Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with arbitration?
Private arbitration almost always finds in favor of whomever is footing the bill -- the large companies.
You typically split the bill in arbitration.
Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with arbitration?
The only reason arbitration clauses exist is because corporations know they can get a more favorable outcome from a private arbiter of their choosing than they will from the public court system.
Arbitration exists because it is a much faster and cheaper process. Corporations don't get to pick the arbitrator - they mutually chosen.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason arbitration clauses exist is because corporations know they can get a more favorable outcome from a private arbiter of their choosing than they will from the public court system.
Arbitration exists because it is a much faster and cheaper process. Corporations don't get to pick the arbitrator - they mutually chosen.
False.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#14One aspect of net neutrality that doesn't make sense to me is the ban to throttle traffic. It's bandwidth over some time period and higher peak loads does cost more.
A simple example is how on airplanes, WiFi doesn't support streaming video, etc. but allows text messaging. So would this bill make that illegal? If so, that wouldn't make video streaming on planes come sooner, just make plane WiFi more expensive.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#15Translation: "Democrats are seeking attention ahead of the midterms, this time using the fig leaf of net neutrality."
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason arbitration clauses exist is because corporations know they can get a more favorable outcome from a private arbiter of their choosing than they will from the public court system.
Arbitration exists because it is a much faster and cheaper process. Corporations don't get to pick the arbitrator - they mutually chosen.
This is false. The pro se legal system exists and even filing a federal claim for approx $400 is cheaper than most arbitration agreements. When I explored arbitration, the costs alone to file were around $2500. Companies have a lot of control of arbitration providers as well.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#17One aspect of net neutrality that doesn't make sense to me is the ban to throttle traffic. It's bandwidth over some time period and higher peak loads does cost more. A simple example is how on airplanes, WiFi doesn't support streaming video, etc. but allows text messaging. So would this bill make that illegal? If so, that wouldn't make video streaming on planes come sooner, just make plane WiFi more expensive.
Isn't the speed just capped low for everyone, so that video streaming is unpleasant?
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arbitration exists because it is a much faster and cheaper process. Corporations don't get to pick the arbitrator - they mutually chosen.
This is false. The pro se legal system exists and even filing a federal claim for approx $400 is cheaper than most arbitration agreements. When I explored arbitration, the costs alone to file were around $2500. Companies have a lot of control of arbitration providers as well.
Were you seeking arbitration as a consumer? It should have only been like a couple hundred dollars.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason arbitration clauses exist is because corporations know they can get a more favorable outcome from a private arbiter of their choosing than they will from the public court system.
Arbitration exists because it is a much faster and cheaper process. Corporations don't get to pick the arbitrator - they mutually chosen.
If arbitration wasn't so lopsided then corporations wouldn't have to contractually force it on people.
There is no good reason we should let companies take choice and power away from consumers like this. They only do it because it benefits them.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false. The pro se legal system exists and even filing a federal claim for approx $400 is cheaper than most arbitration agreements. When I explored arbitration, the costs alone to file were around $2500. Companies have a lot of control of arbitration providers as well.
Were you seeking arbitration as a consumer? It should have only been like a couple hundred dollars.
Yes I was. They set the arbitration provider and those were the costs. Lest not forget that district and superior court cases are usually around $100, and small claims in the range of $30 to $60.