Spectrum Cable Allegedly Intentionally Throttled Online Games to Extort Payments

James Robinson said:
I dumped Spectrum/TWC because of this.. went with AT&T 1k fiber.. when I had Spectrum they would throttle me on Netflix, my online games, or just general browsing.. Sitting there watching a movie in HD and suddenly it cuts to pixelated SD and stays there. You call and complain and they state their TOS allows them to reduce service speeds during peak usage hours, but REFUSE to state or explain what a 'peak usage hour' actually is, or even when. Trying to hit various news web sites from CNN, Fox, to Reuters, anything.. would get a 'network not found' error for a good 5 minutes before I could connect again and read my morning feeds.

Started getting these odd notices about downloading copy-written content, and was denied access to my ISP until after I 'agreed' to not download copywritten material any more... I hadn't been online in over a week with my computer OFF while I was in California... wtf? Done with that insanity.
Click to expand...

Thats great that you even had a choice of a different provider.

In my area, we have Verizon DSL as the only other viable "highspeed" product in our area. Close by there is Verizon FIOS, but it isnt in all areas here.

Spectrum inherited a large mess from TWC, problems that I don't think any company can just fix in a few years to totally correct every single issue.

My biggest worry is if this actually goes through with NY kicking Spectrum out of the state, who is going to buy the cable business? They are going to have the same exact equipment that is available right now and they are going to be in the same exact position as Spectrum was in a couple of years, because it will take billions of dollars to get what NY wants the cable company to do.

The smarter move is that NY fines the company, get paid and reinforce the details of their merger approval with larger fines if they are not complying in another year.
 
From the complaint-

306. Netflix could only deliver its content to subscribers through the last mile access network controlled by Spectrum-TWC. Netflix even offered to install for free its own equipment on Spectrum-TWC’s network to ensure smooth content delivery to subscribers. Spectrum-TWC, however, rejected that offer and sought payment from Netflix in exchange for unimpeded access to the last mile connection to Spectrum-TWC subscribers. 307. Absent a payment, Spectrum-TWC failed to maintain enough port capacity at interconnection points to handle the ever-increasing traffic load, and thereby, effectively limited the Netflix traffic flowing to Spectrum-TWC subscribers. 308. While negotiations with Netflix were ongoing between 2012 and June 2014 (the “Dispute Period”), Spectrum-TWC did not inform subscribers about the negative effect that the protracted dispute with Netflix had on its subscribers’ ability to enjoy content from Netflix. 309. The negative effects of Spectrum-TWC’s bargaining tactics, which included deliberately failing to provide sufficient interconnection capacity to meet subscriber demand for Netflix, are reflected in Netflix’s time-weighted bit rate metric (“TWBR”). TWBR measures the average streaming video speed received by SpectrumTWC subscribers. Slower streaming speeds are associated with reduced picture resolution (e.g., from high definition to standard definition or lower), additional buffering and other video performance issues, including pixelated screens, interruptions and outages.
Click to expand...

Yea, screams NN to me. Sounds to me that Spectrum had available capacity but didn't bother to keep up because they couldn't get their dollars from Netflix. Whom, by the way, offered to help the situation.

Hatriot said:
JUST LIKE THEY WOULD AGAINST ANY OTHER BUSINESS. So the state watchdogs are going after what appears to be a shady company which happens all the time. What is the problem here?
Click to expand...

So to all you clucks saying NN belongs to the FTC or states, I point you here-
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/14/net-neutrality-withstands-legal-challenge/

The FCC effectively won the NN battle and had the rights to enforce it. I'm sure as hell not going to have any warm fuzzies about my state going after something like this because they don't care. And a state like Arkansas that has a single branch family tree won't even know what the hell this is much less be able to enforce it. (Sorry native Arkansans). FTC? Good luck. The rules were already decided and the FCC had the authority to do something about it. I can only guess as to why they didn't.
 
