"Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day"
This is an important statement because the server "logs" (such as they are) show no record of intrusions. This is being held up as proof that no one hacked the server, even though the logs are so sparse they don't show any reference to confirmed attacks.
Pied Piper is essentially immune to bandwith caps and zero rating discrimination. I mean, for god sake, have you seen their Weissman score?!? And that's before we even get into their neural net or sharded peer to peer distribution.
"The FCC would require existing programming distributors to provide the copyrighted programming they have licensed from content providers to third party manufacturers and app developers"
This argument seems to hinge on their belief that everyone would steal cable if they didn't have to get their tuner from the cable company. From the consumers' point of view that's ridiculous, the cable company would just shut off the service from the source. However my experience has lead me to believe that they are completely inept at controlling content and keeping 'premium' channels out of my house. Maybe we would all have free access to the raw feed if we didn't have their proprietary choke-point in every living room. Not that this legitimizes their complaints, it shouldn't be our job to not receive what they shouldn't have sent, but that may help explain this otherwise bat-shit crazy sounding complaint.
I'm not sure this is so open and shut. On the one hand, yes they appear to be different markets. However the Broncos are essentially grabbing the exclusive rights to put the name on shirts, something that Dr Pepper currently does: Official Apparel
Additionally, the term was popularized (according to Wikipedia: Orange Crush Defense ) by Woody Paige in the late 70's and early 80's in reference to a specific format of defense the Broncos ran. The name was a reference to both the orange uniforms, AND the popular soda brand. Sure, maybe they should be allowed to use it, but why should the Bronco's organization get exclusive rights to slap it on apparel?
Isn't this exactly what the Trademark application and opposition process is for? Having a public discussion mediated by a third party to determine what is reasonable?
Yes, these ISPs are operating uncompetitive markets in that their customers don't have a choice of Internet providers; that's why they can get away with it. But I'd posit that the "toll" is actually on the competitive market of content.
These ISPs are also content companies who are (rightly) terrified that consumers are more able to get their entertainment from other sources. They are leveraging their infrastructure control to make those competitors' services less appealing and more expensive.
It's worse than just a rate hike on uncompetitive cable TV, they're preventing the transition to new distribution methods because those methods allow competition.
Might also want to be careful about when they file. I'm not super sure the current Supreme Court would actually fix the CAFC debacle; what with their existing refusal to examine this appeal that sooooo many people are sure is wrong, and recent Grokster and Aero rulings.
In their defense, it is a pretty fat fringe exploitation on their customers' bills, and almost no one complains. I remember being very surprised that you could bring your own cable modem ten years ago. But the motion on not renting TV hardware has been nonexistent as of yet.
Remember when you had to rent your telephone from the Bell Telephone Company to connect to the Bell Local System or long-distance? Now that was a good scheme. Why did they ever give that up? Oh right...
Okay, I went and read the document to find out what the complaint actually was. It is 4 parts, but essentially I think it's:
Google publicly states that it removes sites for certain shady things. It removed our site, so people will assume we have done those shady things even though there's no proof. That's uncompetitive, since we make money by breaking Google's algorithm without breaking their rules.
That's alleged to be Defamation (by inference), violate the Lanham Act (false statements in commerce), Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (deceptive statements), and to be Tortious Interference (I think because customers can't manually type a url?).
So in this instance Google's first amendment right to remove sites isn't being denied (though that defense was rejected), it's whether removing a site makes an implied statement about that site because of their help documentation. They need to revise those documents (I suggest something like "screw you all") and then they can continue to delist spammers that aren't quite using known methods to game the system.
I find those "exceeding authorization" laws problematic in many cases. But isn't this different from your example of breaking someone else's policy since it's breaking your own policy? Am I legally bound not to feed the trolls if I substantially claim that I don't?
"plaintiff is alleging that as a result of its pages being removed from Google’s search results, Google falsely stated that e-ventures’ websites failed to comply with Google’s policies.... Google is in fact defending on the basis that e-ventures’ websites were removed due to e-ventures’ failure to comply with Google’s policies.... The Court finds that this speech is capable of being proven true or false"
So the court is essentially weighing the matter of "you're a liar" vs "nuh-uh"? Even if they didn't abide by their own policy, how is that a legal issue? Surely it can't be illegal to make a statement that turns out to be false. It might be a poor PR move to behave contrary to stated policy but unless I don't understand it at all, that policy is not a binding contract between Google and everyone it does and does not index.
There are so many anachronistic terms in industry analysis that they really do need to redefine a lot of them; they've just failed to do so usefully. Calling all moving picture entertainment in the home "television" doesn't fix their problem - people paying them less and competitors more. It makes investors less nervous if they don't see through the BS, but is not a solution.
Old term = New Term Broadcast TV = OTA Broadcast Cable TV = Proprietary Broadcast IP TV (FIOS) = Proprietary Broadcast On Demand Video (from Broadcast company) = Walled Garden Streaming Video = User Chosen Content Content Cord Cutting = Broadcast Cutting
Most people aren't cutting cords in the sense the no longer watch anything, they're opting for choice over broadcast. The concept that you have to tune in at a certain time or remember what channel a show is on, that's what's going to go away. That's what "Television" used to mean -"broadcast entertainment" as a mass transmitted one-way media consumption platform. Now television means whatever you choose to put on the big screen in your house, and broadcast companies are still bleeding subscribers and lashing out.
So what is their solution? Offering the same broadcast content delivered by a different protocol on your computer or phone? Increase the number of broadcast channels, hoping one may match a user's interests? Offering crappy "VOD" titles packaged with the same broadcast subscription people don't want? Making their broadcast subscription integral to the Infrastructure they hold a monopoly on, or charging more to deliver competitor's content? Sure. Those will all work for a while. But they're not sustainable, it's like fighting the tide. If they're serious about competing on content, they need to compete on content and accept that they will be a part (a small part) of a customer's entertainment choices. The age of Studio/Broadcaster/Cable control is ending. The time of consumer choice has come.
Bullying seems to be quite a lot like pornography these days. Certain people think it's better restricted by the government than parents, is somehow worse when online, and they have a hell of a time describing what does or doesn't constitute it. But they still "know it when they see it" and are more than willing to try fixing a problem they don't understand.