IANALBWLAO (IANAL + But Watch Law And Order, lol). But seriously, between a husband and wife, it's called Spousal Privilege. The spousal privilege is a combination of two elements: 1) the right not to be compelled to testify against one's spouse, and 2) the protection of marital confidences (link). It should be noted that there are at least a few cases when spousal privilege does not apply, such as if the crime is committed against the spouse or children.
I've never heard of it applying to the parent-child relationship. I searched a bit and found an article about two New York
trials that found they could not support such a privilege. I'm not sure why, but the first time I went to the link I was able to read the text, but now I have to log in to see. Regardless, I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to children.
Yeah, and maybe they can give the "light" users some type of refund for the bandwidth they don't use each month... I know, they could call it "rollover bandwidth"! As long as you stay within your bandwidth allotment, you'd only have to pay a monthly fee (plus any add-ons you have, of course), but anyone who goes over their bandwidth would be charged heavy fees.
And you could get packages that allow you to do different things, so if all you want is instant messaging and html, you can buy one package, but if you want to download a file there will be additional fees unless you have a download add-on. VoIP would be free if you get a phone through your cable company, but you'd need a different add-on without the phone.
And they could charge less for users who only access local sites but charge more for those who receive information internationally, unless you get the international package.
This all sounds like a great idea. It's not just a ploy to squeeze out that extra dime, these are great features that you can add to your plan! This way everyone gets what they want, even if it's more expensive. It's also less complicated since you pick the plans you want instead of getting a service that does everything, because no one really knows which features are included with "everything".
But seriously, do you really want to see ISPs turn into cell phone carriers?
When will big companies learn just to let it go and it will quickly die off by itself?
Never I suppose. Now thousands of us have just one more reason not to shop at best blow.
They'll learn as soon as they realize it's not a good idea to outsource your PR department to Sony BMG.
Maybe it's because I was expecting some "well actually, according to reports from , Russians really blah blah blah" type response, but I got a good laugh out of that post.
I have no idea what you mean by "I won't repeat my evidence"? Is it English or something?
Well, I changed my wording a couple times and must have gotten lost in the editing, but that's still proper English and shouldn't be that hard to understand, unless you want to argue about whether or not it's acceptable to refer to typing a message in a forum as talking. To repeat is to say or state something again, so to repeat my evidence is to state my evidence again. I explained before that I don't think these charges are reasonable based on the total amount that would be paid in damages if everyone who infringed on copyrights were to be successfully punished. For a bit of elaboration to that, read up the parent posts past the one where your comment diverged from the topic of damages.
Yes, I understand what statutory means. I'd still like a reference that specifies that as the range of a statutory award and in which court/s that range is applicable. I also understand how statutes are created, and that sometimes they become outdated or aren't relevant to the cases they are applied to. Again, because of the sheer volume of files traded and the damages that would be paid because of them, I don't think that the award is reasonable.
I didn't say that though. We are talking about awarding damages here, not being punished for a crime. This is a private lawsuit against an individual, not a state or federal prosecutor trying to convict someone of a crime.
If you get in a car accident, you can sue for damages. You could get awarded damages to pay for medical bills, which are pretty obvious. You could also be awarded for emotional distress and whatever else a good lawyer can come up with. If your medical bills were $10,000, you won't get $100,000 for medical bills because you'd be getting reimbursed for money you never lost. You might get $100,000 still though, but that's because of the emotional distress and other good ideas from your lawyer.
Now, unless the RIAA can establish emotional distress or some other reasonable damages (which I don't think they've done, but I know they have tried), then I don't see how they could get awarded more than what they've lost. Again, I base "what they've lost" on the damages awarded in this case and the number of shared songs out in the world.
I think this was just another poor use of surveys. The article's title said "worried", but used the word "concerned" in the body. I agree that parents should be concerned about what their kids play. They should be concerned about how well they are doing at school as well as what they eat and who their friends are.
If asked if you are concerned about the types and content of games your kids play, I think most parents would say yes. If asked if you are worried about your kids playing violent video games, I think a much lower percentage would say yes. It's all about the wording in those damn surveys, and this one seems like it had quite a bit of spin to it.
I see one major problem with that logic.