Man, people won't just give them a break and let them do whatever they want will they? Poor company having to follow regulation and rules and all those bad things. I feel so sorry for them. How else do we expect them to make money hand over fist if we limit how they can rape people. :p
 
jardows said:
From the complaint:

PLEASE Note: This happened during the period that the so called "net neutrality" was "in force." So before anyone wants to make this an anti-Ajit Pai argument, realize that the rules reversed by the FCC under his watch were in effect during this alleged abuse by Spectrum.
Click to expand...


No no no wait up.

It was my understanding that those rules never really were in force at all. Yes they were reversed, but they hadn't come into effect yet as well.

Or are these different rules ?
 
lcpiper said:
No no no wait up.

It was my understanding that those rules never really were in force at all. Yes they were reversed, but they hadn't come into effect yet as well.

Or are these different rules ?
Click to expand...
And remember, New York's complaint does not reference the "Net Neutrality" regulations at all - just abusive, anti-consumer practices.
 
Now there is no more NN, they can do this kind of stuff freely.
How scary.
 
Dekar12 said:
Thats great that you even had a choice of a different provider.

In my area, we have Verizon DSL as the only other viable "highspeed" product in our area. Close by there is Verizon FIOS, but it isnt in all areas here.

Spectrum inherited a large mess from TWC, problems that I don't think any company can just fix in a few years to totally correct every single issue.

My biggest worry is if this actually goes through with NY kicking Spectrum out of the state, who is going to buy the cable business? They are going to have the same exact equipment that is available right now and they are going to be in the same exact position as Spectrum was in a couple of years, because it will take billions of dollars to get what NY wants the cable company to do.

The smarter move is that NY fines the company, get paid and reinforce the details of their merger approval with larger fines if they are not complying in another year.
Click to expand...


NY gave Adelphia/TW tons of money to upgrade their shit. Guess how that worked out.
 
Dekar12 said:
Thats great that you even had a choice of a different provider.

In my area, we have Verizon DSL as the only other viable "highspeed" product in our area. Close by there is Verizon FIOS, but it isnt in all areas here.

Spectrum inherited a large mess from TWC, problems that I don't think any company can just fix in a few years to totally correct every single issue.

My biggest worry is if this actually goes through with NY kicking Spectrum out of the state, who is going to buy the cable business? They are going to have the same exact equipment that is available right now and they are going to be in the same exact position as Spectrum was in a couple of years, because it will take billions of dollars to get what NY wants the cable company to do.

The smarter move is that NY fines the company, get paid and reinforce the details of their merger approval with larger fines if they are not complying in another year.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they agreed to fix this stuff when they bought TWC. They were warned back mid June that they haven't done a single thing yet that they promised and still didn't do a single thing after being reminded. Everyone wants to bitch and moan about larger companies merging, here is somebody trying to hold them to the terms of a merger and everyone is bitching about that.

I don't see it not going through at this point as they were given chance after chance and kept telling the state to go fuck itself. What I see is multiple people buying different areas. It will take some time and money but it can be done. Showing some progress is better than no progress. So what if you cant' build out 1000 sq miles a year, at least build 50 sq miles. The fact is they didn't do 1 thing to any degree.

I work for an ISP and we do it all the time. We give ourselves a goal that we want to see and every year just build a little towards that. So we can't make it to the city or area that we want to. Fine we will find a point a few miles towards there and build fiber to that point. I couldn't get my 12 miles of fiber between two towns so instead we built out 5 miles and setup ourselves to offer fiber to the home to 500 people. Maybe next year I can get another 4 or 5 miles put in and hit another 100 homes. Then the year after that get the last section in that I need and be ready to start servicing the entire northern half of a town of 3000 people.
 
Not only happened while Net Neutrality was in place, but the remedy relied on general business law. Net Neutrality did nothing to stop or even moderate this bad behavior, it provided no value in identifying and proving it, and it played no part in the remedy.

In short, Net Neutrality was neither necessary nor useful.
 
