway.
Either way, whether the wording I allude to exists or not (and in the complaint it is made clear that it does),
Your entire point was that the wording and terms are not present at the time of sale. If the terms were present at the time that Redbox buys a movie from Disney to be re-sold, then that destroys your point.
It doesn't apply for reasons already ruled on by the Supreme Court nearly 22 years ago.
And what case is that?
I do know what was on the packaging Redbox got for the DVDs in question, because the complaint plainly states such.
You mean the exact cases that specifically say that Redbox cannot do what they did.
According to Disney’s lawsuit, Redbox purchases Disney DVD and Blu-ray Disc “Combo Packs,” which include a code for accessing digital copies of the movies. Redbox then separates the physical discs (which it rents) from the codes, and re-packages the code inserts into Redbox cases for resale, the complaint states. Disney noted that the packaging on the Combo Packs include the notice that “Codes are not for sale or transfer.”
So you've never had a yard sale, lent a book/movie/game to someone, given a book/movie/game to someone as a gift? Because if you have, then by your logic you are guilty of violating copyright law via re-distribution.
Then you don't understand the difference between private use and commercial re-distribution. As private individual, I have more rights than a retailer selling copyright works. Redbox use is clearly not "private" use. It is by definition commercial re-distribution.
The download code is a fact. Facts are not protected by copyright. It is Disney's distribution partner who is distributing the copyrighted work when they accept the code in exchange for the download.
Well that's pure twisted logic. The code allows for downloading of a digital copy. That's like saying that your PIN is a fact. Me using it to withdraw money from your bank account isn't really "stealing". The fact of the matter are copyright rulings are against what Redbox is doing. See Capitol v ReDigi.
Such terms are unenforceable twatsnot. See the first sale doctrine, you clown.
Obviously you don't know that first sale doctrine does not neatly apply to digital copies or have you not done your research?
Yes, the first-sale doctrine means that Disney exhausted their rights to the items included in the purchase at the time of sale, but the digital copy wasn't included in the purchase.
The digital copy was included in the purchase of box set but in the US, for digital copies, the first sale doctrine does not neatly apply for the obvious reason that a physical copy might degrade over time while a digital copy does not and can be copied multiple times. However, in Europe, if the digital copy could be transferred and made unusable to the previous owner then a re-sell of digital copy is permissible. Now if this happened in Europe, then Redbox could be in the clear because once a code is used from Disney, it cannot be used again.
Yes you can do this. But you can also be sued for doing so.
Redbox goes into Walmart and buys a copy of the same movie. Why are they treated differently?
Redbox is retailer. You are not.There are different rules if you are business or a private individual especially in copyright law. If you did this for a living, I would think the movie studios would go after you.
Except you don't know what's anything that on the packaging that Redbox gets or what kind of distribution agreement Redbox has made. If you've looked at the Redbox discs they are most times not the same as you could buy from a store. They were often made for Redbox (printing the QR codes for example on the disc and minimal art on the disc itself). If Redbox bought normal retail discs, there are terms on the outside cover that address this but also Redbox is violating the copyright on those because those are not meant to be distributed as rentals or sold individually.
In short: If you're going to apply terms to the use of a purchased product, those terms had damned well be available to me in full on the packaging, in which case my purchase signifies an agreement to those terms, or you had damn well better offer me a full refund if I don't agree to terms you didn't provide to me before the sale.
And what if the terms were clear on the packaging: "This product is authorized for private use only. It is prohibited for any other use and cannot be resold or rented individually."
And you'd have to be dense not to know you can't re-distribute copyrighted content without permission of the copyright owner. Redbox should know better.
1. I brought up an example of someone laying cable if they were connected enough and could bribe the corrupt system to allow them to do it. This was obvious.
Bahahaha. No you did not. This is exactly what you wrote: "At no point did NN actually stop them. Take the communications enjoyed by New York investment computers for the larger trading houses that do high frequency trading. Think there aren't fast lanes there?"
Nowhere in any this thread do you even mention the "corrupt system". Instead it's been about the false dichotomy of right of way would solve everything and that NN did nothing. And you still miss the point. The question has never been has it been technically possible for someone to get fiber like in HFT. The question is whether it is economically feasible for your average consumer like a Comcast customer to get fiber. Again, I've been able to bypass the oligarchy of commercial airlines for decades if I bought my own plane (and got a pilot since I can't fly). But buying your own plane is a realistic solution to the general public.
Well there's a difference between: "A- Blood type" which conveys information and a DNR which is an instruction. The problem with his particular tattoo is that other than a simple instruction it doesn't have all the legal elements that a DNR form would need including the signature of a physician/nurse or a witness. Some DNR orders specify what can and cannot be done like CPR, etc.
Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?
It benefits the company as to the max they will pay. Also remember a contract is an agreement that should have benefits to both parties. The workers via the union probably got something in exchange to agreeing to cap their maximum bonus.
1. HFT is not what the consumer needs so the exact strictures of that connection are not important. Cost saving would occur there naturally.
If HFT is not what the consumer needs, why bring up the irrelevant point? You keep bringing up this point not me. Second, you have to demonstrate your "cost saving" as this is an argument by assertion.
2. The wires laid were granted license and right of way. Why?
Again you go back to your false dichotomy. You seem to ignore that it's neither cheap nor easy to lay fiber down regardless of right of way.
3. You're implying that ONE average home owner would have the full cost of a connection that actually supplies and entire industry.
I never said that. You keep using strawman arguments because you have none. I said specifically is if you think it's easy and cheap to lay down fiber, why don't you do it for me for $50.
