Or, more accurately, introduces new ones so the old ones are masked by the new.
This makes well done steak a terrible experience. I question the intelligence and/or intended malice of any person that pretends to think I can’t tell the difference. It also earns the poor waiter no tip if the situation can’t be rectified with a proper cut.
Wait, is The Verge struggling?
I would question this reaction. If the waiter does what he can to remedy the situation, and he should, it’s not his fault if back of the house are assholes.
I tip based on the experience. Isn’t this what we’re supposed to do? We didn’t learn proper tipping etiquette in school.
As an ex server/bartender I tend to overtip. But ‘experience’ is more granular than that. Why punish a person who lives by tips for the actions of people that get paid much more? Perhaps that’s not what we’re supposed to do. Food for thought.
I tend to over-tip too, but I still tip based on the experience.
Your example that you gave was one which was not indicative of impeding interstate commerce. You presented a case of Netflix and Comcast getting into a deal where Netflix paid Comcast to get more bandwidth than other services. You suggested that a regulation which impacted that, would be considered impeding interstate commerce under the doctrine of the dormant commerce clause. That is incorrect. Impeding interstate commerce under that clause does not simply mean impeding any commerce that may take place across state lines. It means, specifically, impeding interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce. States are absolutely allowed to regulate commerce that crosses their borders. They do so all the time. They just aren’t allowed to engage in trade wars with other states.
Hopefully that clarifies things.
Well, no… because one was redefining it based on actual facts. There was a logical basis for considering the internet as a utility. It serves that role in our society at this point.
Ajit Pai’s upending of this had no logical basis at all. It also had no legitimate benefit to American consumers.
The support for overturning net neutrality, among those on the right, stems from exactly two sources, and two sources alone:
- A mistaken belief that net neutrality is somehow a “liberal” idea, due to it being pushed forward by Obama’s administration, and thus must be wrong. To be clear, this is the ONLY reason why 90% of so called conservatives dislike net neutrality. In the vast majority of cases, they have literally no idea how any of the issues underlying net neutrality impact anything. It is purely a knee jerk reaction of “Obama bad!”
- Bribes from telecommunications companies. This is what drives the actions of Ajit Pai himsefl, and many in congress.
Literally zero consumers benefit from repealing net neutrality. It is, objectively, bad for everyone in society besides the large pre-existing telecommunications companies, and potentially other large technology companies who can now use their existing cash reserves to prevent access to new upstart technology companies. Any suggestion that anyone will benefit from repealing net neutrality has been, repeatedly, dismantled entirely. Those argument are all flawed, and this has been demonstrated a multitude of times here and other places.
Has there ever been another example of a federal agency not regulating something but also preventing states from doing so? This feels like it wouldn’t stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
Absolutely – in two ways. First, this is the foundational principle of the dormant commerce clause. (The idea that even in the absence of federal regulation, states cannot unduly burden, through legislation, some fundamentally interstate matters). That falls under the Commerce Clause. Second, under the Supremacy Clause, the federal government can ‘field pre-empt’ state governments by establishing a federal interstate objective. States generally can’t frustrate that objective without violating the Commerce Clause.
@Timex –
Keep in mind there are two kinds of dormant commerce clause restrictions – it’s not just about protectionism. See here from Wiki:
This is a very flexible test, as noted, and you might be very right that it doesn’t apply to prohibit state net neutrality rules. But it’s not completely settled by the courts just yet.
I am willing to believe this. I honestly don’t know. The only argument I can think of in favor of abolishing net neutrality rules is that there can be some benefits to throttling (for instance, a telecom could introduce a super low-cost internet plan that bans, say, Netflix traffic, in exchange for a very low price that expands internet access to more people). What would you say to that argument? Other than that, I would agree.
Both of those sections are about the same thing. What in there do you think is the “other” restriction? Those are just two separate sections of the wikipedia page talking about different aspects that contribute to the ruling.
The second section is just talking about how some laws which may have effects on interstate commerce are STILL ok, even if they impede interstate commerce, if they have a basis in legitimate local concerns.
Absolutely none of this is supporting your position. The first section defines a situation where your example clearly does not apply, and then the second section suggests that even if it DID apply, it might still be fine for the state to pass the law.
So educate yourself.
You’re here, talking about this issue, and yet you don’t even know what the basis for your beliefs is.
No dude, that’s not a benefit.
Net neutrality does not prohibit carriers from giving different price tiers different bandwidth. It just prohibits them from giving you different bandwidth to specific content providers.
So, maybe they could offer some cheap internet that only gave you access to certain websites. Where the internet became, essentially, something you accessed via ala carte selection through your ISP.
Do you understand how profoundly terrible this would be from the perspective of supporting technological innovation?
Imagine you have such a plan… Then imagine I invent the next youtube, or netflix, or whatever. Remember, youtube wasn’t always youtube. The mighty google was not always the de facto king of search engines. We used to use crap like Excite, and alta vista. When we started using google, it was just another random search engine with a weird name.
But without net neutrality, where the ISP is only giving you access to some of the internet… that new website, which clearly would not be on your plan, since it didn’t exist when you first got it… would never get an equal chance to win you over as a user. Large established companies would have an inherent advantage over new innovators.
This is, clearly, terrible for society.
The FCC can make it their goal to prevent the states from making their own laws about net neutrality, and the lawsuits that follow will tell us whether they were legally able to do that. Given the shameful GOP stolen Garland seat, it may not go well for the states, but it can be difficulty to predict what a strict constitutionalist is going to do with somethiing like the interstate commerce clause and the precedents that have been set since enactment of the constitution.
It cleary does not promote free market capitalism, which used to be one of the pillars of conservatism. Now I think that pillar is ‘whatever makes the richest people richer is best for america’, jobs, trickle down, etc.
Net-neutrality is pro-free market, pro-small business, pro-consumer… so naturally conservatives are against it.
Is not has illogical has can sound.
Technology and science have a revolutionary / disruptive effect. It also change society. Conservatives can be people that are against changes to society that are too quick for people to adapt and having to pick new skills.
Many changes come from small companies, while big companies usually bet on safe bets.
In this case though, the folks against net neutrality are either just being straight up paid off by the telecom companies, or they are being used as useful idiots by the folks being bribed.
There is no actual conservative ideological basis for their position.
Not sure that’s true for absolutely everyone. There are definitely some people who just think corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want.
The thing is, even from that position, this kind of thing is harmful to businesses, with no real strong benefit other than to a small handful of companies.
It harms all of the small innovators, who are the real drivers of growth in our economy.
Exactly. It is extremely anti competitive, as it favors established market controllers. It would kill innovation. If ISPs start mucking around, creating tiered packages, and engaging the kind of shenanigans that Pai’s action allow but they haven’t begun yet? Then tryin to create a new internet service could get much harder. And, if you had such an idea, why would you make it in the US? I would be expectant that a whole bunch of tech startups, especially in the Seattle area, would cross over to Vancouver, for example.
It’s economically foolish, because it can create new barriers that make starting the next YouTube or Facebook impossible. If we start seeing paid preferential treatment, expect to see consolidation of markets to a small number of established giants.
Not disputing any of that, just saying there is a conservative school of thought which is fine with it. And a leftist one, for that matter, though you tend to see it more in Europe.