Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality

They are worried about Comcast, Cox, AT&T and the like that own ISPs/broadband, content and control your privacy on every site you go to with the ISP privacy bill they put through, which they moved to the FTC from the FCC so they could control it better.

You don't have to go to Google, you are stuck with your ISP and the other fake competitive ISP that they create fake competitive markets with.

Your points are literally the Jeff Flake [1] points he made about allowing ISPs to take your info and sell it / run ads on it stating that it is unfair for Google/Facebook to own that. Google and Facebook earned you going to their site to get that data, ISPs lobbied to get it and you can't not go to your ISP, they run all your online access. ISPs should innovate and make products to get your information to sell ads from, not bribe their way into another monopoly while the FTC let's them do it.

FTC move for privacy essentially away from FCC was the start to dismantling net neutrality with the same arguments even though it actually created ISP monopolies more heavily because now they get ad revs, content revs, and bandwidth/access revs.

How much more power do you want to give to the ISPs? You can choose to go to Google, you cannot choose your ISP on the fly and most likely you only have one good one in your area with fake ISP competition that was a cut deal in a backroom.

FTC will not enforce net neutrality, they have been against it from the beginning and it is a regulatory captured agency that loves the ISPs.

FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their commissioners [2]:

> The Federal Trade Commission will not be able to fill the gap created by the FCC’s abdication of its authority and sector-specific mandate. After-the-fact antitrust and consumer protection enforcement by the FTC cannot substitute for clear upfront rules, especially given that vertically integrated broadband ISPs have both the incentive and ability to favor their own content or that of paid “partners” over the content of rivals.

Only thing the FTC can do is after the damage fines, which will be underwhelming. Rules/law needs to stop ISPs upfront, this is why they want it away from the FCC and on the FTC. ISPs would rather win in the marketplace, get their monopolies cutting out competition, then pay a fine rather than innovating to compete. Upfront rules about net neutrality are needed to help create the next Google/Apple/Netflix/Facebook that would be crushed without it.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/settling-a-bureaucratic-turf-wa...

[2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...

Net neutrality is essential for the internet to continue to thrive and flourish as it has done since 1996. But using Article 2 for that purpose is like using a sledgehammer on a finishing nail.

Article 2 was aimed at the true AT&T telecom behemoths of the world. But it is not the job of any federal agency to dictate what its own job is to Congress, i.e. in this case the FCC deciding it wants different public policy from what its charter statutes support. Congress sets public policy and determines how much leeway it will delegate to the agencies and the President. Federal agencies (of any stripe) arrogating power unto themselves is undemocratic, even if well-intentioned.

So the problem is that Congress has failed to act to block the new abusive behaviors of the ISPs, and we need Congress to write new laws. Personally I think that if sufficient leeway were granted to encourage local competition, all of this and a bunch of other abuses (exhibit A: Comcast customer support) would vanish in a puff of smoke.

Side note, I happily donate every month to the EFF, but I believe they are misguided in their support for lawsuits like those announced today.

My points were (1) the statement didn’t actually say anything interesting because it only talked about some of the people working at each company (i.e., it was just as true if you switched the company names around), (2) all companies are made up of people, so it’s hardly a surprise that some of those people have admirable motives and others don’t, and (3) “nonprofit” doesn’t necessarily mean “good,” or “pure in heart,” or whatever people seem to think it does.

The democrats probably since the agency does really fit their censorship approach they have started to take on since the 2016 election.