4 ms·

The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the

The irony, of course, is that you insinuate the FCC would never go after Comcast despite the fact that going after Comcast is the very thing that kicked off the entire net neutrality debate. > Have you known corporations in America to suffer consequences of significant magnitude for illegal actives of late? Well, if we're staying with the FCC, this would seem to qualify: https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-misleading-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/document/att-mobility-faces-100m-fine-mi.... The FCC fined AT&T $100 M for violation of an Open Internet rule--the FCC found that they essentially "mislabeled" their broadband Internet service as'unlimited' without disclosing that speeds would be throttled after a user exceeded a certain soft cap. $100 M seems to me like a pretty robust fine for that kind of violation.

cmdrfred 10y ago
While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  What amount do you think would be reasonable, given that violation?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Lying to consumers is a serious offense. They would feel something in the vicinity of 10 billion. Roughly a 1/5th of their profits for the year.
    - pdabbadabba 10y ago
      Huh. Well, I think we're just going to have to disagree on that one. While some lies are worse than others (and I suppose I can think of lies that might warrant the astronomical fine you propose), this particular 'lie'--marketing a data plan as unlimited when speeds were in fact throttled when you exceed a certain monthly cap--arguably in violation of a brand new rule doesn't seem nearly serious enough to warrant the huge fine you're talking about.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Its worth noting that that $100 million fine was -- by the FCC's own description -- significantly moderated because it was the first fine under the Transparency Rule [0] [0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-63A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-63A1.pd... (para. 38)

cmdrfred 10y ago

While likely a large number to you and me, we are talking about a corporation that claims 120 billion in sales a year. That is less than a single days profits. Not nearly punitive enough to prevent this behavior in the future.

pdabbadabba 10y ago
What amount do you think would be reasonable, given that violation?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Lying to consumers is a serious offense. They would feel something in the vicinity of 10 billion. Roughly a 1/5th of their profits for the year.
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    Huh. Well, I think we're just going to have to disagree on that one. While some lies are worse than others (and I suppose I can think of lies that might warrant the astronomical fine you propose), this particular 'lie'--marketing a data plan as unlimited when speeds were in fact throttled when you exceed a certain monthly cap--arguably in violation of a brand new rule doesn't seem nearly serious enough to warrant the huge fine you're talking about.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Its worth noting that that $100 million fine was -- by the FCC's own description -- significantly moderated because it was the first fine under the Transparency Rule [0] [0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-63A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-63A1.pd... (para. 38)