Judge, my crimes and illegal activity are an expression of my free speech and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. Therefore, anyone suing me, including prosecutors, are violating my civil rights and their suit is a SLAPP lawsuit intended to silence my free speech.
The court should dismiss their lawsuit (or prosecution) so that I may continue my crimes and illegal activities unimpeded.
Bravo Rightscorp! That's more original than Prenda or Righthaven.
He should be ashamed for not having to vision to make his letter much more general and focusing merely on his own immediate needs.
How about getting congress to simply remove all government control of companies so that there will be no limits to how outrageously they can behave. Since their greed knows no bounds, it would be pretty entertaining to see how far they might go.
The immediate reaction is that everyone would soon be paying outrageous prices for substandard service. But it wouldn't stop there.
Next would come safety? Safety? Who needs that? Maybe you can pay an extra premium if you want safe drinking water. But later it might simply be easier to eliminate that premium option altogether (except for some people). And food safety? If you don't like it, then don't eat it! Why should the government interfere. And why should you get to know the secret ingredients in your food? And nutrition info? It's good for (our stockholders) and you. So just eat it already.
Why is Verizon's vision so limited when it comes to removing government regulation in order to allow outrageous behavior by business?
Yes, but that finite limit is determined by the capacity that the ISPs build. It is practical to build capacity to deliver streaming TV to everyone. The ISPs who are also cable companies already do that in order to deliver their own digital content to customers' homes.
> claiming that the internet was never intended for > downloading audio and video files
The electrical grid was never intended for anything but a few electric light bulbs.
The roads were never intended for the major trucking we have today which displaced rail shipping.
Telephone lines were never intended for modems. Etc, etc.
If I am within my bandwidth limits, what I use my packets for is none of the ISP's business.
The customers, NOT Netflix / Showtime / HBO etc are the ones who should be paying for the bandwidth they use. The video providers likewise pay for their use of bandwidth at their end, to their 'ISP' (if that term even applies to their connection).
Mike, why don't you want the legislators of Tennessee to be able to drive expensive cars and send their children to expensive private schools? What kind of agenda do you have against them? Please consider that if they were to allow the citizens of Tennessee to have excellent municipal broadband for free or reasonable prices, then the flow of money to the legislators would stop. Doesn't that seem unfair to you? Please consider the poor legislators' plight.
Introduce an option where a customer can pay an extra fee to their local cable company and Netflix will not allow playing each episode of a series until at least one week after you have watched the previous episode.
For an additional fee, Netflix could add a fixed time window option where you must watch the episode in a fixed time, such as 7 PM Thursday Evenings. Failure to watch it at that time means you miss it and will not have another opportunity to watch it for one year.
For people who really want the premium experience, Netflix could charge customers an additional fee that enables them to experience commercials conveniently inserted by Netflix at points in time where something exciting has happened or some major plot twist has just occurred.
For an additional fee, Netflix could remove your ability to pause the internet stream so that you must watch it live.
None of these ideas are technically infeasible to implement. Those of us who want a superior experience from Netflix should send them feedback to implement these features at once. This would allow us to blame someone other than Google for a change. (Of course, we still could look for some reason to blame Google for Netflix's lack of the above features.)
Re: "now that many people see no reason to continue to fork over money"
> So tell me: How is anyone entitled to enjoy content without paying for it?
Let's not talk about the paying for it. Let's talk about enjoying it.
Can you name me one single thing that your paymsters produce that I would be remotely interested in listening to? (Whether I had to pay for it, and how much, is irrelevant. You can assume that if I don't want to hear it, I'm certainly not going to listen to it, nor be forced to pay for it as you seem to want.)
Re: Just like "red light cameras" & drone murders,
Isn't totally automated enforcement the holy grail?
That way government employees can get back to what it important*.
Brain implants would be greatly helpful. Detect thought crime. Automatically charge your credit card whenever you hear anything copyrighted. Short of that, at least require TVs to be 'smart' TVs with cameras and audio pickups in every home to help detect crimes.