So, what happens if everyone who shares songs is forced to pay similar damages? It would turn a billion dollar industry into a trillion dollar industry due to lawsuits, which doesn't seem right. While it's hard to estimate the actual damages of one shared song, it's easier to estimate the total damages awarded if others were forced to pay. I'd argue that the damages for each person who shares songs shouldn't exceed the industry's total sales. With the millions (very conservative estimate) of songs that are being shared illegally, the total damages for each song would be so high that it would seem ridiculous, much like the decision in this case.
I love when people nitpick a tiny point instead of the general argument, but you're wrong except for in the case of Sol, although "the Sun" is not the most common definition for it. Please provide a reference that says "Luna means simply the Moon" or "Terra means the Earth". Those are not the common definitions by any means, and please don't confuse translations between languages and definitions of words.
Sorry, but personally I think your teacher was generous in only taking 10% off. If you look those three words up in a dictionary, you won't fine any that definitions that describe the Sun, the Moon, or the Earth. The Sun is a star, the Moon is a satellite, and the Earth is a planet. Those are the proper names for those specific bodies in our solar system.
Luna is the goddess of the moon who was sometimes personified the moon. Sol is similar for the Sun, both in Roman mythology. Their Greek counterparts are Selene/Artemis and Helios/Apollo, which preceded the Romans. In some myths, Helios is thought to ride a chariot across the sky during the day, shining light on the Earth, so some people at the time considered the Sun to be Helios. This translated to the Roman Sol, and apparently still has some power.
Those words do not refer directly to the Earth, Sun, and Moon. While there is no mythology behind the word terra that I could find, the confusion there most likely comes from its synonyms: earth, soil, land, among others. Terra is sometimes used to refer to earth (terraform), but that's because it's a Latin derivative. And notice I used "earth" and not "Earth" there, because it means land.
Wish I had mod points for ya (and this post is meant as support). While I don't think there's really anything wrong with calling the Sun "Sol" instead, it's definitely not correct to claim that that is the correct name.
It's kind of like the the Devil. Capitalized, it's basically the same as Satan or a variety of other names and refers to a specific entity. When written as "devil", it can mean a demon or a generic evil creature, although demon is the more generic term. The Devil is a demon, but he is a specific demon even if his name can also be used as a thing.
The Sun is similar. The Sun is a specific star. There are lots of other stars, but there is only one Sun. When written as "sun", it can mean a star with planetary bodies orbiting it, but star is still the generic term. In the dictionaries I just checked, Sol is rarely mentioned as a name for the Sun, and when it is mentioned, it is to say that it is a name for the Sun. I haven't found one that says Sol is the name for the star at the center of our solar system.
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, and I know no one besides the parent will probably read this, but I said 400 years since radio signals have been around for a while. It would take 500 years for a signal sent today to reach a planet 500 light years away, but radio has been around for a while, and about 100 was my estimate because I didn't want to look it up. My bad for not being more clear.
I would have gone with offtopic. The GP pointed out why the "sex slave" idea doesn't apply to this discussion since you'd still have to raise the clones. Had you replied to the GPP, then your comment would have made more sense as he was the one who made the joke about cloning his very own celebrity. But if that had been the case, the Troll mod would have made more sense since you were creating an argument out of a joke, and I doubt I'm the only one who's tired about people picking apart the ethics or factual details in jokes.
"An Internet troll... is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages... with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." (wikipedia). Hope that clears it up for ya.
But who says that finding another civilization will mean that that civilization still exists? Think of it in the opposite direction. What if some civilization 500 light years away gets a hold of our radio signals (which wouldn't happen for at least another 400 years)? It's more of a confirmation of life than a means to contact and interact with that life. If we believe the current laws of physics and assume that life on other planets is similar to ours, there really isn't a threat of being conquered, because it would take them an absolute minimum of 400 years to reach us. SETI is just a way to determine if extraterrestrial life exists (which doesn't mean it can confirm that it doesn't exist).
This is all true, but we have to consider the intent of the law and other similar cases.
I wonder what would have happened if these kids physically broke into the school to change the grades and got caught. Would they be charged in a criminal court, or would the school just expel them? If in most cases like this, the offenders are expelled without charges brought against them, then this is pretty unfair as essentially they did the same thing. They used computers to do what other people have done physically. The end result is the same, but the methods are different.
