Sounds like a wet-saw for tile or masonry would do the job.

Yeah you can, just combine fiber optics with a photo-voltaic cell. It'd be inefficent and a stupid waste of fiber, but it could be done :)

Yeah, you could do it, but it'd be WAY more expensive because each tower would need it's own generator, and it takes a lot more towers to cover to cover the same area that one POTS CO can cover. Each of those towers also consumes orders of magnitude more power to provide coverage a unit area than the POTS network takes due to the inefficient nature of omni-directional radio broadcast. Basically, in addition to backup generators, you'd need either a massive amount of on-site fuel storage if you wanted the generators to be able to run for more than a few hours, or a significant fuel distribution network (natural gas would be great, but the infrastructure just is'nt available everywhere you need it) and during Frances, you couldn't get diesel or gasoline any easier than you could get electricity.

It's a technically simple problem, but a logistical nightmare during an emergency situation.

It would take either a massive government subsidy to get it done, or your cell phone bill would skyrocket to cover the additional infrastructure costs.

It's not the case yet though, and good luck getting any kind of "make big businesses worry about the consumer" legislation passed in the current US political climate. When my town was hit by hurricane Frances in 2004, power was out for a week and a half, and the only way to communicate was using an old corded telephone on a POTS line. The cell towers were all unpowered, as were the cablemodems. I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.

PSTN is useful during power outages. When hurricane Frances hit Florida in 2004, power was out in my town for about a week and a half. No power means the Cell towers were't working and the cable modem gets shut off. Since PSTN provides it's own power, most people that I know of keep a simple, dumb old corded telephone somewhere in their house for emergency communication during hurricanes.

It's already been done.

First of all, please stop suggesting that you understand what I want or what I think, you've been wrong both times and I've already corrected you on it once. I don't really care which side would win such a case because I have no interest in playing the game, it's just raised a legal question that I found interesting. I don't think that the company should be forced to fund the service until they go bankrupt. Believe it or not, there are other possible remedies to the solution. They could refund part of the purchase price, or simply fine the company to discourage them from doing it again. Your arguments seem to suggest that you think this is a very black and white issue, but I believe that there is some gray space in between "they can put whatever they want on the box, who cares if it's not true or if the claim is only true for a short period of time, fuck the consumer" and "you have to support the features of your product until the earth is eventually consumed by our expanding sun". The question that I am actually interested in is whether supporting multiplayer for three years has fulfilled their obligation to provide the service that they said they would. I've clearly stated why I believe that a "we can break your game whenever you feel like it" disclaimer on the box satisfies all three requirements of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999, and is potentially invalid.

I've explained why I think it applies, now please explain to me why you think it doesn't apply. You haven't given any reasons beyond "nuh-uh" and "look at all these websites that shut down at some point without getting sued".

RE: estoppel: The only game that I can find that has shut down it's servers faster is EA's Madden/NCAA series games, but they specifically say on the box that multiplayer will be avilable for 12 months only, which I do not believe would be covered by the Act because it clearly states the duration they are obligated to provide service rather than a nebulous "shit might get shut down at some point" that leaves the consumer completely in the dark about how long they actually have to play the game that they are purchasing. There isn't much case law covering this subject, which is specifically why it is interesting to me.

Ok, If you're going to deny the existence of all this legislation I guess we're done.

About $60.

1. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. Does three years satisfy their end of the bargain on multiplayer?

2. Codemasters, the company that developed the game is a UK company and this is taking place worldwide.

3. That's not what I'm suggesting they should do.

Kibu.com: Did they charge money for their service? If not, of course no one sued them for stopping service because there would literally be $0.00 in damages.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I was more thinking about VC from individual investors because those are the only kind I have any experiencing dealing with.

Yes, I've read the fine print, but I don't believe that it's binding because of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999. That particular "we don't actually have to uphold our end of the bargain on multiplayer" seems like exactly the type of unfair contract it was intended to prevent. It's not individually negotiated, it unbalances the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, and it seems to violate good faith.

It's good to see some courageous Anonymous Coward finally standing up for the rights of those unfortunate, wealthy, international corporations when consumers attempt to get them to uphold their end of the bargain.

They definitley have some obligation to support it. There is most certainly some duration of time greater than 1 second but less than "eternity" that they need to back up that claim, I was attempting to ask if anyone knew of prior case law that could suggest what that duration is.

Can someonen go after them for false advertising? It says it's a multiplayer game right there on the box. How long does that obligate them to back up that claim?