Test
Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
21–30 of 205 posts
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#22So, legally speaking, does Mozilla have any ground to stand on here?
I'm having trouble imagining what law might exist that would legally require the FCC to enforce NN rules. Especially given the rules the FCC overturned here were originally instituted only 3 years ago. Could Mozilla have successfully sued the FCC back then if they'd failed to create these rules in the first place?
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#23Why is the EFF not doing this instead of Mozilla ? Also I hope people still pursue municipal broadband, even with NN relying on faceless corporations seems like a bad idea.
Why Google/Netflix is not doing this instead of Mozilla?
What would they legally sue for? Just suing for an environment that existed for only 2 years, because they feel it is right, is not the purpose of a lawsuit. That needs to come through legislation.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#24Am I the only person who thinks this whole approach to Net Neutrality is wrongly pursued through the FCC? Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restraint of trade doctrine?
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please rethink your position. There are many people who genuinely care about freedom and privacy working at Mozilla, while at Facebook, Google, and Apple, developers are selling us out every day.
I’m sure there are many people working at Facebook, Google and Apple who also genuinely care about freedom and privacy, while there are developers working at Mozilla who are just as willing to sell out users as anyone. It is true that Mozilla’s a nonprofit, but that doesn’t mean a lot to me when I try to guess what they’ll do in the future.
> It is true that Mozilla’s a nonprofit, but that doesn’t mean a lot to me when I try to guess what they’ll do in the future.
It should tho.
Mozilla is not free of mistakes, but they're recognized as such, and handled as such. Thanks to the non-profit status none of the bad decisions Mozilla made was a result of conflict of interests.
source: I work for Mozilla
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#26Am I the only person who thinks this whole approach to Net Neutrality is wrongly pursued through the FCC? Hear me out: if the networks don't access a physically limited resource like the RF spectrum and there isn't any censorship issue at stake, if the issue is truly differential access and usage due to oligopolistic limitation, isn't it for the FTC to intervene and bust up throttling and content blocks under restrai…
The mission of the FCC according to wikipedia is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."
Net neutrality sounds consistent with this to me.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few guesses. 1. These things cost money and resources to initiate. EFF may see this as going nowhere†, so why spend the time and money? 2. EFF can always file a brief if the case ever does go to trial. 3. Almost forgot: Mozilla wants the PR. †Here's Mozilla's claim: > Mozilla seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.…
The FCC has already explained why they believe they're not being arbitrary and capricious. They would repeat the same explanation in the courts. It's up to the courts to decide whether or not they actually are being "arbitrary and capricious".
Unfortunately, in a case like this the courts use "deferential review" as opposed to what you're implying (known as "de novo review"). The decision would be upheld for as long as the administrator can produce some evidence to support the decision, even if the decision were wrong!
> The Court's focus is upon whether the plan administrator's final decision was "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion" . Under this standard, the administrator's decision can be upheld by the Court, even if it is technically wrong, as long as there is "substantial evidence" in the administrative record to support the decision. "Substantial evidence" is a rather nebulous term, which has been defined by the appellate courts as: "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" . It does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence. It requires "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance."
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Defer.html
Other sources that might interest you:
[0]: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_o...
[1]: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2006/08/stand...
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#28I think that most efforts to revert the Net Neutrality to the Obama-era state is severely hampered by how much the current administration is swayed by lobbyists. Though sad, the only course of action that seems available now is damage control until the next elections. I do still fully support Mozilla's efforts in the matter anyway.
Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#29Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
#30Lobbyists provide a better ROI than most lawsuits.