I'm not saying that the method doesn't matter. There is obviously a big difference between stealing some cash out of a store's cash register and holding up a clerk at gunpoint, but one could argue that the end result isn't the same here (traumatized clerk in one case). Yes, what these kids did is different from using a computer to take $1M from someone's bank account. They should be prosecuted similarly to how other students in their position are prosecuted.
Then try google. Or wikipedia. Or imdb. I didn't think I'd need to provide a reference for someone famous. But anyway, when I referred to acting like Rip Taylor, I meant acting like his persona. There's a difference between acting like someone and doing exactly the same things as that person. I thought that was pretty obvious, but I see where you're coming from.
I fail to see where any parent posts or the summary complains about how much apple is making. The summary said:
This shows how much incentive Apple has to maintain its exclusive deal with AT&T rather than to sell unlocked phones...
That's the point that I took away from it, which is pretty insightful. It's not about how much they are profiting, it's about why they are exclusive with AT&T. I'd agree that its foolish for a variety of reasons for people to complain about how much Apple profits from the iPhone, but that really isn't the issue here.
This is like saying that because you lived in San Francisco, you must be gay.
No, it's like saying because you live in San Francisco, there's a higher probability that you are gay because SF has a high percentage of homosexuals compared to other cities. Or like saying there's a higher probability you are gay because every piece of clothing you own has a rainbow on it.
Yeah, it's stereotyping. Sometimes its wrong, other times its right. Living in SF doesn't make you gay anymore than loving rainbows does. Putting "In God We Trust" on a coin doesn't make your government fascist any more than abolishing habeus corpus does. However, all of those things are signs, which was the point of the GP. Just because we have some of those signs doesn't make us a fascist state.
However, there's a big difference between gay and fascist stereotypes. Even if you look and act like Rip Taylor, it doesn't mean you're gay... but if you look and act like a fascist state, it doesn't matter if you claim to be a democracy.
you think Comcast would give a shit about your local football team
Now, I'm not actualy a big football fan, but you do realize that this isn't some "local football team", but a major university's football team. It's not like I'm talking about some minor league baseball team or high school. There is a large fan base.
Depending on what you look up, the Champaign-Urbana area has a population of around 170,000. There are over 40,000 students at UIUC. The football field hold 71,000 and has been sold out and packed for the last few weeks. Tickets for one of the games were going online for 5x face value, but you can probably find some on the street for double. I can't begin to estimate the number of alumni and parents of students who follow the games. I also forgot that the basketball games are also broadcast on the Big Ten network, and after our recent seasons, there's quite a following.
Granted, that's not a huge chunk of Comcast's market. According to wikipedia, Comcast has 24.1 million subscribers. If I estimate our area to have 100,000 Comcast subscribers who want to watch the football games, that's just under.5% of their viewership. Still, that's a big chunk of change.
But besides my area, this has happened at other Big Ten schools. I don't have the time to look it all up. You don't have to believe me. I'm really not a football nut either. I have season tickets because I get them cheap as a student but I rarely stay past the first half. I don't watch football on the weekends. I don't have a fantasy team. But I do think that this was done on purpose.
I guess it was last year, which is actually a lot longer ago than I thought. I thought it had happened over the summer. Maybe Comcast owned the cable here before, but my roommates and everyone I know has had Insight for at least 4 years.
But you have to consider that some already-established corporations will get waivers so they will remain strong. If a new company tries to move into the city, it will have trouble competing with the big media that already exists. The big media companies will be able to consolidate their resources; they don't need a reporter for each medium because one reporter can send news to the newspaper, television, radio, and internet branches of the office. Small companies who only work with one medium will have a harder time combating this advantage.
I live in Champaign, IL, and go to the University of Illinois. Comcast recently bought out our local cable company... not the cable company that serves our area, just the local branch of it... right before football season started... and now they refuse to offer the Big Ten network which broadcasts our team... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence... right? (that sarcasm is directed at Comcast, not the parent poster)
But before I start to really go off about that bullshit, our box does the same thing that yours does. It's a real pain. We don't have any other options either. I live in an apartment building, so we can't get satellite.
I have a friend who lives in Chicago and has been fed up with Comcast's service, largely because the cable seems to go out during Cubs games. They also continually call him and try to convince him to get a hardwire phone line, even though he has repeatedly told them he only uses his cell phone. Due to a variety of other factors, he's done with Comcast. He's willing to pay an extra $50 a month to get a dish and some other internet provider. With how much people love to consolidate bills these days, you know there's a problem when people are willing to pay more for multiple services that actually cost more than the original. It truly is amazing that Comcast thinks its users are satisfied.