Exavior said:
The problem is that they agreed to fix this stuff when they bought TWC. They were warned back mid June that they haven't done a single thing yet that they promised and still didn't do a single thing after being reminded. Everyone wants to bitch and moan about larger companies merging, here is somebody trying to hold them to the terms of a merger and everyone is bitching about that.

I don't see it not going through at this point as they were given chance after chance and kept telling the state to go fuck itself. What I see is multiple people buying different areas. It will take some time and money but it can be done. Showing some progress is better than no progress. So what if you cant' build out 1000 sq miles a year, at least build 50 sq miles. The fact is they didn't do 1 thing to any degree.

I work for an ISP and we do it all the time. We give ourselves a goal that we want to see and every year just build a little towards that. So we can't make it to the city or area that we want to. Fine we will find a point a few miles towards there and build fiber to that point. I couldn't get my 12 miles of fiber between two towns so instead we built out 5 miles and setup ourselves to offer fiber to the home to 500 people. Maybe next year I can get another 4 or 5 miles put in and hit another 100 homes. Then the year after that get the last section in that I need and be ready to start servicing the entire northern half of a town of 3000 people.
Click to expand...

Not sure how they havent done a single thing, every business we support got a free upgrade to the next tier of speed on their business/enterprise tier.

For home owners, most everyone that I know in our area got bumped by 10mb over their regular plan for Internet speeds.

I am not saying that they haven't done what was promised/agreed upon for the initial merger, but when people generalize and say they didn't do anything, that is also wrong. And if this is about protecting consumers, how exactly is this going to work for the existing customers, it sounds like we are going to be the ones on the bad end of the stick when this all blows up.
 
bigdogchris said:
Which is probably why the lawsuit can proceed. Had their been no NN, it would be legal.
Click to expand...
Not even close to accurate. NN played no role here. The complaint alleges violations of general business law (fraud and deception). The fact that it happened when NN was in force is immaterial. And the fact that the remedy is being applied after NN ended is immaterial (or maybe not - if NN was still in place the FCC could have pre-empted NY State and dragged this one through a never ending bureaucratic nightmare for both side - without NN justice will be swift).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parja
like this
PigLover said:
Not only happened while Net Neutrality was in place, but the remedy relied on general business law. Net Neutrality did nothing to stop or even moderate this bad behavior, it provided no value in identifying and proving it, and it played no part in the remedy.

In short, Net Neutrality was neither necessary nor useful.
Click to expand...

NN gave guidelines to follow and punishments for any company that did not follow those guidelines. Whether a company follows the guidelines are up to the company.

This is the same as laws. There have been murder cases where the murderers confessed but were never convicted of murder. Based off your flawed logic we should revoke murder laws as it doesn't always get used.
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/06/05/all-white-jury-acquitting-emmett-till-killers
 
Last edited:
travisty said:
Oh do you barter for everything? Are you sure that apple is really worth 50 cents? Probably 48... What about that $300 monitor? Yeah I'm sure the cashier wants to haggle over that, would you push $295?

In the case of the Model 3 it was a reasonable price when compared to other EV options and far exceeded them in distance and performance - the MSRP was very reasonable. The experience was so much better than knowing you're overpaying from the start with the sticker price and all the hidden fees that are applied w/ other cars.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean haggle, not barter.

These things are industry dependent. I always haggle on big ticket items. It's also typically expected that there will be haggling on these items. Think, cars, houses, boats, etc. Comparing a $250000 purchase to a 50 cent purchase isn't really valid.

It's my opinion that if you pay MSRP for a mass produced vehicle (ie. Not a Spyker C8, etc.) you are a sucker.
 
jardows said:
From the complaint:

PLEASE Note: This happened during the period that the so called "net neutrality" was "in force." So before anyone wants to make this an anti-Ajit Pai argument, realize that the rules reversed by the FCC under his watch were in effect during this alleged abuse by Spectrum.
Click to expand...


