I disagree. There are a lot of 100Mbps DOCSIS 3.0 down cable connection possibilities in the USA. If you have a 4 person household and each person is watching an HD show and recording an HD show, that means about 48Mbps of capability is needed. A 100Mbps connection should do fine.
Unlike the filibusters in the US Senate, this lady actually had to stand and deliver a continuous speech. Bring back the requirement for that to occur in the US Senate, and it would be interesting to see how much obstructionism the Republicans engage in.
Sounds just like the airlines un-bundling airfares and making everything an extra fee, The surgical profession has done it also. Opening you up is one fee, closing you up is another. You know about $5 razors that can only be used with a particular $5 each blade.
These guys are so used to being the center of attention wherever they go, they forget to think before they speak. Why do they think their own news divisions use works like alleged shooter or person of interest? To avoid getting trapped in the consequences of making absolutist statements that may not be true.
Case 6, as in Aereo, is the bogus one. Those tiny Aereo antennas are not capable of picking up a decent ATSC signal on their own. What you have is a clever antenna array made up of those tiny antennas. If each of those antennas was properly sized for quality OTA signal reception, then Aereo would be on its way to substantiating its claims of only providing a remote exclusive antenna service. The non continuous nature of the use of any particular "antenna" also points to the fraud of Aereo. An antenna mounted on the roof of my house is going to be used by me exclusively at my physical address.
The cable companies have strong defenses against the abolishing of the franchise agreements they have until after the expiration of the contract, if an expiration date exists. You can go into the municipality of your choice and ask for permits to build a secondary network at your expense. That would break the monopoly.
As far as the OTA broadcasters go, you have to have some rules for who uses what frequency, or all you get is noise. Taking away the monopoly use of an OTA TV frequency/channel would lead to useless noise in the one to many broadcasting environment.
The M is highly rated on the Verizon website. A coworker uses one of the Verizon Motorola Droids and likes it a lot. Battery life is slightly better than average. The big thing is to set aside a large block of time for her to learn about the phone and experiment with it a lot using the functions and applications she needs and truly wants to use. Do this several times and she will be as comfortable using the M as she was using the old flip clam-shell or solid bar phones. It takes about 3 months to really get comfortable using or not using all the features, getting a feel for how long a battery charge will last the way she uses the phone, finding a phone case and accessories that work for her, and other stuff.
Sprint not only does not have a robust network, they have a very limited coverage one. Same with T-Mobile. If both of those companies had built geographic coverage similar to AT&T and Verizon, you would have more real competition. A lot of people I know would love to use T-Mobile instead of AT&T or Verizon, but their network's geographic coverage is too small. If T-Mobile builds out significant network geographic coverage, then you can watch both AT&T and Verizon have large percentages of customers switch to T-Mobile.
When Comcast was allowed to purchase NBC you saw an investigation in which anti-competitive issues were rejected as a basis to block the merger. If the federal government allowed that anti-competitive merger, then the ones you are discussing have little chance of being stopped.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by David Hoffman.