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

151–160 of 205 posts

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#151

Post by wtallis »

droopybuns wrote: post #100
habosa wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. These companies are free under any form of the law to offer you a small-cap low-speed plan for a small fee but they don't bother. If they restricted the services you could access or their relative speeds, then you get into trouble.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding. Most in the ISP crowd agree with what you are agreeing with. But the net neutrality folks predominantly reject this approach. I want surgery over IP. I don’t want surgical packets treated the same as a YouTube packet.

> I want surgery over IP. I don’t want surgical packets treated the same as a YouTube packet.

Do you really think these two statements are at all related?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#152

Post by matt4077 »

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…

None of these have any power to mitigate the risks net neutrality is supposed to tackle, namely providers using their customer base to squeeze third parties that wish to reach them.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#153

Post by kokey »

lr4444lr wrote: post #24

Am 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…

Personally, I think it's an issue that should fall under the legislation and authorities that deals with antitrust and with censorship. However, the big unspoken motivation behind network neutrality is people's perceived human right of having access to pirated entertainment media. This whole thing started around 15 years ago when broadband networks weren't and still aren't designed for peer to peer sharing of entertainment media, the impact this had on the networks were significant. ISPs had to deal with this because of the impact on their customers, as anyone would know who shared a contented connection with people who had a peer to peer piracy addiction in those days. This was before the time of most legitimate means we have nowadays to obtain entertainment media over the internet, before Youtube, iTunes video, Hulu, Netflix, etc.

The issue is that peer to peer sharing of sharing of pirated entertainment media is not protected by antitrust or censorship legislation, so a 'third way' had to be found, some kind of overriding principle that even trumps copyright law but without mentioning it. That's net neutrality, which I think is redundant now because there are many legitimate and affordable ways to get entertainment media and the networks can easily handle multiple forms of high quality streaming media, but the political momentum behind network neutrality is still there and exploited by some content providers for their own gain.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#154

Post by KozmoNau7 »

earenndil wrote: post #106
neduma wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why Google/Netflix is not doing this instead of Mozilla?

Because it is in google/netflix's interest that net neutrality be abolished.

How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#155

Post by lr4444lr »

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 don't think the other commenters are giving you the whole story. Read the suit. The specific injunction sought under "arbitrary and capricious" is that the FCC is failing to uphold their responsibility based on a 2016 court ruling which pivoted on the decision that classification broadband as a Common Carrier should be upheld - NOT Title II itself. What concerns me about this is that even though they do seem to have a valid argument, if you read the ruling on the case in question[0], it pivots on the court's understanding of Common Carrier. And the court's opinion is not a simple statement of fact. The issue is explored with nuance and deeply wedded to a discussion of anti-trust issues, which is why I remarked elsewhere on this discussion that the FTC should be compelled to step in if abuses happen, which is what sitting Chair Ohlhausen has publicly committed to do[1]

[0] https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E491... [1]

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#156

Post by orcdork »

dingo_bat wrote: post #148
orcdork wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a society where this kind of backwards, reductive and downright hateful notions, passed as "free speech", "politics" or just "speaking my mind, bro" have no place. And i do want (and in some cases expect) organizations to support that kind of society and show the door to people holding these views.

I think it's you who is being "hateful". And I'm scared that I'll be persecuted for my views and denied from participating in something I'm good at and enjoy, probably by somebody who thinks like you.

Poor, persecuted homophobes.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#157

Post by vertex-four »

droopybuns wrote: post #100
habosa wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. These companies are free under any form of the law to offer you a small-cap low-speed plan for a small fee but they don't bother. If they restricted the services you could access or their relative speeds, then you get into trouble.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding. Most in the ISP crowd agree with what you are agreeing with. But the net neutrality folks predominantly reject this approach. I want surgery over IP. I don’t want surgical packets treated the same as a YouTube packet.

You definitely don't want surgery over the Internet - what happens when someone slices through your local fibre cable, for a start? Think about what you're saying.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#158

Post by sheepmullet »

drawkbox wrote: post #112
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Do they? In that case let's get Chrome to default to DuckDuckGo.

If you are right then usage stats will hardly change.

On the other hand 90%+ of my internet usage goes over my phones data plan.

> Google also isn't against NN

Google discriminates more than the worst NN offenders.

Lots of mildly controversial youtubers have been deliberately de-monetized.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#160

Post by codefolder »

codefolder wrote: post #159

I lost respect for Mozilla when they gave up the curved edge on the

Where they gave up their core principles. When shall I say. Edge was legacy. Edge was curve. Edge was not straight. Edge was culture betrayed. When Mozilla left the soft curve edge for the sake of efficiency, they described themselves as compromize apologists. One: betraying the userbase by destroying the app ecosystem, breaking the entire landscape of usable implements.

Fuck Mozilla.

Post reply on HN