Uhhh yeah, so before they could be held accountable at a federal level, now they can't....so yup still fuck Pai.
 
You know whats funny is when I had issues with Comcast wanting to bill me 4000$ to put in a new drop because I was 2 feet from the max distance and they refused to move the box, I logged a BB and NN complaint.

Not only did they come out 2 days layer, but I got a polite call asking if the drop, month free and line upgrade was going.

I had a line break issue, wrong package flashed to modem, the exterior box got replaced and the line was buried. Perfect.

I told him it was great and I was never happier and closed my complaints as resolved before the agency and company had to contact anyone.

I just go for the throat. The box was 33 feet down the aide of my house and was moved 30 feet closer, which was also where the bulk of the exterior wires came out.

I don't know how successful I would have been if I hadn't had a system to complain through.

Was an easy fix and now it'll last 30 year's.
 
Link said:
Now there is no more NN, they can do this kind of stuff freely.
How scary.
Click to expand...


That's not true, there were several of the NN rules that were not effected by the roll back.

Furthermore, there were several things that people believed NN rules regulated that in fact, the FCC said were not regulated by the NN rules at all.
 
The faster this disgusting, unethical company is out of my state, the better. I would go without internet service before I would give one dime to TWC/Spectrum. Verizon looks like a basket of kittens next to these thugs.
 
Dekar12 said:
Not sure how they havent done a single thing, every business we support got a free upgrade to the next tier of speed on their business/enterprise tier.

For home owners, most everyone that I know in our area got bumped by 10mb over their regular plan for Internet speeds.

I am not saying that they haven't done what was promised/agreed upon for the initial merger, but when people generalize and say they didn't do anything, that is also wrong. And if this is about protecting consumers, how exactly is this going to work for the existing customers, it sounds like we are going to be the ones on the bad end of the stick when this all blows up.
Click to expand...

From what it has sounded from what I had read they had not done anything from the list of requirements. Turning up speed is easy. Start of this year we purchased a cable company, first thing we did was increase the backhaul into the equipment and bumped everyone up a speed tier. Cost me $45,000 worth of hardware to upgrade the feed to the head end and get a few extra SPFs to give us more bandwidth into the equipment. In 6 hours I took the speed into the building up 20x what it was to start with. Planning network expansions, splitting nodes to have fewer customers all congested in the same leg.. that part takes time and money. In this case it sounds like if you had Charter, then great they gave you a little bump, which honestly they probably had the backbone in place to support without any trouble so that is just a provisioning change and done. No actual cost to them. But they never built out or did any other stuff that NY said that they would have to agree to do in order for them to let the merger go through.

This is about protecting everyone, not just a select few. This is about making things right for every person that lives in the state, not just the people that happen to live in NYC. This is about preventing companies from getting so big that laws don't apply to them. Fuck the too big to fail mentality that you guys have and thing should be allowed for comcast, at&t, Verizon, charter.... In the end this is no different than any other merger or sell. Right now your choice for cable in New York from looking at a map is Charter or nobody. So they service 100% of the state and nobody else can come in and do things any different. This will break that up some and get it down to where things are more manageable which also means that right now people that have zero options should have them in the future as whoever takes over the areas will know that they have to build out. They are being forced to sell, not being forced to shut off service. People went from TWC to Charter without the world ending. Just like people went from sprint land line service, to embarq to centurylink. Or from AT&T to SBC to AT&T. Or Verizon to Frontier. Or from lots of little mom and pop cable companies to comcast or media com or any other larger company. mergers and transfers happen all the time. No idea why you think TWC to Charter went fine and didn't mean the end of the world, but Charter to anyone else out there means service will never work again and every piece of coax will be dark for till the end of the world. That is not a logical thought at all.
 
cageymaru said:
Earlier we ran an article on how New York State was kicking Spectrum cable out of the region for failures to serve New Yorkers. Today we learned that Spectrum was accused of using dirty tactics to extort cash payments from backbone operators, streaming service providers such as Netflix and online gaming companies like Riot Games which operates the League of Legends game. After Riot Games allegedly paid the extortion payment to Spectrum for a better connection, League of Legends players were able to reliably connect to the gaming service again. Read the complaint here. Net Neutrality rules... Hmm...