Slashdot Mirror
IANALBWLAO (IANAL + But Watch Law And Order, lol). But seriously, between a husband and wife, it's called Spousal Privilege. The spousal privilege is a combination of two elements: 1) the right not to be compelled to testify against one's spouse, and 2) the protection of marital confidences (link). It should be noted that there are at least a few cases when spousal privilege does not apply, such as if the crime is committed against the spouse or children.
I've never heard of it applying to the parent-child relationship. I searched a bit and found an article about two New York trials that found they could not support such a privilege. I'm not sure why, but the first time I went to the link I was able to read the text, but now I have to log in to see. Regardless, I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to children.
Yeah, and maybe they can give the "light" users some type of refund for the bandwidth they don't use each month... I know, they could call it "rollover bandwidth"! As long as you stay within your bandwidth allotment, you'd only have to pay a monthly fee (plus any add-ons you have, of course), but anyone who goes over their bandwidth would be charged heavy fees.
And you could get packages that allow you to do different things, so if all you want is instant messaging and html, you can buy one package, but if you want to download a file there will be additional fees unless you have a download add-on. VoIP would be free if you get a phone through your cable company, but you'd need a different add-on without the phone.
And they could charge less for users who only access local sites but charge more for those who receive information internationally, unless you get the international package.
This all sounds like a great idea. It's not just a ploy to squeeze out that extra dime, these are great features that you can add to your plan! This way everyone gets what they want, even if it's more expensive. It's also less complicated since you pick the plans you want instead of getting a service that does everything, because no one really knows which features are included with "everything".
But seriously, do you really want to see ISPs turn into cell phone carriers?
Sometimes the explanations mistaken for whining that stupid people take out of context make me laugh.
And sometimes, the poorly thought out red herrings people use make me laugh.
When will big companies learn just to let it go and it will quickly die off by itself? Never I suppose. Now thousands of us have just one more reason not to shop at best blow.
They'll learn as soon as they realize it's not a good idea to outsource your PR department to Sony BMG.
Maybe it's because I was expecting some "well actually, according to reports from , Russians really blah blah blah" type response, but I got a good laugh out of that post.
I have no idea what you mean by "I won't repeat my evidence"? Is it English or something?
Well, I changed my wording a couple times and must have gotten lost in the editing, but that's still proper English and shouldn't be that hard to understand, unless you want to argue about whether or not it's acceptable to refer to typing a message in a forum as talking. To repeat is to say or state something again, so to repeat my evidence is to state my evidence again. I explained before that I don't think these charges are reasonable based on the total amount that would be paid in damages if everyone who infringed on copyrights were to be successfully punished. For a bit of elaboration to that, read up the parent posts past the one where your comment diverged from the topic of damages.
Yes, I understand what statutory means. I'd still like a reference that specifies that as the range of a statutory award and in which court/s that range is applicable. I also understand how statutes are created, and that sometimes they become outdated or aren't relevant to the cases they are applied to. Again, because of the sheer volume of files traded and the damages that would be paid because of them, I don't think that the award is reasonable.
given that the damages are in the lowest 6th percentile
What? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you have a reference?
Still, I think these damages far outweigh the actual damages. I won't repeat my evidence, but I'd be interested if you'd like to refute that point.
Very good. Also, it's good to eat a balanced diet, and don't stare directly at the sun.
Now, would you like to say something about whether or not the damages awarded are reasonable?
I didn't say that though. We are talking about awarding damages here, not being punished for a crime. This is a private lawsuit against an individual, not a state or federal prosecutor trying to convict someone of a crime.
If you get in a car accident, you can sue for damages. You could get awarded damages to pay for medical bills, which are pretty obvious. You could also be awarded for emotional distress and whatever else a good lawyer can come up with. If your medical bills were $10,000, you won't get $100,000 for medical bills because you'd be getting reimbursed for money you never lost. You might get $100,000 still though, but that's because of the emotional distress and other good ideas from your lawyer.
