So I find myself in the strange position of both disagreeing with Tim, and agreeing with Donald Trump (ugh).
Tim: The news is that this was a tragedy. The sad news isn't just that we're not going to do anything about it, but rather that we're not going to do anything about it even though we all have a cause in it.
I'm going to misquote Trump: "Sometimes bad things happen." This was (yet another) really sad, even tragic, event. But I don't agree that there is any real action to take.
You bring up a good point. Instead of mandating a technologically impossible law, why don't they mandate a socially impossible law? "No French citizen is allowed to search for:" and list all of the things that have been forgotten.
More than one-third of today’s expensively rolled-out bandwidth already is consumed in peak hours by a single company, whose customers represent a tiny minority—about 1.2%—of Internet users.
Who is he implying paid for that "expensively rolled-out bandwidth"? Is he truly trying to suggest it was Comcast or AT&T, instead of the massive government subsidies that actually paid for the infrastructure?
By the way, we are not stating a Netflix conspiracy theory...the fact is, regulators are trying like crazy to make the necessary broadband seem like a free lunch to Netflix customers—a short-termism that necessarily undermines the incentive of others to compete with cable’s already-paid-for infrastructure.
Cohen added while some fear that more Netflix customers means less cable customers, he reminded the audience that reliable broadband is a crucial element of the streaming service. “Remember, you can’t get Netflix without broadband service,” Cohen said. “Those are 3 million customers of our broadband service.
What he didn't say is that they (Comcast, Mediacom, etc.) double the price of broadband service when the customer "unbundles" cable service from their account. So yeah, they get a little more than just a pound of flesh.
And the funniest thing about this is that businesses, including "big media", are amoral by definition. The only true goal of any for-profit business is to amass wealth. If it is a publicly traded business, then they have a fiduciary responsibility to their share-holders to amass wealth as efficiently as possible; if the business does not, the responsible management can be sued.
Notice that morality, and indeed even legality, don't come into that equation! Legality is usually an accepted factor, because it is easier, in the long run, to amass wealth when the business follows the law (or at least most of the laws). However, as we all know, even legality is often tossed by the wayside.
The sad thing is, "without actually winning a case against them" is not even the full absurdity. In the US, they can take your stuff without even *charging* you with a crime, much less indicting or convicting.
"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court often follows the Solicitor General's advice on cases (though, not always)."
Even if they didn't, what makes you think that SCOTUS will be any more technically capable to make a reasonable ruling than CAFC? None of the sitting judges gives me the impression that they would be willing to do the homework that Alsup did to actually understand the issue.