331. Throughout the Relevant Period, Spectrum-TWC relentlessly touted consistently fast Internet speeds and reliable access to online content to solicit and retain subscribers. However, in reality, Spectrum-TWC knowingly failed to deliver on such promises.
Click to expand...
Obviously they are jealous Comcast got the worst customer satisfaction award.
 
Trying to make the best out of a bad situation... Don't the new FCC rules require transparency now, so that the public should know all qos deals that cable companies make?
 
Spectrum has been cheaper and faster than TWC was for me and reliability hasn't been any worse not that I ever found it "terrible" anyway. It would be nice though if the speed for DL/UL both annually increased a slight amount and price remained the same however. They've remained the same since the last time I called them up a few years back so probably need to call them back and negotiate a bit again. I have noticed throttling though, but also not consuming 1 to 2 TB worth of data monthly either like some folks "legitimately" do so w/VPN's.
 
Personally, I dont have any problem with ISPs forcing providers of big content, which are mostly monopolies, to pay more into the network. As long as everyone is offered a similar deal (If you want access to this fast lane, you have to pay x amount.) without engaging in anti competitive practices, I dont mind.
 
TWC was doing stuff like this since 2002, back then we couldn’t guarantee a good connection to Xbox live unless you paid for one of the higher service tiers. The 15+ MB speeds ran a different QOS than the lower ones, and just by changing the tier package would almost instantly improve connection results. This was passed down to the “techs” as a sales tactic to push higer premium packages for faster speeds. In most regions it would not at all change their actual speeds, when they ran speed tests to places like speed test they may see a slight increase but rarely a large change. Sales teams were directed to tell them the speed increase could take up to 5 days to be seen or that they would need a new modem to see the faster speeds. But even after replacement it rarely was the case, it was primarily pushed as a tactic to get the customer off the phone with a feeling of accomplishment.
 
Lakados said:
TWC was doing stuff like this since 2002, back then we couldn’t guarantee a good connection to Xbox live unless you paid for one of the higher service tiers. The 15+ MB speeds ran a different QOS than the lower ones, and just by changing the tier package would almost instantly improve connection results. This was passed down to the “techs” as a sales tactic to push higer premium packages for faster speeds. In most regions it would not at all change their actual speeds, when they ran speed tests to places like speed test they may see a slight increase but rarely a large change. Sales teams were directed to tell them the speed increase could take up to 5 days to be seen or that they would need a new modem to see the faster speeds. But even after replacement it rarely was the case, it was primarily pushed as a tactic to get the customer off the phone with a feeling of accomplishment.
Click to expand...
Similar, yeah, but this is about backbone service, not end-user (although it does consequently affect end-users).
 
Kind of hard for the net neutrality regulations to be used to stop Spectrum in 2013/2014 when in fact net neutrality didn't go into effect until 2015, which means it did NOT happen during NN. This is just one of the reasons NN was enacted, as well as what Comcast was doing to Netflix (prioritizing and giving them faster speeds for $$$ before NN) along with other things.
 
bigdogchris said:
Which is probably why the lawsuit can proceed. Had their been no NN, it would be legal.
Click to expand...

I think you totally missed the point he was making.


The Obama administrations net neutrality rules first took effect in 2015

nn_thankyou_bo.jpg
 
gusphase said:
Personally, I dont have any problem with ISPs forcing providers of big content, which are mostly monopolies, to pay more into the network. As long as everyone is offered a similar deal (If you want access to this fast lane, you have to pay x amount.) without engaging in anti competitive practices, I dont mind.
Click to expand...

