Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#111

Post by ocdtrekkie »

kiwijamo wrote: post #83
ComputerGuru wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the parent poster, but for instance, but think having a dozen data loggers out in the field that only need to transfer a few 100k of data each day. No need for 4G or multi gigabyte packages plus hefty per-device line/access fee.

ISP: Here's a cheap IoT plan! $5 a year! Customer: Yay I'll buy a ${Brand} IoT device. ... Customer: ISP, why isn't my {$Brand} IoT device working on your network? ISP: Oh you need the $150 a month add-on to support your ${Brand} IoT device because ${Business Decision}. The benefits of net neutrality still applies to IoT devices IMHO.

This doesn't make any sense, because nobody would buy the $150 a month add-on for an IoT device. This is why net neutrality makes no sense: The arguments for it are based on illogical premises. Verizon could charge $150 a month, but nobody would buy that service, and they make no money. But a $5 a year plan, gets a TON of new sales, hundreds of thousands of IoT devices, hypothetically, and the network limitations keep it from being hacked and abused in ways that make it unprofitable for Verizon to offer such a $5 offer. That connection could be restrict to only talk to $IoTDevicesServer, and it becomes incredibly worthwhile for Verizon to offer, as the cost of connectivity chips gets drastically lower, and IPv6 means they no longer need to worry about wasting IP addresses.

Fundamentally, ISPs are already charging the most money they can get away with at this point and time. The law doesn't change that, and net neutrality doesn't restrict that. They like money, so they set their prices as high as possible. The only thing net neutrality laws prevent is cheaper, limited internet plans BELOW that. For smaller things, low income families, etc.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#112

Post by drawkbox »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #108
wtallis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you can always use DSP, cable, satellite, or even tether off a wireless if you don't like your home ISP. You can, if you're willing to accept a second-rate experience. But avoiding that is the whole point of net neutrality enforcement. ADSL is fundamentally unable to compete with DOCSIS or fiber; phone lines simply do not have sufficient bandwidth except over impractically short distances. Satellite can never o…

The parent's point is that most alternatives to Google are a "second-rate experience". Almost nobody else has the data input to meet Google's offerings or compete on price. While the additional configuration options is a huge perk when getting rid of "we just do the best thing" products like Google and Apple, the alternatives are often a little dumber and cost a little more.

> The parent's point is that most alternatives to Google are a "second-rate experience".

Because there is competition they have competitively built up a better product within the market and on top of the internet. Google built up when Lycos, Excite, Yahoo, Alta Vista and others were there, they did it better up until now. There are still user choice and Google has no local/physical monopoly control.

People choose to use Google, most people can't choose their broadband provider.

ISPs could have invested in their own search engine or a third party one but they did not. Google built the best search engine but there are some up and coming competitors (DuckDuckGo mainly).

Companies that built up their market lead and or mind share monopolies did so in the open market, they did not lobby their way to a monopoly that controls your local area and blocks out competitors and innovations like muni networks. Google also isn't against NN.

If there is a monopoly do which you seem to think Google is, do you support companies building up their own product into a monopoly by choice or one that uses representatives and bribes to buy their way to control your internet from the moment you are on to the moment you are off.

Google is a destination on the web, built on top of it. Broadband is a lower level that we need to access a fair playing field of competitive products.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#113

Post by wadkar »

bb88 wrote: post #85

Either you do net neutrality or you do all of the following: 1) Remove "franchises" from localities. 2) Simplify right of way provisions to allow new cable to be buried easily. 3) Companies with installed poles must allow fiber to be run across them. (If they don't like that, go underground) 4) ISP's must tell consumers in plain english what restrictions exist on their service. Bandwidth caps. Throttled or Blocked po…

What about privacy? How about:

5) ISP's must tell consumers in plain English that no information will be stored or used for any other purpose than providing the user with internet connectivity.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#114

Post by apatters »

grigjd3 wrote: post #87
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over Google, being in charge. In fact, the Title II classification that net neutrality supporters are so big on actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, preventing the government from breaking up…

What a joke. The idea that the US is going to break up monopolies and conspiring oligarchies is plain laughable. While you're talking about fairy tales, why don't you suggest that if elected officials were honest...

