There is plenty of blame to go around. While I think some (most? all?) of the disputes between content providers and the distributors are ridiculous, you don't have to do much digging to find a whole lot of bloat on the bill that is strictly from the cable company.
For instance I can't watch things on my DVR on my other TV, because they wanted to not only charge me a per month fee to turn on the feature on my DVR, but wanted to charge me a monthly network fee, that was basically charging me to allow them to send signal across my wire in my home network that both receivers were already connected to.
Both sides of the industry are trying their best to ignore the fact that the current method is going to change, it only remains to be seen who will be a part of it, and who will dry up and blow away, while crying the modern equivalent of "Why isn't anyone buying my buggy whips?"
I'm not sure we can say the only income they had was from these two default judgements. On the cases where they were allowed to serve the ISP and got a response, were their any single ip dismissals that would indicate someone who settled based on the threat letters.
And I might check it out if Chartier hadn't started the speculative invoicing scheme. As it is now though, I refuse to do anything that might resemble supporting his work. Even though it will not change the amount of money he will receive, "Dallas Buyers Club" in now on (or was recently) a premium movie channel that I subscribe to, and I still won't watch it.
While the headline can be read different ways, Time Warner is increasing to 6X their old speeds for the same price they were charging. They are not going to 6X google fiber speed for the price that Google is charging.
Exactly. When AT&T starts putting in 1GB service someplace Google isn't already, or announced they are going to be, then I might believe AT&T is actually interested increasing service for it's customers.
If what I understood from the ARSTechnica coverage is right, the problem wasn't that they gained entry by lying, but the fact that they didn't say that they gained entry by lying on the warrant request.
The judge basically said that getting in by pretending to be who you are not was okay, but not telling the judge while you were getting your warrant was a no-no.