What you are describing blows my mind, especially when you consider that many of these isps are now media companies and compete directly with the big content that you single out. Isn't that the very definition of anti competitive behavior? It's double dipping. Fleece the customer for access and the content provider for priority access to the customer. It incentivizes the isp to make sure their service sucks unless for that priority service.

So now the content provider not only has to pay for their own internet, but now they are subsidizing the network of the shady isp.

Let's look at it from another angle, an isp is like an electrical utility, net neutrality prevents the utility from charging a fee to Hoover every time you want to use your vacuum. You pay for electricity already, why does the vacuum maker have to pay too? Without net neutrality, the whole situation just sucks.
 
pcgeekesq said:
IIRC, you only have a right to sue under Federal regulations if Congress created that right in the enabling legislation.
Since Congress never enacted legislation concerning NN, there's no right to sue under it.

Obama's NN may have given him good press in some quarters, but if it had ever gone to court, there's a good chance it would have been thrown out as administrative overreach. Government agencies are supposed to implement legislation passed by Congress, not create their own laws out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Federal agencies are free to implement regulations within the framework of laws passed by Congress.

Example: Congress passes a law that says "You shall do X". How "X" is accomplished is left entirely up to the executive branch, but as long as "X" is being performed as per the laws requirements, the executive branch is following the law passed by Congress to the letter.

You need to separate the law as passed by Congress from the implementation of that law done by the executive branch.
 
jardows said:
From the complaint:

PLEASE Note: This happened during the period that the so called "net neutrality" was "in force." So before anyone wants to make this an anti-Ajit Pai argument, realize that the rules reversed by the FCC under his watch were in effect during this alleged abuse by Spectrum.
Click to expand...

A lot of crime/unaccepted behaviour has been done while there were laws in effect for them. That does not on itself mean we don't need the law or the laws has no effect.
Anti-Ajit or not.,Your logic just does not pan out.
 
jardows said:
My point is simply, what people thought was net neutrality, wasn't. The behavior of Spectrum here is what the proponents of net neutrality say such laws will prevent, and without those laws, ISP's will engage in this type of behavior. But here we have an example of a company engaging in behavior that net neutrality was supposed to prevent, during the time that "net neutrality" supposedly was in force. Now, to further the thought process, this lawsuit is based on alleged fraud committed by Spectrum, not violation of "net neutrality" laws. This leads me to a couple of conclusions:

1. What was called "Net Neutrality" and repealed by Ajit Pai - resulting in death threats against him - was not true net neutrality.
2. ISP's that have government granted monopolies are never going to act in their customer's best interests.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you understand how laws work. NN doesn't prevent companies from doing shit like this anymore than weed being illegal stops people from smoking it. What it does do however is make it possible for lawsuits like this to happen as there is a system in place to pushing companies for breaking said laws. If NN did not exist at the time this happened, this lawsuit wouldn't have any grounds and TWC/Spectrum could have continued doing this without consequence. I'm really not sure how you don't get that.
 
Slade said:
Doesn't it mean now without net neutrality, what spectrum was doing is now legitimate? I mean think about it this way. Murder illegal, they did it anyways, murder law repealed, they can just announce that they plan to do murder and get away with it.

Its not that the concept of net neutrality doesn't work. It's the enforcement of it is what was weak.
Click to expand...

Net Neutrality is a regulatory solution to the wrong problem. The problem is monopolies. When an ISP has a monopoly they have no incentive to provide better service at a lower price. Regulation should focus on creating competition and multiple provider options.
 
NukeDukem said:
The faster this disgusting, unethical company is out of my state, the better. I would go without internet service before I would give one dime to TWC/Spectrum. Verizon looks like a basket of kittens next to these thugs.
Click to expand...

You will get what you ask for.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I don't believe you understand how laws work. NN doesn't prevent companies from doing shit like this anymore than weed being illegal stops people from smoking it. What it does do however is make it possible for lawsuits like this to happen as there is a system in place to pushing companies for breaking said laws. If NN did not exist at the time this happened, this lawsuit wouldn't have any grounds and TWC/Spectrum could have continued doing this without consequence. I'm really not sure how you don't get that.
Click to expand...

