March 20, 20178 yr comment_254728 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/free-tv-android-box-court-roger-bell-videotron-1.4029874
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254956 And the ruling... http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-free-tv-bell-rogers-1.4033741
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254960 17 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: And the ruling... http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-free-tv-bell-rogers-1.4033741 Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though.
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254969 33 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though. How are Bell, Rogers and Quebec's Vidéotron not content providers?
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254970 36 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though. As someone who uses an android box daily, I have no problem with this ruling. The issue isn't that they are selling the boxes themselves (you can buy those anywhere), it's that they were selling/advertising fully loaded boxes. They would have been fine if they just sold the boxes as is & let people choose how they wanted to use them but these guys pre-loaded them with Kodi so they could jack the price. It literally takes 5 minutes to install Kodi for free & there are step-by-step videos everywhere so it's not as though they were providing a big service ... it's a simple cash grab.
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254972 4 minutes ago, bigg jay said: As someone who uses an android box daily, I have no problem with this ruling. The issue isn't that they are selling the boxes themselves (you can buy those anywhere), it's that they were selling/advertising fully loaded boxes. They would have been fine if they just sold the boxes as is & let people choose how they wanted to use them but these guys pre-loaded them with Kodi so they could jack the price. It literally takes 5 minutes to install Kodi for free & there are step-by-step videos everywhere so it's not as though they were providing a big service ... it's a simple cash grab. Legally KODI itself is fine. It's the add-ons that are causing trouble. Just have to sell them now as Almost Fully-loaded.
March 21, 20178 yr comment_254977 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. Your example is flawed since cable companies have to pay for the content and there is no exclusivity in the contacts they sign.
March 22, 20178 yr comment_255029 15 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: How are Bell, Rogers and Quebec's Vidéotron not content providers? True. They are both
March 22, 20178 yr comment_255188 3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: Happy 86th birthday to great Canadian William Shatner He's aged well but maybe its the hair.
March 24, 20178 yr comment_255511 43 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: From Tulsa: police run over and kill woman shooting at them. Crazy Hopefully the car wasn't damaged.
March 24, 20178 yr comment_255512 Just now, Atomic said: Hopefully the car wasn't damaged. police have insurance. Car came out a lot better than the idiot who tried to kill cops.
March 24, 20178 yr comment_255572 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/license-plate-government-regulations-removal-last-name-1.4037912
March 27, 20178 yr comment_255858 "Barring an unforeseen obstacle, the Oakland Raiders seem certain to get approval Monday to relocate to Las Vegas. Several team owners have said this week they don't envision a scenario where Raiders owner Mark Davis doesn't get the required 24 votes to move the team." Golden Knights attendance woes start now? Edited March 27, 20178 yr by FrostyWinnipeg
March 27, 20178 yr comment_255870 why is LV suddenly a hot spot for major league sports, when normally their venues are boxing related? which industry is likely going to be hurt most because of this? but then again I think the big question is which franchise will fail first oh wait the team won't be moving to Vegas for another two years Edited March 27, 20178 yr by iHeart
March 27, 20178 yr comment_255877 I think the NHL was always interested in going there. I guess for most sports it comes down to a facility. Once MGM built the arena and wanted a regular tenant, it became easy for the NHL to want to go there.
March 27, 20178 yr Author comment_255880 For the longest time all professional sports leagues stayed away from Vegas because they didn't want the appearance of their product associated with gambling. Now that the internet has proliferated gambling so that anyone can bet on sports from the comfort of their La-Z-Boy, it doesn't have the stigma it once had.
March 27, 20178 yr comment_255881 1 hour ago, iHeart said: oh wait the team won't be moving to Vegas for another two years
March 28, 20178 yr comment_255918 17 hours ago, Rich said: For the longest time all professional sports leagues stayed away from Vegas because they didn't want the appearance of their product associated with gambling. Now that the internet has proliferated gambling so that anyone can bet on sports from the comfort of their La-Z-Boy, it doesn't have the stigma it once had. And, fantasy sports has softened everyone on gambling.
March 29, 20178 yr comment_256063 For anyone thinking of going to Grand Forks, Fargo, etc: Edited March 29, 20178 yr by Jacquie
March 29, 20178 yr comment_256066 2 hours ago, Jacquie said: For anyone thinking of going to Grand Forks, Fargo, etc: Practically speaking, not much difference. It's not like it was difficult to get a concealed carry permit before. Basically like getting a fishing licence.
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment