[OOC] Myriad Reality

[Etcetera]

Agh there's even more. That's annoying that Matpat didn't bring up all the foreshadowing for the next game.

@DarkwolfX37

Cashgrab~

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Cashgrab~

@Etcetera

Again, it was all about the files and the next game so he didn't recover all the foreshadowing Yuri has about the next game's plot.

[Etcetera]

<Snipped quote by Etcetera>

Again, it was all about the files and the next game so he didn't recover all the foreshadowing Yuri has about the next game's plot.

@DarkwolfX37

I'm going to guess that he discusses her book, Portrait of Markov.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

I'm going to guess that he discusses her book, Portrait of Markov.

@Etcetera

Well yeah, duh.

[Etcetera]

<Snipped quote by Etcetera>

Well yeah, duh.

@DarkwolfX37

It sounds like a decent story that I would read in an IRL book.

[Unhinged]

The FCC's Net Neutrality vote is in, guys, and it doesn't look good.

[Etcetera]

The FCC's Net Neutrality vote is in, guys, and it doesn't look good.

@Unhinged

It looks like all possible dreams have been realized*

[DarkwolfX37]

The FCC's Net Neutrality vote is in, guys, and it doesn't look good.

@Unhinged

Yeah because they're not actually going to listen to people like they claimed they would.

[Nimda]

<Snipped quote by Unhinged>

Yeah because they're not actually going to listen to people like they claimed they would.

@DarkwolfX37

I'm not sure why you're convinced the FCC would protect consumers where the FTC wouldn't. I know how much you dislike Pai, and he runs the FCC. Besides, the net neutrality regulations of Title II allow ISPs to break net neutrality if they put it in their ToS.

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

I'm not sure why you're convinced the FCC would protect consumers where the FTC wouldn't. I know how much you dislike Pai, and he runs the FCC. Besides, the net neutrality regulations of Title II allow ISPs to break net neutrality if they put it in their ToS.

@Nimda

>ISPs bitch about the effects in the two years they've been there
>FTC lets oligarchies happen
>Title 1 does nothing
>Why are you trusting three people to make a decision that will allow five american companies to basically control the planet?
>Because I don't want lobbyists to win ever

[Darlit Glitch]

The FCC's Net Neutrality vote is in, guys, and it doesn't look good.

@Unhinged

I would talk about an idea this situation got me started on, but I honestly have forgotten about half of the necessary details in it and the execution of it would require many years of planning and thought that would honestly be likely to drive me insane, along with the fact that it would be based off of my opinions.

[Nimda]

<Snipped quote by Nimda>

>ISPs bitch about the effects in the two years they've been there
>FTC lets oligarchies happen
>Title 1 does nothing
>Why are you trusting three people to make a decision that will allow five american companies to basically control the planet?
>Because I don't want lobbyists to win ever

@DarkwolfX37

>FTC lets oligarchies happen
Kind of like the AT&T + Time Warner merger that's been going on and not blocked by the FCC?

[DarkwolfX37]

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

>FTC lets oligarchies happen
Kind of like the AT&T + Time Warner merger that's been going on and not blocked by the FCC?

@Nimda

The one that's taken 7 months and hasn't progressed much?

[Etcetera]

<Snipped quote by Nimda>

The one that's taken 7 months and hasn't progressed much?

@DarkwolfX37

Wall of Text

No, the one an AT&T spokesperson told me directly is going well. But in either case, don't take my word for it, since it was woven into the agreement on page 141.

"Klein and Wright also note that “[t]he primary competitive concern with slotting arrangements is the claim that they
may be used by manufacturers to foreclose or otherwise disadvantage rivals, raising the costs of entry and
consequently increasing prices [ref. omitted]. It is now well established in both economics and antitrust law that the
possibility of this type of anticompetitive effect depends on whether a dominant manufacturer can control a
sufficient amount of distribution so that rivals are effectively prevented from reaching minimum efficient scale.” Id.
at 422. Thus, in the unlikely event that a dominant edge provider tried to buy up so much ISP capacity that a rival
edge provider could not achieve minimum efficient scale, this conduct could be challenged under the antitrust laws."

Or, if 141 is a bad number, 81 also works.

"In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness, despite
the paucity of evidence of such incidents, we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address
such conduct. Other legal regimes—particularly antitrust law and the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of
the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices—provide protection for consumers. These longestablished
and well-understood antitrust and consumer protection laws are well-suited to addressing any
openness concerns, because they apply to the whole of the Internet ecosystem, including edge providers,
thereby avoiding tilting the playing field against ISPs and causing economic distortions by regulating
only one side of business transactions on the Internet."




Or to combine the two, clause 141 on page 81 states

"Consumer Protection. The FTC has broad authority to protect consumers from “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.”495 As the nation’s premier consumer protection agency, the FTC has
exercised its authority, which arises from Section 5 of the FTC Act, to protect consumers in all sectors of
the economy.496 The FTC has used its Section 5 authority to enjoin some of the practices at issue in this
proceeding, such as throttling.497 The FTC is prohibited under the FTC Act from regulating common
carriers.498 As a result, the Commission’s classification of broadband Internet access service as a
common carriage telecommunications service stripped the FTC of its authority over ISPs. Therefore, as
discussed in greater detail below,499 the return to Title I will increase the FTC’s effectiveness in protecting
consumers.500 Today’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service restores the FTC’s authority
to enforce any commitments made by ISPs regarding their network management practices that are
included in their advertising or terms and conditions, as the FTC did so successfully in FTC v.
TracFone.
501 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling
consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary
commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not
disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other
practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503
Today’s reclassification also restores the FTC’s authority to take enforcement action against unfair acts or
practices. An unfair act or practice is one that creates substantial consumer harm, is not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers, and that consumers could not reasonably have avoided.504 A
unilateral change in a material term of a contract can be an unfair practice.505 The FTC’s 2007 Report on
Broadband Industry Practices raises the possibility that an ISP that starts treating traffic from different
edge providers differently without notifying consumers and obtaining their consent may be engaging in a
practice that would be considered unfair under the FTC Act."






Plus, if that's not enough, they state that while they're not going to make net neutrality the law of the land (and it wasn't even with Title II in place), they do state that they're going to hold ISPs who have elected to implement net neutrality to their agreement as if it were law. Page 83 states

"Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal
content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers
without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508 As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case,
ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation.509
We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon
argues, “if broadband service providers’ conduct falls outside [the FTC’s] grant of jurisdiction—that is,
if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive—then the conduct should not
be banned in the first place.”510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any
concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or
throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the
Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers.512 We also observe that all states have laws
proscribing deceptive trade practices."

It's a long document, but they really do encode massive new consumer protection that simply didn't exist under Title II.

[DarkwolfX37]

Did you even read that? Nothing in there does what you're saying it does. All it does is make ISPs have to disclose it in their ToS, which I remind you, NOBODY READS. A lawyer could take that regulation and give an ISP basically total ability to do throttling and censorship because it's not actually covered in any of that. "is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers" alone gives them total freedom because internet access at ALL could be considered in that. ""Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content." also means nothing, because any that didn't are fine and it won't actually be enforced if they did and do it anyway. "Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers." Yeah, and look how fucking effective it is. It's being totally ignored by the FCC, so why would the FTC be any better?

[Etcetera]

Did you read what I put there? It said very clearly that it has to be apparent and properly communicated to the consumer so there is reasonable expectation that the consumer knows about the limitations of their service. Again, it also states that if the FTC deems ISPs as abusing their power as the "gatekeepers of the net," they're going to hit them with antitrust acts because that's how the FTC operates. Right now, a majority of major ISPs have agreed to abide by net neutrality. Until they properly back out, they don't have a choice in the matter. Plus, the exact thing you're saying right now, almost verbatim, is said to be acceptable under Title II regulations.

Proof the FCC doesn't care

Your entire argument rests on "Yeah, but they probably won't actually do anything about it." We have codified laws here that outline how the government is going to ensure that consumers don't get totally ripped off and we have the evidence to show that the FTC is significantly more likely to keep consumer interest in mind than the FCC. In the end, this repeal does one thing: Control transfers from the FCC back to the FTC. Companies could throttle before, the agreement now states that they're not allowed to under the FTC, only to speed up (i.e. they cannot create slow lanes, only fast lanes). Companies could opt-in before, they can opt-in now. The only argument to be made here is whether the FTC, with everything in the 200 page document in mind, will better protect consumers than the FCC under Title II. And that's the argument I'll fight to no end defending. The FTC is still the government, but it has consumers in mind far more than the FCC does.

[DarkwolfX37]

Did you read what I put there? It said very clearly that it has to be apparent and properly communicated to the consumer so there is reasonable expectation that the consumer knows about the limitations of their service. Again, it also states that if the FTC deems ISPs as abusing their power as the "gatekeepers of the net," they're going to hit them with antitrust acts because that's how the FTC operates. Right now, a majority of major ISPs have agreed to abide by net neutrality. Until they properly back out, they don't have a choice in the matter. Plus, the exact thing you're saying right now, almost verbatim, is said to be acceptable under Title II regulations.

Proof the FCC doesn't care

Your entire argument rests on "Yeah, but they probably won't actually do anything about it." We have codified laws here that outline how the government is going to ensure that consumers don't get totally ripped off and we have the evidence to show that the FTC is significantly more likely to keep consumer interest in mind than the FCC. In the end, this repeal does one thing: Control transfers from the FCC back to the FTC. Companies could throttle before, the agreement now states that they're not allowed to under the FTC, only to speed up (i.e. they cannot create slow lanes, only fast lanes). Companies could opt-in before, they can opt-in now. The only argument to be made here is whether the FTC, with everything in the 200 page document in mind, will better protect consumers than the FCC under Title II. And that's the argument I'll fight to no end defending. The FTC is still the government, but it has consumers in mind far more than the FCC does.

@Etcetera

Literally the thing in your hider is the only thing saying they can't just hide it in the ToS. They're not allowed to under Title II, that was an alternative that the fuckstain proposed INSTEAD of Title II.He said that instead of T2, they should be allowed to just put it in the ToS that they voluntarily won't throttle or censor.
{Redacted}

[Nimda]

<Snipped quote by Etcetera>

Literally the thing in your hider is the only thing saying they can't just hide it in the ToS. They're not allowed to under Title II, that was an alternative that the fuckstain proposed INSTEAD of Title II.He said that instead of T2, they should be allowed to just put it in the ToS that they voluntarily won't throttle or censor.
{Redacted}

@DarkwolfX37

It states that they're fully allowed to violate the principles of NN as long as they don't portray themselves as a neutral party. In the FCC release document, it says something very similar, being that companies have to obviously disclose to consumers that they're not receiving a neutral package, and that they're not allowed to switch that without the customer's consent. It states that it has to be reasonably obvious, i.e. not hidden in the ToS. That part of the deal is the exact same but you get extra protections under the FTC.

[DarkwolfX37]

Public reminder that MGS2 is happening right now.

[Etcetera]

Public reminder that MGS2 is happening right now.

@DarkwolfX37

The only thing that came to my mind was Metal Gear Solid 2.