On the contrary. Antitrust regulation is an essential function of the government which it has performed for a long time.

If the government is failing to carry out essential functions, that suggests a radical change in government is likely to occur (or has already begun).

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#115

Post by smsm42 »

Can somebody explain to me what is the base of the lawsuit? I mean, it looks to me if FCC has the right to introduce certain rules for Internet providers that Mozilla supposedly liked, in 2015, then they have the right to revert those rules back to pre-2015 state as well? So what is the basis for the legal claim against them? Or is this a kind of lawsuit like "we don't like it so we sue you, and as for legal basis we'll think of something"? I don't think that's how law and lawsuits should work... Am I missing something?

I.e., the matter is clearly political, so if Mozilla lobbied the Congress for it, it'd be clearly the right thing to do. But lawsuit implies there's already a law that mandates the result Mozilla wants, and FCC is violating this law. What law is this? How comes this law wasn't enforced before 2015 - was it created later?

The only argument I find is "it is arbitrary and capricious" - which sounds clearly false to me. Even if you are NN supporter, you can't fail to recognize there is a certain political theory behind what FCC is doing, and even if you completely disagree with this theory and think it is very harmful, you can not ignore that FCC is doing this for a specific reason and not just "arbitrarily". Can someone explain to me what serious arguments Mozilla has here?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#116

Post by smsm42 »

maxander wrote: post #69
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice, internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority. Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison. It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the head of the cartel.

Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does (aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.

Google is as much of a monopoly than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft never was the only OS provider or browser provider or sole provider of anything, yet the parent comment calls it a monopoly and praises the effort to hurt it. You can't have it both ways - if Microsoft was a monopoly, then Google is.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#117

Post by superioritycplx »

smsm42 wrote: post #115

Can somebody explain to me what is the base of the lawsuit? I mean, it looks to me if FCC has the right to introduce certain rules for Internet providers that Mozilla supposedly liked, in 2015, then they have the right to revert those rules back to pre-2015 state as well? So what is the basis for the legal claim against them? Or is this a kind of lawsuit like "we don't like it so we sue you, and as for legal basis we…

More than anything else, Mozilla is in the business of virtue signalling.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#119

Post by boomboomsubban »

smsm42 wrote: post #115

Can somebody explain to me what is the base of the lawsuit? I mean, it looks to me if FCC has the right to introduce certain rules for Internet providers that Mozilla supposedly liked, in 2015, then they have the right to revert those rules back to pre-2015 state as well? So what is the basis for the legal claim against them? Or is this a kind of lawsuit like "we don't like it so we sue you, and as for legal basis we…

>I mean, it looks to me if FCC has the right to introduce certain rules for Internet providers that Mozilla supposedly liked, in 2015, then they have the right to revert those rules back to pre-2015 state as well? So what is the basis for the legal claim against them?

Basically, the law all of this is based on largely predates the internet. The 2015 rules the FCC pushed forward by saying they were considered "common carriers" under the 1934 Communications act, which mandates that preferential treatment isn't shown, allowing net neutrality. The current decision changed their classification as "common carriers," so they aren't legally required to enforce net neutrality.

Mozilla is arguing that they're clearly common carriers, the court agreed that they were, and changing their status would violate the law.

The political theory around the FCC hasn't been updated sufficiently, they were mandated to deal with telephone lines and much of their control over the internet is based on vague interpretation. This was always going to be decided by the courts or congress, the FCC had no certain power.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#120

Post by fjabre »

smsm42 wrote: post #115

Can somebody explain to me what is the base of the lawsuit? I mean, it looks to me if FCC has the right to introduce certain rules for Internet providers that Mozilla supposedly liked, in 2015, then they have the right to revert those rules back to pre-2015 state as well? So what is the basis for the legal claim against them? Or is this a kind of lawsuit like "we don't like it so we sue you, and as for legal basis we…

From Wikipedia: The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) 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.

It appears as a government agency they have acted against their legally defined mission statement by putting consumers at greater risk of discrimination.

I don't know if this is a legal argument to be made and it doesn't answer your question about Mozilla in particular but still I wonder if there is some legal standing here. The repeal seems to put them odds with their stated purpose as an agency.

Post reply on HN