That is such a retarded argument that I actually am starting to feel sorry for you. The connection in comparison would be shared amongst thousands or more people.
Then you would be connecting thousands of people if you did it. Just think of all the money you could make if you ignore the costs.
4. The distance of the wire in question is vastly in excess of what LAST MILE users would need which would also drastically reduce the costs especially on a per user basis.
Bahahaha. Bro do you even do math? The exchange connection is 827 miles. If you are connecting thousands of people how many actual miles of fiber does that require? It depends on population density among other factors but a single 1 mile path will not connect thousands of people. It might connect a few dozen people. And then the more connections you make, the more equipment like junction boxes you will need.
Let's suppose that the nearest fiber connection is 1 mile from my home. All I need is 1 mile right? Well if that only went to my house alone. What about my 20 neighbors? The most logical way is to install a new junction box central to the neighborhood and then run lines from there to all the neighbors. Connecting to 20 homes will require a few hundred yds of line to each person. In the end, it's not 1 mile of fiber, it's several miles. In some places it will be less for more densely populated areas and in the end it might be more than 827 miles of fiber (and equipment) than the exchange used. And that's after you get right of way. See the problem now?
I don't think you understand reality or networking. Just look at networking inside a building. How many cables are there? What's the total cable length required? How many switches are required?
All of this was obvious. You just asked me to explain 1+1=2 to you. Here, I suspect you'll start drooling more vanilla pudding all over the keyboard that your assisted living facility feeds you.
No I'm trying to tell you that you've are saying 1 + 1 = 42 isn't even the problem you're solving. First your math is off and second we are talking differential equations not arithmetic.
You continue to know nothing.
Install fiber to my home to prove me wrong. Or is that beyond your capability?
It is different in that you can challenge an expert witness with your own witness. How can you challenge an algorithm that no one really knows? Considering that the FBI has used flawed statistics in DNA matching for a decade, this is not the first time that there are issues with how forensic science is done.
The 14 million dollar connection you think is a win for you... what is its capacity, shit for brains?
Bahahahaa. Do you even know what a HFT connection is? Let's suppose your average consumer can afford $14M for the connection and the additional money/expertise for all the equipment needed. They hook up to the HFT from home and then they can start streaming Netflix in 4K, right? Fuck no. In the article you referenced but apparently didn't read or understand:
And, says Lewis, they are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to gain this speed advantage - including laying the shortest, and therefore straightest, possible fibre-optic cable between the Chicago exchange the New York exchange based in New Jersey, a distance of 827 miles.
This connection has the singular purpose to speed up the trading between two exchanges. It doesn't do Netflix. It doesn't do Hulu. The average consumer can't physically hook up to the connection from their home anywhere in country. It doesn't matter the capacity of a connection to any consumer if that connection has a singular purpose which has nothing to do with what a consumer needs their internet connection to do. Sounds like you need to review Networking 101 among other things.
This is why your HFT example is irrelevant to the entire discussion. For the average Comcast customer who would be affected by any changes, claiming that there have always been "fast lanes" like HFT is like asserting that there isn't limited consumer airline competition because anyone can buy their own plane. I mean if I buy my own plane, I might be able to sleep on an airplane once I get a pilot. Talk about all the legroom on my own private airplane.
This move seems an usual tactic in a lawsuit: Go after every single thing. Qualcomm accused Apple of violating certain battery patents; Apple counter sues on battery patents they have.
In treating the duopoly in much the way that you treat interstate gas transport lines... you are presuming this similarity at a regulatory level. There is no interest in providing competition in such infrastructure because it is logistically counter productive.
I never presumed that. Please present any evidence that you know what I think.
We saw recently that Louisville Kentucky was not able to get Google Fiber on its poles. Google Fiber is having a hard time getting pole Right of Way despite the city of Louisville wanting them to have it.
And that was Google's only problem? You again are asserting a false dichotomy: It's only this right of way that is the "only" thing preventing many other ISPs from coming into Louisville.You don't think that the existing ISPs aren't doing everything within their power in other ways to prevent Google from coming in. This is extremely simplified thinking.
I'll be happy to answer that after you spell out the chain of logic (cough) leading from anything I actually said to your above conclusion. I'll not hold my breath.
You should scroll up and read what I wrote. If you're too lazy to do that, why should I bother?
You really need to try to focus on my original point rather than whatever sort of caricature you're trying to twist my point into. Right now, all ISPs are basically providing the same service in the same general price band.
That's the first flaw in your logic. Not all ISPs provide the same service. In the exact example of 90210 that I provided:
How are they "the same" service? Then there's the inconvenient fact that not all 4 can provide service to the entire area. At best only 3% of the consumers can get all 4.
. If (and this is where you really need to try to focus) at some point in the future conditions change (like rabid NetNeut proponents are convinced will happen) and other providers are able to sufficiently differentiate on either price or content to make them think they'll be able to pull over a large enough chunk of that customer base, they'll expand their own infrastructure and do just that.
So what you're saying is that I cannot use the reality which exists TODAY and instead focus on your wild hypothetical which may or may not exist tomorrow. Or ever.
Two bottom-line points I'll leave you with: (1) market forces still exist even if you personally don't believe in them; and (2) excessive governmental regulation is what gave the incumbents so much of a head start and have prevented market forces from working as smoothly and quickly in this space as they otherwise might. Yet more regulation would take us in precisely the wrong direction.
You need to demonstrate any of that is actually true. This is an argument by assertion logical fallacy. Otherwise your points are moot.