The Lawsuit did not have anything to due with Net Neutrality. Look at the court filings.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I don't believe you understand how laws work. NN doesn't prevent companies from doing shit like this anymore than weed being illegal stops people from smoking it. What it does do however is make it possible for lawsuits like this to happen as there is a system in place to pushing companies for breaking said laws. If NN did not exist at the time this happened, this lawsuit wouldn't have any grounds and TWC/Spectrum could have continued doing this without consequence. I'm really not sure how you don't get that.
Click to expand...
No, I perfectly know how laws work. But according to many people, this wasn't supposed to happen under the "Net Neutrality" and now that "Net Neutrality" was repealed, it is free game for companies to engage in this behavior. This is a great case of how wrong the doomsayers were. Plus, when we realize that New York's complaint against Spectrum isn't based on the "Net Neutrality" regulation, but on general abusive and fraudulent behavior, it furthers the argument that the Title 2 reclassification of the Internet was wholly unneeded to prevent and punish ISP's regarding this behavior.
 
Dougie said:
Is there 2 people is this thread currently defending spectrum, or am I hallucinating?


Are you guys trying to make an argument against net neutrality, just because Spectrum broke those rules? To me it would seem, that means we need NN.
Click to expand...

I have had zero issues with Spectrum, my speeds where upgraded at no cost to me, my service costs less than when TWC was in charge, I do not live in some major metropolitan area......... Let's just assume they did something and get out the pitch forks, right? In the mean time, Verizon halted their expansion and no one bats an eye?
 
jardows said:
No, I perfectly know how laws work. But according to many people, this wasn't supposed to happen under the "Net Neutrality" and now that "Net Neutrality" was repealed, it is free game for companies to engage in this behavior. This is a great case of how wrong the doomsayers were. Plus, when we realize that New York's complaint against Spectrum isn't based on the "Net Neutrality" regulation, but on general abusive and fraudulent behavior, it furthers the argument that the Title 2 reclassification of the Internet was wholly unneeded to prevent and punish ISP's regarding this behavior.
Click to expand...
Its no a zero sum game... Or whatever ... Not sure i understand your argument, its just not coherent... One thing doesnt exclude the other.. In this instance, they sued for whatever they sued,.. that doesn't change the very real fact that regulations are now more lax, and might in fact make it harder to sue isps in the future.. plus they sued, they haven't won yet, and might very well lose.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Its no a zero sum game... Or whatever ... Not sure i understand your argument, its just not coherent... One thing doesnt exclude the other.. In this instance, they sued for whatever they sued,.. that doesn't change the very real fact that regulations are now more lax, and might in fact make it harder to sue isps in the future.. plus they sued, they haven't won yet, and might very well lose.
Click to expand...

ISP/Telecom regulations are not more lax. They are different.
 
jardows said:
No, I perfectly know how laws work. But according to many people, this wasn't supposed to happen under the "Net Neutrality" and now that "Net Neutrality" was repealed, it is free game for companies to engage in this behavior. This is a great case of how wrong the doomsayers were. Plus, when we realize that New York's complaint against Spectrum isn't based on the "Net Neutrality" regulation, but on general abusive and fraudulent behavior, it furthers the argument that the Title 2 reclassification of the Internet was wholly unneeded to prevent and punish ISP's regarding this behavior.
Click to expand...

How do you get that the doomsayers were wrong? They said that companies were / would do this type of stuff. People argued that it never happen and never would happen. I would say that the doomsayers were spot on.
 
Lenard said:
ISP/Telecom regulations are not more lax. They are different.
Click to expand...

Actually they aren't even different, but they also aren't more laxed. They never changed to become as strict as they should be. So they are just as strict or lax as they were before in regards to old stuff. However when it comes to where it could be on new issues they are not as strict as they could be.

Times changed and the regulations didn't change to keep up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top