[hodgesrm]

I"m with you even though I'm extremely leery of arbitration in areas like automobile defects or employment agreements. In these cases it's often only the threat of massive awards that makes companies think twice before they engage in business practices that lead to substantial harm.

The potential harm related to Internet access does not seem very high. It's fair to balance that against the cost of frivolous litigation. The market can sort this one out.

[HarryHirsch]

I'm just curious what Comcast and Google are trying to defend against. You'd think that the cases your typical home subscriber and probably your business subscriber would bring would in most all cases be litigated in Small Claims court. It would be about early termination because the connection is too poor or the uptime does not conform to contract.

Are they trying to quash class-action suits or what? I haven't got a clue, someone more familiar with the subject should clue us all in.

[hodgesrm]

It's usually class actions, which can be very expensive to fight and have large enough awards that legal teams are motivated take them on contingency. The claims you describe are so small they are barely worth litigating even in Small Claims court.