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

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#181

Post by drawkbox »

qaq wrote: post #161
drawkbox wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bett…

You do realize that's data from 2014 ? By mid 2016 it's 49% of households have at least 2 broadband providers and 68% have at least one provider offering 100/10 or better it's 2018 now.

The Ars data is from mid to late 2015 which not much has changed from due to ISPs stance and their spending on legislature bribes/lobby instead of on their networks. Costs have gone up but not speeds or availability. Cord cutting also increased rapidly the last couple years, so ISPs stopped expanding to increase revenues from data caps, overages and forcing people to 'upgrade' to worse service to make up the revs.

Nothing has changed on ISP infrastructure/improvements since late '15/'16 other than maintenance. I see no sources on your point that it has changed and locally here just data caps have been added, no speed improvements or innovation. ISPs just worked with the FCC to LOWER the number that is rated 'broadband' to 10Mbps as broadband in their description. 10 Mbps is not acceptable for a more than a single person, 25-100 is barely acceptable -- everyone should be on gigabit -- lots of false 12Mbps competition which does not compare to 25/100 Mbps. ISPs have not expanded their networks enough at all by their own admission as they said NN was preventing that supposedly eventhough we know it is cord cutters cutting into investment because ISPs/providers got greedy.

2015-present the ISPs stopped expanding after Google Fiber pulled out of markets and they were being bratty about net neutrality passing, they put all their money in lobbying. They literally said in their lobbying that NN has hindered investment and did little '16-'18 just to stick to that talking point until their paid off lawmen killed NN.

Of course, now that net neutrality is gone, what they said was 'holding up' investment in their networks, I am sure they will be expanding at a rapid clip and we'll all have gigabit internet soon now right? /s

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#182

Post by dragonwriter »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #174
dragonwriter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers “information services”. > meant for things like broadband Both “information services” and “telecommunication services” (the provision of the latter of which , other than in aggregated form, makes one a “telecommunication carrier”; there is no “information carrier”) have defined criteria in the Act. [0] The core of the dispute will be, really, y…

Right, service, my mistake. The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case. The law should have been updated to make it clear that ISP's are common carriers after that ruling.

> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.

The classification of cable modem service in the specific factual context surrounding the way it was found by the court to be provided, used, and perceived by users at the time as an “information service” by the FCC was upheld in NCTA v. Brand X as sufficiently well-supported by factual evidence referenced in the FCC docket supporting the classification to be allowed to stand given the usual deference due administrative decisions.

The factual circumstances have changed since 2005, the rulemaking record is different, and, the Supreme Court has several new justices, at least one of whom (Neil Gorsuch) has a past judicial record suggesting a much more narrow view of Chevron deference to start with.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#183

Post by qaq »

drawkbox wrote: post #181
qaq wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that's data from 2014 ? By mid 2016 it's 49% of households have at least 2 broadband providers and 68% have at least one provider offering 100/10 or better it's 2018 now.

The Ars data is from mid to late 2015 which not much has changed from due to ISPs stance and their spending on legislature bribes/lobby instead of on their networks. Costs have gone up but not speeds or availability. Cord cutting also increased rapidly the last couple years, so ISPs stopped expanding to increase revenues from data caps, overages and forcing people to 'upgrade' to worse service to make up the revs. No…

https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/US%20Broadband...

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#184

Post by shmerl »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #174
dragonwriter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers “information services”. > meant for things like broadband Both “information services” and “telecommunication services” (the provision of the latter of which , other than in aggregated form, makes one a “telecommunication carrier”; there is no “information carrier”) have defined criteria in the Act. [0] The core of the dispute will be, really, y…

Right, service, my mistake. The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case. The law should have been updated to make it clear that ISP's are common carriers after that ruling.

> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.

It's really invalid. What makes sense is to treat Internet services like information services, and actual Internet access service as telecommunication service. I.e. Internet is the medium of transferring information, same as telephone lines are. And services that go through it are already information services (think e-mail provider).

Turning ISPs into information services was their crooked and clearly illogical step to avoiding regulation.

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#185

Post by drawkbox »

qaq wrote: post #183
drawkbox wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ars data is from mid to late 2015 which not much has changed from due to ISPs stance and their spending on legislature bribes/lobby instead of on their networks. Costs have gone up but not speeds or availability. Cord cutting also increased rapidly the last couple years, so ISPs stopped expanding to increase revenues from data caps, overages and forcing people to 'upgrade' to worse service to make up the revs. No…

https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/US%20Broadband...

