Title II is Not the Net Neutrality You’re Looking For

[Gunny]

No I'm not kidding. False / deceptive advertising is very much illegal. Ask the FTC and CFPB among others:

Sure, but how is it false advertising if the terms are clearly disclosed, just on page 40 of a contract no one will read but [nearly] everyone will sign because it says "FREE" or something similar on page 1? Philosophically we agree. It IS wrong to take advantage of people but in a competitive world it will always happen. When it's seniors it bothers me. When it's perfectly capable [but greedy] people always looking for a free ride then not so much.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
3) Funny how only conservative leanings get in the way of facts.

Maybe it is in their DNA?

 

[Steve81]

Sure, but how is it false advertising if the terms are clearly disclosed, just on page 40 of a contract no one will read

For starters, a contract doesn't fall under the basic definition of an advertisement. From Google:

a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy

A couple others if you happen want a second or third opinion:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertisement

Second, reread that piece I posted from the FTC:

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

That's quite a different thing from saying it's OK to lie and mislead in ads on the Internet, radio, TV, and in print, so long as you cover your butt on page 40 of the contract in small print.

 

[Pyrrho]

Steve81, quoting laws misses the point for two reasons. First, legal meanings of terms are different from ordinary meanings, which is why there are legal dictionaries in addition to normal ones. And second, the simple fact is, you and everyone else knows absolutely that lying is commonplace in advertisements, and those doing the advertising keep lying, which obviously means that whatever legal mumbo jumbo verbiage there is in the law, they can lie in the real world and get away with it. Quoting laws does not change that obvious fact.

I already gave you an example, which you have ignored in your responses: Many advertisements are made claiming that something is free, when, in fact, one must pay to get it. Every literate speaker of English knows that "free" means:

"Given or available without charge."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/free

But when one sees an advertisement that an item is "free," one usually knows that that is just a complete and total lie, that one must give them money to get the item in question. Almost always, when an advertisement says that something is free, it is NOT free. This is so common, that to make a big deal of it gets people to react dismissively, saying that, of course, it means that you get two things for the normal price of one of them. Even though the word "free" means no such thing. (If you are not a native speaker of English, look it up; there is a link above.)

It is a complete and total lie in advertising, and it is done all of the time, with the companies getting into no trouble at all for it. That is the real world, regardless of what laws you choose to quote. Lying in advertising is commonly done with no problems for those doing the lying.

So when an ISP lies to you in an advertisement, they may very well get away with it, without any courts ruling against them, and without any problems for them at all. You can pretend that the law prevents lying in advertising, but that is just pretend.

 

[Steve81]

Steve81, quoting laws misses the point for two reasons. First, legal meanings of terms are different from ordinary meanings, which is why there are legal dictionaries in addition to normal ones.

I didn't quote the legalese text of a law. I quoted a statement in plain English from the website of the Federal Trade Commission. No legal dictionary is necessary to decipher its meaning, and there is no mumbo jumbo verbiage present to confuse anyone.

And second, the simple fact is, you and everyone else knows absolutely that lying is commonplace in advertisements, and those doing the advertising keep lying, which obviously means that whatever legal mumbo jumbo verbiage there is in the law, they can lie in the real world and get away with it. Quoting laws does not change that obvious fact....I already gave you an example, which you have ignored in your responses

I ignored it because it is wholly irrelevant. People speed, run red lights, tailgate, etc. all the time where I live. Does that mean traffic laws don't exist, or you'll get out of a ticket by pointing out how everyone else gets away with it?

Agencies like the FTC are like any other government entity: they have limited resources. They aren't going to go and bust McDonalds' balls every time they make a Big Mac look like a vision of deliciousness on TV, vs what's actually served. And no, they probably don't care about "FREE FREE FREE" either, because your damages amount to $0 when you get to the checkout line and find out that the product actually isn't just being given away.

Also as a side note, as it relates to "free" and contract law, you should consider the topic of consideration (pun intended):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law

Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act. In broad terms, if one agrees to do something he was not otherwise legally obligated to do, it may be said that he has given consideration. For example, Jack agrees to sell his car to Jill for $100. Jill's payment of $100 (or her promise to do so) is the consideration for Jack's promise to give Jill the car, and Jack's promise to give Jill the car is consideration for Jill's payment of $100.

More mumbo jumbo to digest

 

[Gunny]

For starters, a contract doesn't fall under the basic definition of an advertisement. From Google:

A couple others if you happen want a second or third opinion:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertisement

Second, reread that piece I posted from the FTC:


That's quite a different thing from saying it's OK to lie and mislead in ads on the Internet, radio, TV, and in print, so long as you cover your butt on page 40 of the contract in small print.

Don't quote Google if you want to be taken seriously. Sometimes it's best to just respectfully disagree. I do understand what you are saying but you have to admit, the real world does't work that way.

 

[Pyrrho]

Don't quote Google if you wan to be taken seriously. Sometimes it's best to just respectfully disagree. I do understand what you are saying but you have to admit, the real world does't work that way.

