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

131–140 of 205 posts

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#131

Post by smsm42 »

tech2 wrote: post #121
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…

Four principles of internet usage were codified (but not made law) by the FCC in 2005; these kinda represent what we commonly consider "net neutrality". In 2010 the Open Internet Order was put in place, making these principles law. It mandated three things, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and transparency (disclosure of network management practises, expected performance, terms and conditions). In 2014 Ve…

> In 2014 Verizon challenged the order and managed to get the blocking and discrimination parts vacated

"Vacated" means these parts are no longer the law, right?

> NN isn't arbitrary, and seeking to have it restored isn't; it's an attempt at restoring the spirit/intent of legislation

OK, but the courts have decided that legislation of 2010 was not correct, right, isn't that what "vacated" meant above? So, does it mean FCC in 2015 created some rules in the absence of the law, just by its own authority - and if so, why Mozilla argues changing those rules, again by the same authority, in the absence of the law, is against the law?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#132

Post by smsm42 »

fjabre wrote: post #120
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 ser…

I don't see how they are putting customers at risk of discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex". I haven't seen any evidence that FCC intended to tolerate or actually tolerated such discrimination, or even that any of the ISPs ever attempted such discrimination. Could you explain why you think FCC violated this part of the mandate?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#133

Post by nitrogen »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #111
kiwijamo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kee…

What part of net neutrality proposals would prevent ISPs from offering lower speed plans at lower prices?

Also, where has anybody argued that net neutrality would prevent the customer from choosing to block all but a specific host?

You've come down against net neutrality in every thread I've seen about it lately. Have you come across any arguments in favor that are persuasive to you?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#134

Post by drawkbox »

qaq wrote: post #130
drawkbox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your local anecdote is nice but the VAST MAJORITY of the US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. Removing NN will also increase revenues for ISPs that currently are already or on their way to monopolies, which will create even more fake ISP competition. Everyone saw what happened when Google Fiber was threatening, suddenly competition... [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-te…

I used to think the same it is likely though that in large metro areas e.g. NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia ... etc. there is strong competition and wide availability of interesting options. Given the population numbers the VAST MAJORITY is more like 50/50

As seen in my links, 80% (30% with zero) of the country/population has 0-1 options for 25Mbps and 92% (55% with zero) of the country/population have 0-1 options for 100Mbps.

Even areas in the big cities you mentioned most people only have 0-1 choices for 25Mbps-100Mbps.

I won't even go into the small amount that has access to gigabit which everyone should be on.

If you are ok with that, that is on you, we can do better and we need to, our ISPs are failing us and holding us back.

ISPs said only net neutrality was holding them back from investing in increasing speeds, availability and rolling out gigabit, so I fully expect speeds and gigabit to be to available to everyone soon. /s

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#135

Post by supermatt »

Surely the easiest way to ensure net neutrality would be for the large players (google, facebook, etc) to band together and blacklist the networks for those providers who oppose net neutrality. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Of course, I suppose that as its Mozilla pursuing legal actions it goes to show how just little Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc, actually care about net neutrality.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#136

Post by eropple »

qaq wrote: post #130
drawkbox wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your local anecdote is nice but the VAST MAJORITY of the US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at 25-100 Mbps[1][2]. Removing NN will also increase revenues for ISPs that currently are already or on their way to monopolies, which will create even more fake ISP competition. Everyone saw what happened when Google Fiber was threatening, suddenly competition... [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-te…

I used to think the same it is likely though that in large metro areas e.g. NYC, LA, DC, Philadelphia ... etc. there is strong competition and wide availability of interesting options. Given the population numbers the VAST MAJORITY is more like 50/50

NYC has large sections with one reasonable (100Mbps) ISP.

There are few places in the Boston-Cambridge-Brookline metro area where you can get more than one. FiOS rollouts are spotty and often don't even encompass entire neighborhoods, which leaves you either with RCN--who tend to be pretty okay, as ISPs go--or the ongoing garbage fire of Comcast.

I strongly doubt that most "large metro areas" have pervasive, meaningful competition in even most areas, let alone all.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#137

Post by fjabre »

smsm42 wrote: post #132
fjabre wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ser…

I don't see how they are putting customers at risk of discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex". I haven't seen any evidence that FCC intended to tolerate or actually tolerated such discrimination, or even that any of the ISPs ever attempted such discrimination. Could you explain why you think FCC violated this part of the mandate?

My reasoning was that those most affected by NN repeal and potential loss of access (slow access) are those who would not be able to afford ISP price increases for what most reasonable people would consider open and equal Internet access comparable to Internet for people with more means.

This would effectively discriminate against a significant percentage of the population would it not? And put them at further disadvantage.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#138

Post by javitury »

smsm42 wrote: post #132
fjabre wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ser…

I don't see how they are putting customers at risk of discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex". I haven't seen any evidence that FCC intended to tolerate or actually tolerated such discrimination, or even that any of the ISPs ever attempted such discrimination. Could you explain why you think FCC violated this part of the mandate?

Different groups of customers can have on average different preferences. ISP content discrimination could be correlated in favor of the preferences of some groups but against the preferences of others. Even if the dont do this on purpose.

Let's assume that facebook pays a lot of money to ISPs to be prioritized. Meanwhile github/gitlab can't afford to make any payment and these websites feel slugish. Let's also assume that the consumers of facebook are mainly female and the consumers of github/gitlab mostly male. ISPs would de facto be discriminating based on gender, even when it is not explicit.

EDIT: This argument should hold as long as consumers groups according to race, color, religion, national origin, or sex have heterogeneous preferences and if the internet provides more than one type of content to be consumed.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#139

Post by dragonwriter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #119
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…

> The 2015 rules the FCC pushed forward by saying they were considered "common carriers" under the 1934 Communications act

More precisely, “telecommunications carriers” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which substsntially revised and restructured the 1934 Communications Act; the 1996 Act specifies that telecommunication carriers are, when acting as telecommunication carriers, common carriers.

> 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.

Their authority over the internet is based on a law adopted in 1996 whose major motivations included updating the 1934 Act to cover modern communications including the internet.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#140

Post by dragonwriter »

smsm42 wrote: post #127
boomboomsubban wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Mozilla is arguing that they're clearly common carriers Does the law unambiguously define "common carriers" as including ISPs or does it empower FCC to make that definition? If the former, why FCC needed to make that definition at all and why it made it only in 2015 - the law clearly existed long before and so did ISPs? > This was always going to be decided by the courts or congress, the FCC had no certain power. I…

> Does the law unambiguously define "common carriers" as including ISPs or does it empower FCC to make that definition?

The law unambiguously defines that all telecommunications carriers are common carriers, and defined what makes a business a telecommunication carrier. The FCC is charged with applying the law.

> If the former, why FCC needed to make that definition at all

The FCC never made any definition, it only applied the definition in the Act.

> and why it made it only in 2015

Arguably, because the people who wanted neutrality didn't care so much about the statutory basis and were content not to sue the FCC over their failure on classification so long as they were generally advancing neutrality polixy, as they from 2004–2017.

> So who is empowered to decide whether certain company or type of companies is "common carrier" or not? I thought that's FCCs job?

It's the FCCs job, in the first instance, to apply the law, but they do not have free and unreviewable discretion in doing so.

Post reply on HN