Now, unless the RIAA can establish emotional distress or some other reasonable damages (which I don't think they've done, but I know they have tried), then I don't see how they could get awarded more than what they've lost. Again, I base "what they've lost" on the damages awarded in this case and the number of shared songs out in the world.
I think this was just another poor use of surveys. The article's title said "worried", but used the word "concerned" in the body. I agree that parents should be concerned about what their kids play. They should be concerned about how well they are doing at school as well as what they eat and who their friends are.
If asked if you are concerned about the types and content of games your kids play, I think most parents would say yes. If asked if you are worried about your kids playing violent video games, I think a much lower percentage would say yes. It's all about the wording in those damn surveys, and this one seems like it had quite a bit of spin to it.
I see one major problem with that logic. So, what happens if everyone who shares songs is forced to pay similar damages? It would turn a billion dollar industry into a trillion dollar industry due to lawsuits, which doesn't seem right. While it's hard to estimate the actual damages of one shared song, it's easier to estimate the total damages awarded if others were forced to pay. I'd argue that the damages for each person who shares songs shouldn't exceed the industry's total sales. With the millions (very conservative estimate) of songs that are being shared illegally, the total damages for each song would be so high that it would seem ridiculous, much like the decision in this case.
I love when people nitpick a tiny point instead of the general argument, but you're wrong except for in the case of Sol, although "the Sun" is not the most common definition for it. Please provide a reference that says "Luna means simply the Moon" or "Terra means the Earth". Those are not the common definitions by any means, and please don't confuse translations between languages and definitions of words.
Sorry, but personally I think your teacher was generous in only taking 10% off. If you look those three words up in a dictionary, you won't fine any that definitions that describe the Sun, the Moon, or the Earth. The Sun is a star, the Moon is a satellite, and the Earth is a planet. Those are the proper names for those specific bodies in our solar system.
Luna is the goddess of the moon who was sometimes personified the moon. Sol is similar for the Sun, both in Roman mythology. Their Greek counterparts are Selene/Artemis and Helios/Apollo, which preceded the Romans. In some myths, Helios is thought to ride a chariot across the sky during the day, shining light on the Earth, so some people at the time considered the Sun to be Helios. This translated to the Roman Sol, and apparently still has some power.
Those words do not refer directly to the Earth, Sun, and Moon. While there is no mythology behind the word terra that I could find, the confusion there most likely comes from its synonyms: earth, soil, land, among others. Terra is sometimes used to refer to earth (terraform), but that's because it's a Latin derivative. And notice I used "earth" and not "Earth" there, because it means land.
Wish I had mod points for ya (and this post is meant as support). While I don't think there's really anything wrong with calling the Sun "Sol" instead, it's definitely not correct to claim that that is the correct name.
It's kind of like the the Devil. Capitalized, it's basically the same as Satan or a variety of other names and refers to a specific entity. When written as "devil", it can mean a demon or a generic evil creature, although demon is the more generic term. The Devil is a demon, but he is a specific demon even if his name can also be used as a thing.
The Sun is similar. The Sun is a specific star. There are lots of other stars, but there is only one Sun. When written as "sun", it can mean a star with planetary bodies orbiting it, but star is still the generic term. In the dictionaries I just checked, Sol is rarely mentioned as a name for the Sun, and when it is mentioned, it is to say that it is a name for the Sun. I haven't found one that says Sol is the name for the star at the center of our solar system.
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, and I know no one besides the parent will probably read this, but I said 400 years since radio signals have been around for a while. It would take 500 years for a signal sent today to reach a planet 500 light years away, but radio has been around for a while, and about 100 was my estimate because I didn't want to look it up. My bad for not being more clear.
I would have gone with offtopic. The GP pointed out why the "sex slave" idea doesn't apply to this discussion since you'd still have to raise the clones. Had you replied to the GPP, then your comment would have made more sense as he was the one who made the joke about cloning his very own celebrity. But if that had been the case, the Troll mod would have made more sense since you were creating an argument out of a joke, and I doubt I'm the only one who's tired about people picking apart the ethics or factual details in jokes.
"An Internet troll... is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages... with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." (wikipedia). Hope that clears it up for ya.