Actually, he does not have to admit anything. People can deny reality all they want, and give specious arguments as long as it pleases them to do so. It happens all the time that people do this.

 

[Steve81]

I do understand what you are saying but you have to admit, the real world does't work that way.

Like I said in my reply to @Pyrrho , people break the law and get away with it all the time. Sure, I can admit that much. What I'm not sure of is why you two are apparently just as happy to let the conversation end there. They're lying and deceiving customers, but its OK because everyone else does it? The law is irrelevant because others break the law, and get away with it? That kind of thinking/apathy is exactly why the status quo is what it is.

 

[herbu]

Maybe it is in their DNA?

Hahahaha!!! You're probably right!!! The sad thing is, like apes, we share 99% of our DNA with Liberals!

 

[herbu]

Many advertisements are made claiming that something is free, when, in fact, one must pay to get it.

Absolutely agree.
"BUY ONE, GET A SECOND ONE FREE!!!" Just pay a separate handling fee.

 

[herbu]

I do not [respectfully] believe you understand Internet technology and practices.

You sir, are exactly right. I'm a user, that's all. And not even an informed user. I plug it in and it works. If it doesn't work, I "call the man".

The thing I do have is a long experience with government involvement in business. Politicians are not businessmen, and as is clearly being demonstrated now, businessmen are not politicians.

Yes, you can come up with examples illustrating where govt involvement was good, but it is not the rule... unless your objective is simply to increase the size of government.

So from my ignorant but experienced state, I am generally predisposed to resist additional regulations, or the govt defining what can be sold to whom, and how much can be charged. In the case of NN, the arguments "for" seem to hinge on the preposition that business is evil, greedy and must be controlled. I don't believe that. "Business" is people just like you and me.

 

[TheWarrior]

You sir, are exactly right. I'm a user, that's all. And not even an informed user. I plug it in and it works. If it doesn't work, I "call the man".

The thing I do have is a long experience with government involvement in business. Politicians are not businessmen, and as is clearly being demonstrated now, businessmen are not politicians.

Yes, you can come up with examples illustrating where govt involvement was good, but it is not the rule... unless your objective is simply to increase the size of government.

So from my ignorant but experienced state, I am generally predisposed to resist additional regulations, or the govt defining what can be sold to whom, and how much can be charged. In the case of NN, the arguments "for" seem to hinge on the preposition that business is evil, greedy and must be controlled. I don't believe that. "Business" is people just like you and me.

Thanks for proving you don't even have respect for the people who have just debated you - this disregards or ignores every single argument people made for Net Neutrality.

And further proves you are truly unwilling to see the reality of this situation - to the point that you have even argued for a tax cut that the president is deliberately holding off on signing until next year so that the mandatory budget cuts won't go in to effect right away. Budget cuts that directly affect peoples welfare AND healthcare. And not just tax payers - CHILDREN! Children's Healthcare. You must fight hard against reality in order to sleep at night.

You are literally having your rights stripped in front of you, and you're defending it. And on this forum, I think you are the ONLY one defending it.

"Business" is people just like you and me.

Given the character you have demonstrated in this thread, please do not compare any one of us, to you.

 

[Gunny]

The thing I do have is a long experience with government involvement in business. Politicians are not businessmen, and as is clearly being demonstrated now, businessmen are not politicians.

This is exactly why I love these forums. No one person can have informed perspectives across all areas. Your perspective is interesting to me because it makes me think outside of my own.

In the case of NN, the arguments "for" seem to hinge on the preposition that business is evil, greedy and must be controlled. I don't believe that. "Business" is people just like you and me.

We seem to generally agree but in this case I can see valid arguments on both sides. It's just not as cut and dried as some would like to make it out to be. "All businesses are evil" is just as ridiculous a notion as "no businesses are evil." I am generally a free market guy but there do have to be limits in some cases. Whether or not this should be such a case is certainly debatable.

 

[Gunny]

Like I said in my reply to @Pyrrho , people break the law and get away with it all the time. Sure, I can admit that much. What I'm not sure of is why you two are apparently just as happy to let the conversation end there. They're lying and deceiving customers, but its OK because everyone else does it? The law is irrelevant because others break the law, and get away with it? That kind of thinking/apathy is exactly why the status quo is what it is.

What is "OK" with me and what is legal are two entirely different things. I wasn't under the impression we were having a moral discussion here. I would submit that your real concern should be WHY we have laws that allow unscrupulous predators to willfully deceive their customers. No one is arguing as to whether this routinely occurs. It most certainly does. If we don't like these legal loopholes we should seek to change them through the legal processes we have in place. Now I do not believe this will ever happen on a macro level for a variety of reasons which is why terms like "buyer beware" and "a fool and his money..." [unfortunately] exist.

 

[Steve81]

I wasn't under the impression we were having a moral discussion here.

We aren't. I'm asking why you think "everyone lies and cheats, so that makes it OK" is a valid argument. I'm also pointing out that attitude is counterproductive if you actually want to make a dent in that paradigm.

