The carrier may be required to "buy" ESPN 2-54 if a subscriber has ESPN 1, but I've never seen where the subscriber must "pay" for ESPN 2-54.
WTF? Yeah, I'm gonna eat the cost of purchasing the whole lineup so my customer can get 1 channel! They would be out of business in less than 6 months provided their shareholders didn't sue them for financial suicide.
Disney requires that ESPN be in the base tier of programming and they also own:
Crime & Investigation Network
A+E Networks International
A+E Networks Consumer Products
A+E Networks Digital
Lifetime Entertainment Services
ESPN on ABC - formerly ABC Sports
ESPN Original Entertainment
ESPN Regional Television
ESPN International (see for complete list of channels)
ESPN The Magazine
ESPN Books (an imprint of Disney's Hyperion Books)
ESPN Home Entertainment
If you want A&E you gotta get all of those as well.
Trust me they have studied every possible revenue model and they like the one they have.
In the past Microsoft may have had an NIH approach, but over the past few years they have significantly changed from that in the developer area - switching from the Microsoft Ajax tools to jQuery, using Json.Net etc etc etc.
I'm not sure either the OP or this one understand what NIH means. It's part of the EEE philosophy. Look for a hot new technology in the consumer space. Identify the leaders in that space. Purchase one of the leaders and modify the technology so that it is no longer 100% compatible with anybody else's version of the tech. Market the hell out of your version and destroy the competition. Internet Explorer was licensed from Spyglass and all version of IE up to 6 were based on that code. In this case Microsoft was so desperate to beat Netscape they gave Internet Explorer away for free which really pissed Spyglass off because their license was based on revenue from sales of IE. In the end it worked too well and the industry was stuck with dependency on IE 6 for over a decade. If Microsoft can figure out a way to integrate Blink or Webkit and make it work I don't see why they wouldn't as long as they can monetize it in some way.
It seems that you did not put the new cover letters on them.
Actually I did. I just used the economy ink setting so you have to squint really hard to see it.
This is fiber. I don't have Verizon myself, but in general everything people complain about in regards to ISPs goes away once you're fiber. They'd have to have some pretty serious congestion issues for FiOS to start having trouble.
It matters not how fast your download speed from your ISP is if said ISP's connection to the content you are requesting isn't able to deliver it.
Along that same line though, I've no idea why they had asymmetric on fiber to begin with. The point to ADSL (Asymmetric DSL) has to do with crosstalk on the copper lines in the DSLAM. This isn't an issue, at all, for Fiber. So it makes little sense to have asymmetric fiber service other than for marketing purposes.
Consumer ISP's are all about getting content to you. They don't want you throwing up a server at your house to stream data to the ethers. They want you to stream media from them. So much so most have U NO RUN SERVER clauses in their TOS. An asynchronous connection allows them to advertise higher bandwidth "download" speeds and keeps those nasty server runners with paltry pipes to get their filth up to the internet.
"Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101,"
Intellectual property is ownership of ethereal, non-physical ideas so couldn't this be used to combat IP across the board?
You mean that metal with nickel in it might cause people who are allergic to nickel to have a response?
I don't think any shorts were reported so shocks were not responsible for the rashes.