But who says that finding another civilization will mean that that civilization still exists? Think of it in the opposite direction. What if some civilization 500 light years away gets a hold of our radio signals (which wouldn't happen for at least another 400 years)? It's more of a confirmation of life than a means to contact and interact with that life. If we believe the current laws of physics and assume that life on other planets is similar to ours, there really isn't a threat of being conquered, because it would take them an absolute minimum of 400 years to reach us. SETI is just a way to determine if extraterrestrial life exists (which doesn't mean it can confirm that it doesn't exist).
This is all true, but we have to consider the intent of the law and other similar cases.
I wonder what would have happened if these kids physically broke into the school to change the grades and got caught. Would they be charged in a criminal court, or would the school just expel them? If in most cases like this, the offenders are expelled without charges brought against them, then this is pretty unfair as essentially they did the same thing. They used computers to do what other people have done physically. The end result is the same, but the methods are different.
I'm not saying that the method doesn't matter. There is obviously a big difference between stealing some cash out of a store's cash register and holding up a clerk at gunpoint, but one could argue that the end result isn't the same here (traumatized clerk in one case). Yes, what these kids did is different from using a computer to take $1M from someone's bank account. They should be prosecuted similarly to how other students in their position are prosecuted.
Yeah, it's stereotyping. Sometimes its wrong, other times its right. Living in SF doesn't make you gay anymore than loving rainbows does. Putting "In God We Trust" on a coin doesn't make your government fascist any more than abolishing habeus corpus does. However, all of those things are signs, which was the point of the GP. Just because we have some of those signs doesn't make us a fascist state.
However, there's a big difference between gay and fascist stereotypes. Even if you look and act like Rip Taylor, it doesn't mean you're gay... but if you look and act like a fascist state, it doesn't matter if you claim to be a democracy.
you think Comcast would give a shit about your local football team
.5% of their viewership. Still, that's a big chunk of change.
Now, I'm not actualy a big football fan, but you do realize that this isn't some "local football team", but a major university's football team. It's not like I'm talking about some minor league baseball team or high school. There is a large fan base.
Depending on what you look up, the Champaign-Urbana area has a population of around 170,000. There are over 40,000 students at UIUC. The football field hold 71,000 and has been sold out and packed for the last few weeks. Tickets for one of the games were going online for 5x face value, but you can probably find some on the street for double. I can't begin to estimate the number of alumni and parents of students who follow the games. I also forgot that the basketball games are also broadcast on the Big Ten network, and after our recent seasons, there's quite a following.
Granted, that's not a huge chunk of Comcast's market. According to wikipedia, Comcast has 24.1 million subscribers. If I estimate our area to have 100,000 Comcast subscribers who want to watch the football games, that's just under
But besides my area, this has happened at other Big Ten schools. I don't have the time to look it all up. You don't have to believe me. I'm really not a football nut either. I have season tickets because I get them cheap as a student but I rarely stay past the first half. I don't watch football on the weekends. I don't have a fantasy team. But I do think that this was done on purpose.
I guess it was last year, which is actually a lot longer ago than I thought. I thought it had happened over the summer. Maybe Comcast owned the cable here before, but my roommates and everyone I know has had Insight for at least 4 years.
But you have to consider that some already-established corporations will get waivers so they will remain strong. If a new company tries to move into the city, it will have trouble competing with the big media that already exists. The big media companies will be able to consolidate their resources; they don't need a reporter for each medium because one reporter can send news to the newspaper, television, radio, and internet branches of the office. Small companies who only work with one medium will have a harder time combating this advantage.
I live in Champaign, IL, and go to the University of Illinois. Comcast recently bought out our local cable company... not the cable company that serves our area, just the local branch of it... right before football season started... and now they refuse to offer the Big Ten network which broadcasts our team... but I'm sure that's just a coincidence... right? (that sarcasm is directed at Comcast, not the parent poster)
But before I start to really go off about that bullshit, our box does the same thing that yours does. It's a real pain. We don't have any other options either. I live in an apartment building, so we can't get satellite.
I have a friend who lives in Chicago and has been fed up with Comcast's service, largely because the cable seems to go out during Cubs games. They also continually call him and try to convince him to get a hardwire phone line, even though he has repeatedly told them he only uses his cell phone. Due to a variety of other factors, he's done with Comcast. He's willing to pay an extra $50 a month to get a dish and some other internet provider. With how much people love to consolidate bills these days, you know there's a problem when people are willing to pay more for multiple services that actually cost more than the original. It truly is amazing that Comcast thinks its users are satisfied.