> 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

Good data, though these numbers still are pretty much the same. The data you linked rates 10/25 Mbps not 25/100 Mbps when rating competition in areas. Most people still only have 0 or 1 options at 25/100 Mbps.

There has been a small bump in 25 Mbps. But even then they are only are up a bit. However, 49% for 25Mbps is still pathetically sad, up under 20% only in 4 years as they did little '16-present to help push NN removal.

They fail to highlight that most places with 'multiple broadband providers', of over 10 Mbps which is not really broadband that is good for today, typically have one provider at 100Mbps or higher and the other false competition at 10-12 Mbps so they just barely rate at the low 10Mbps pathetic broadband classification. ISPs also still have great interest in their local monopolies, which still more than half the population are under at 25 Mbps, and more than 2/3rds under 100Mbps local monopolies, only 10% have gigabit available and those areas have no competitive option, not good enough for the US.

Much of the move to 100 Mbps, which the broadband cable companies could do more easily with DOCSIS anyday they like, was the result of areas that Google Fiber entered. Cox for instance was 25 Mbps down here until Google Fiber then suddenly they got 100/300 Mbps and started offering gigablast/gigabit but that quickly stopped after Google pulled out. REAL competition is good. Saying competition is one provider with 100Mbps and the competitor at 10Mbps is not real competition.

Most of the US is still under local monopolies for 25 Mbps service (0 or 1 option only), and nearly all of the US is under local monopoly for 100+ Mbps, unacceptable.

So now that ISPs have net neutrality removed I am sure we will see multiple 100 Mbps competitive products and gigabit service rapidly rolling out across the country right? /s

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#186

Post by lr4444lr »

burgermanjensen wrote: post #82
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…

Am I missing something? I thought, and I could be wrong, that this whole mess got started when they tried to establish NN through the FTC, but Verizon took them to Court on the basis that the FTC didn't have the authority to do that, and the FTC lost. Hence where we are with the FCC. If my version of reality is correct, it would seem the FCC implementation boat has sailed.

I think you're hitting on exactly the same thing I did in the OP: AT&T won over the FTC in 2014 on the very basis that broadband was classified as a common carrier[0]. The FCC has just removed that protection, so now the FTC should step up as the cop on the beat. That was the factual meat of my post. In my opinion, this could very likely be better for the public, because the legal definitions and technical specifications that make up agency regulations tend to be murky and fraught with politics. Anti-trust law on the other hand has a much stronger foundation, doesn't tighten the oligopoly, and doesn't cede any unanticipated federal control.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/atts-throttling-...

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#187

Post by j_s »

MollyR wrote: post #8

Why 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.

Are the lawyers involved salaried employees of Mozilla? [edit:no] Perhaps there is some pre-paid number of hours/month type of thing... it may even be pro bono!

If instead they are billing hourly, then the whole process gets slightly more interesting to me - these do seem like the right people for the job!

https://www.steptoe.com/professionals-Georgios_Leris.html

https://www.steptoe.com/professionals-Markham_Erickson.html

I'm honestly not genuinely interested to know how that much about the funding situation (nor do I consider it any of my business), but considering how this affecting Mozilla's bottom line helps me understand their level of commitment. Is this just a marketing stunt?

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#188

Post by j_s »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #175
msla wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't fully know that. We know it was forced onto browsers in a manner which reeks of spyware.

We do know it, the extension is open-source [1]. The addon does nothing unless enabled via about:config and even then, it does not spy on you. 1 - https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr

In case you're not aware (and for anyone curious enough to look), the extension was changed dramatically within days of when the story hit the fan. It's really hard for someone as inexperienced as me to tell what was actually run! https://github.com/mozilla/addon-wr/commit/7d4e422bf573f675b...

I believe it did technically run enough code to decide whether or not it was enabled, and I'm not sure whether or not its installation was avoidable (I believe enabling SHIELD studies is opt-in [perhaps part of opting in to analytics?]).

Re: Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

#190

Post by j_s »

xahrepap wrote: post #13
pqh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rep sent a canned, formal-language-adorned "get stuffed" in response.

Mine replied with a canned response basically saying, "thanks for caring! Our senator supports the FCC... blah blah" It was mildly insulting. The thing was clear they didn't even read it and assumed I was clueless.

What means did you use to share your concern? AFAIK there's a reason a phone call is recommended: letters barely matter, and emails/electronic form submissions are basically equivalent to not sent.
Post reply on HN