I would submit that your real concern should be WHY we have laws that allow unscrupulous predators to willfully deceive their customers. No one is arguing as to whether this routinely occurs. It most certainly does. If we don't like these legal loopholes we should seek to change them through the legal processes we have in place.

We don't! That's my point! The law is clear: advertisements have to be truthful, not misleading, and backed by science where appropriate. The disconnect between the law and the real world is enforcement. Between the realities of limited resources for the agencies in charge of enforcement and consumer apathy, yeah, lots of businesses get away with lying. IOW, when you resign yourself to the fact that lots of businesses lie and get away with it, you are letting them get away with it.

 

[Pyrrho]

Like I said in my reply to @Pyrrho , people break the law and get away with it all the time. Sure, I can admit that much. What I'm not sure of is why you two are apparently just as happy to let the conversation end there. They're lying and deceiving customers, but its OK because everyone else does it? The law is irrelevant because others break the law, and get away with it? That kind of thinking/apathy is exactly why the status quo is what it is.

I don't know why you are misunderstanding my posts so completely. Saying that something is the case in no way implies that things should be that way.

The reason why net neutrality is important is because without it, companies will cheat their customers. Companies cheat customers when the government does not enact laws against their behavior, or does not enforce them, or does not have adequate penalties.

Since you are interested in expressions of what ought to be, I think that companies that offer "free" items should be forced to give away such items for free, and fined heavily, perhaps at a rate of 10 times what it would cost to give away the items for free to everyone who wants them, if they don't give the items away for free. Lying in advertising should be strictly forbidden and such laws should be strictly enforced and heavy penalties should be imposted. Without laws against bad behavior, they will engage in bad behavior. Without enforcing the laws, they will break the law. With trivial penalties, the law would be ignored. So all three are needed if one wishes to stop such practices. And so it is with net neutrality; if there are no laws against being other than neutral with regard to the network traffic, companies will impose limits as they see fit. And without the laws being enforced, again, companies will impose limits as they see fit. And without the penalties being significant, companies will impose limits as they see fit.

Without laws requiring net neutrality, you can be pretty sure that your ISP will not treat all sites equally. No matter what claims they have in their ads.

One of the points of mentioning the advertising about "free" items is to give an obvious example of how common it is for companies to lie to people about what they are offering. Lying is the norm in business, as this example proves conclusively. It should not be that way, but it is, because the government allows it. The government allows it because businesses bribe politicians (they call it "campaign contributions", as well as job offers after their "public service" is over), and the politicians enact the laws and enforce the laws and set the penalties. Plus, of course, some politicians are in business themselves, and so they don't want their business choices to be interfered with by pesky laws that would prevent them from cheating their customers.

 

[Steve81]

@Pyrrho

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you because you keep replying to my posts and implying that the existence of consumer protection laws is negated by the fact that people flout them.

I am not making an expression of "what ought to be", nor am I suggesting that laws without enforcement mean anything. I am suggesting that consumer protection laws against false advertising offer a potential legal remedy in lieu of set in stone Net Neutrality. That still means concerned parties have to take action, and that ultimately, judges would have to agree with my opinion, but it's still a possible path forward. Get it now?

 

[pewternhrata]

Let's not forget the real issues at hand...

 

[class a]

Thanks for proving you don't even have respect for the people who have just debated you - this disregards or ignores every single argument people made for Net Neutrality.

And further proves you are truly unwilling to see the reality of this situation - to the point that you have even argued for a tax cut that the president is deliberately holding off on signing until next year so that the mandatory budget cuts won't go in to effect right away. Budget cuts that directly affect peoples welfare AND healthcare. And not just tax payers - CHILDREN! Children's Healthcare. You must fight hard against reality in order to sleep at night.

You are literally having your rights stripped in front of you, and you're defending it. And on this forum, I think you are the ONLY one defending it.



Given the character you have demonstrated in this thread, please do not compare any one of us, to you.

Another FAKE News report. The President didn't wait till next year. He signed it this morning 12/22/2017.

 

[Gunny]

We aren't. I'm asking why you think "everyone lies and cheats, so that makes it OK" is a valid argument. I'm also pointing out that attitude is counterproductive if you actually want to make a dent in that paradigm.

Reread my comments. I never said that. I merely distinguished between what is legal and what is ethical. The latter can be very subjective, the former not so much.

We don't! That's my point! The law is clear: advertisements have to be truthful, not misleading, and backed by science where appropriate.

Again, the term "misleading" is highly subjective and so of limited use in legal arguments. We've all seen the TV commercials where the attractive spokesperson tells you what the company wants you to concentrate on and believe while the mouse type at the bottom of the screen tells you the actual [and considerably less appealing] truth. Such commercials are considered completely legal even though their clear intent is to distract and/or deceive. For the record, I'm no more "OK with it" than you are but I do recognize it as a part of the world most of us live in and apply an appropriate level of scrutiny when reading or viewing advertisements. As the saying goes, "if it sounds too good to be true it usually is."