3 ms·

What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if th

by afiori 7y ago

What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if they do then it should not apply. [0] I guess I am wrong in believing this should is respected

crooked-v 7y ago
Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are required to go to arbitration with an arbitrator of our choosing" clauses.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.
  - afiori 7y ago
    > It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service. This is conditional on resources or on the possibility of a class action. In practice I agree that this condition is almost never satisfied.
    - crooked-v 7y ago
      Class actions are also impossible, because of those mandatory arbitration clauses.
- afiori 7y ago
  But then the thing I am relatively unsure about the stance of net-neutrality proponents would be whether it is legal for Comcast to sell "shitty internet." That is something that always get throttled first, that blocks certain websites, or that prioritize promoted services. I mean a VPN could legally do that, and in the case of a ISP my personal idea of net-neutrality would be that a neutral service needs to be available and that non-neutral offerings needs to be clearly marketed as such. I honestly see this as a possible drive to competition, as ISP would be forced to disclose how shitty or not the service is.

by afiori 7y ago

crooked-v 7y ago

Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are required to go to arbitration with an arbitrator of our choosing" clauses.

gnicholas 7y ago
The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.
- afiori 7y ago
  > It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service. This is conditional on resources or on the possibility of a class action. In practice I agree that this condition is almost never satisfied.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    Class actions are also impossible, because of those mandatory arbitration clauses.
afiori 7y ago
But then the thing I am relatively unsure about the stance of net-neutrality proponents would be whether it is legal for Comcast to sell "shitty internet." That is something that always get throttled first, that blocks certain websites, or that prioritize promoted services. I mean a VPN could legally do that, and in the case of a ISP my personal idea of net-neutrality would be that a neutral service needs to be available and that non-neutral offerings needs to be clearly marketed as such. I honestly see this as a possible drive to competition, as ISP would be forced to disclose how shitty or not the service is.