They can get cancelled even if you *DO* contribute to their ratings...
I was in a Nielson household once... from about '99 to '04. When a show that I really *really* liked ended up getting cancelled after barely more than half a season, despite me and my wife and 4 kids watching it every single week starting with the pilot, I ended up cancelling our participation in January '04, and had them take their equipment back. I know that it's not Nielson's fault that the show got cancelled, of course.... but that experience with trying to participate in their ratings program, and *STILL* seeing a show that I really liked get cancelled before it could even get started was very discouraging, and I kind of stopped seeing the point.
This may sound like a foreign concept to you, but some people actually may want, or at least have a strong preference to respect copyright law.
That you may disagree with it for whatever philosophical reasons you possess has no bearing on that...
With enough capital to retire off of, I'd probably use whatever was left to help people, to the extent that money can.
Maybe build an apartment building that wasn't being run for-profit to keep rent down for low-income families or something like that.... having come from one myself, I know how much of a difference the availability of stuff like that can make.
I have no problem with metered usage in general.... I also have no problem with any so-called unlimited plans either, but I'm suggesting that such labelling would only be justified when any such "unlimited" plans are designed such that any metering that may occur on them is strictly for reporting purposes, and does not actually affect what services or levels of service they are entitled to receive, or how much they pay for that service.
Their services may still be limited by things such as network bandwidth or how many other people are using the service at the same time, but such limitations are physical ones that would exist for everyone anyways, even if their usage were not being metered at all. It is only when the *metering* of usage is used to impact the amount that must be paid, or the level or quality of service being offered for the fees that are being charged that the term "unlimited" cannot reasonably be construed to apply.
I would think most users would be entirely happy with "unlimited" simply meaning that any metering of their usage that may occur would not be used to either limit usage, nor to determine how much additional fees to charge them beyond whatever level of service they paid for.
Any limits that might exist on their usage would be strictly a consequence of whatever the technology is capable of based on how the network is actually being used, not only by them, but by all subscribers at the same moment that they are using the service.
Of course, if too many subscribers are trying to do too much at once, the network can potentially become unusable for all of them.... much like if too many people are calling the same phone number at the same time then it can sometimes happen that none of them may end up getting through. That doesn't mean that their individual usage isn't unlimited, however.
Seems like a pretty simple problem to solve, if you ask me.
That does not necessarily mean that their suffering is all in their mind because what a person believes or thinks can sometimes have real, measurable effects on their physiology. Although I think that what it does mean is that EM sensitivity needs to be treated as a psychological matter rather than physiological one.
Numerous double blind studies have conclusively shown that such sensitivity ultimately depends on what the subject *believes* to be true, regardless of whether or not it actually is. Whether she would still "sense" anything inside of the Faraday cage actually depends on whether or not she genuinely believes the Faraday cage will truly stop the signals she believes are harming her, and whether or not she believes those signals to be present.
In other words, its all psychosomatic.... and should be treated as such. Psychosomatic disorders can still produce externally measurable changes in a person's body, so the suffering can still be legitimately real, and so I would not think that being simply dismissive of it is necessarily the best approach, but probably psychological help would be for the best so that she can learn how to recognize the false signals that her brain is telling her about, and perhaps eventually overcome the dysfunction.
All available evidence on Electromagnetic sensitivity suggests that is actually a purely psychosomatic disorder, but belief is tremendously powerful thing and can produce real and measurable physiological changes in a person, causing immune reactions without any externally visible cause, change in hormone levels that should otherwise only be explainable by other external phenomonena, etc.
Treating serious psychosomatic disorders requires the person to not just be aware that the problem is all in their own mind, but it also requires that a person be aware of some pathway to a solution to their apparent problem. I have heard it best described by one psychologist as (althouh I am paraphrasing here, this is not a direct quote) "there's nothing actually wrong with your hardware, but basically the software in your brain is misfiring and telling your body the wrong thing.". A person with a psychosomatic disorder needs to learn a skill that is not necessarily easy to come by, and that is to learn how to ignore those essentially false signals that their brain is telling their own body, and causing it to react in ways that might otherwise be attributed to some external phenomena. This is why the person needs psychiatric help.
Simply telling an EHS sufferer that it's just all in their own head and they should be able to simply think their way out of their problem is only going to get you ignored, because their body may still be producing a real reaction to something, even if that something is only imagined.
In practice, an ex employer is not even going to know what a former employee is doing after he or she leaves, let alone who they are working for without having to spend time and resources following what that person is doing outside of company time. Non-competes really are, for all practical purposes, completely unenforceable, and not generally worth the paper they are printed on... at best they typically only serve as a cautionary warning to not violate any NDA's, which an employer *CAN* legally go after you for violating potentially even years after you leave the company, although the more time that elapses since employment ended, the more difficult (exponentially, even) it becomes to establish any plausible NDA violation, and so NDA's have a practical upper limit to their duration that is usually less than a decade.
If noncompetes were generally legally enforceable, they could be presented as a condition of employment by an employer, and effectively prohibit any employees from legally practising in whatever trade it is that they are trained in after they leave said employer (short of moving to a distant enough jurisdiction), when they have not actually done anything to warrant such treatment. Although a lawyer can be disbarred, and a medical practitioner can lose their license, for example, such people actually have to do something that was *WRONG* to warrant such a thing.
Happiness is a hard disk.