I have written to the Calif. Dept of Weights and Measures asking them to do this exact thing in the past. They told me that they don't have jurisdiction.
If a business sells a product by some metric, then I can't imagine why it would not fall under this department's jurisdiction. I wrote in complaints about AT&T Wireless charging me for megabytes of data that didn't make any sense.
I fail to see why mobile cellular data, minutes on calling cards, internet data caps, whatever, are exempt from regulation. There is something very wrong with allowing a merchant to control the "meter" for their product.
I also wanted to add. The cable TV companies will learn the hard way that when these Millienials do have kids, those kids aren't going to watch cable TV. They are going to be using digital data apps using entertainment that the cable TV companies have no ownership of.
..."most cable sector executives still desperately cling to the narrative that cord cutting is a fad that stops once Millennials procreate."
Yea. They don't realize that most Millienials can't afford to procreate. You know, with those crazy tuition loans, sky high rents, low salaries, rising health insurance co-pays and premiums, and other more important bills than cable TV.
Let me add. I really don't think that any judge is going to let plaintiffs do this very often. After all, they wasted the courts time too. So he/she must have done a damn good job convincing a judge of the merits of his/her argument.
Man. I am really torn here. I don't like absolutes that leave no discretion. It leads to insanely stupid execution of policies.
The classic example is the zero tolerance of drugs/weapons policy in schools that cause them to blow misunderstandings and mistakes out of proportion. Or the mandatory sentencing laws that force judges that hand out sentences that don't come close to matching the circumstances of the case.
We have to trust judges. If a judge felt that this case was enough of a mistake that it should not appear in the records, then I feel he needs to have the discretion to purge it.
What should be examined here is the process that is used to purge this case. Was the defendant notified? Was he/she allowed to contest the judge's decision? If all three parties are cool with it, then let them do it.
I think a good balance would be: (a) Approval of defendants (b) Automatic review of decision by that judges superiors
I suspect that they aren't wrong about damage to their equipment. It is well known that gangs control access to phones in many prisons and jails. So in addition to paying off the prison itself for a contract, I suspect that this company also has to pay extortion to the gangs that control the access. Otherwise, their equipment will get damaged in an "unfortunate accident". Nor will they have access to their customers.
Reducing the rates this drastically won't allow them to continue to pay the current extortion rates.
It could be that when Netflix license content, they are required to report back to the content holder the number of viewers on the content. The license could be structured that the content holder gets paid different different amounts when the views crosses predefined thresholds.
This would incentivize content creators to produce shows that people want to watch.
It would also let a content owner figure out what the content is worth. When the license expires, they could use that information to decide what to price the next license agreement at.
What is different here from the networks is that Netflix needs stats for content owners, not advertisers. The content owners don't care about the demographics. Or at least they don't have to have that info like an advertiser would.