Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
theverge.com
Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#2Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed?
I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers from ISPs. If it is an essential service, there is no reason you should be forced to sign an arbitration agreement in order to get service.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#3Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed? I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers…
What's wrong with arbitration?
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#4I've learned to tune out any headline that includes "Democrat" or "Republican" as it's typically useless PR or an otherwise biased piece.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#5The actual bill: https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/net_neutrality_a...
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#6Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed? I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers…
What's wrong with arbitration?
Private arbitration almost always finds in favor of whomever is footing the bill -- the large companies.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#7I've learned to tune out any headline that includes "Democrat" or "Republican" as it's typically useless PR or an otherwise biased piece.
Bias in the current political paradigm holds a very different meaning. It’s akin to calling a news article about victims of murder biased in favor of the victims.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#8Not to sound like a pessimist, but I don't take anything like this seriously. "Political Party resumes fight for popular thing" really means "political party knows how to quickly get some good PR"
You can't take what politicians publicly support at face value unless they are proposing a law that will be passed because they hold the numbers to pass it.
Its easy to pick up some popular thing and parade it around when you will never have to put your money where your mouth is.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#9Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed? I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers…
ISPs should straight up be declared common carrier utilities, just like telephone companies.
What I really don't understand are the politicians who insist that websites should be declared common carriers but not ISPs.
Re: Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality
#10Is essential service the same as a utility? With only having one or two provides in many areas, what happens if you end up taking the provider to court for service issues and they kick you off your platform and you have no other options, or the other option is a small fraction of the speed? I think one of the best things Democrats could do would be to eliminate the enforcement of arbitration clauses and jury waivers…
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.