4 ms·

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 lik

by MollyR 9y ago

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.

neduma 9y ago
Why Google/Netflix is not doing this instead of Mozilla?
- MollyR 9y ago
  EFF's mission statement : ... . Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development... https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about
- anfedorov 9y ago
  Not a lawyer, but would guess because it would be a waste of their lawyer's and the court's time.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  What would they legally sue for? Just suing for an environment that existed for only 2 years, because they feel it is right, is not the purpose of a lawsuit. That needs to come through legislation.
- earenndil 9y ago
  Because it is in google/netflix's interest that net neutrality be abolished.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?
    - livus 9y ago
      They've reached a market position where NN doesn't really impact them much. They, now, have the cashflow to pay their way out. They can pay, smaller companies cannot, thus cementing their position in the market. Absence of NN, in an indirect way, helps them competitively by constructing artificial barriers to entry without taking the heat. Sure ISPs have their own equivalent offerings, but dealing with one or two competitors in an area is easier than dealing with a couple of them.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        Not so when their major competitors are literally part of the ISPs they have to negotiate with. I know Netflix has pretty good penetration and awareness with customers, but people are fickle and will jump ship as soon as something better (or less shit, due to less bandwidth squeezing) is available.
fny 9y ago
A few guesses. 1. These things cost money and resources to initiate. EFF may see this as going nowhere†, so why spend the time and money? 2. EFF can always file a brief if the case ever does go to trial. 3. Almost forgot: Mozilla wants the PR. †Here's Mozilla's claim: > Mozilla seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706, it abdicates the FCC's statutory mandate, and it is otherwise contrary to law. IANAL, but I'm pretty damn sure the FCC can come up with a few decent arguments about why they're not behaving in an arbitrary and capricious manner...
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  The FCC has already explained why they believe they're not being arbitrary and capricious. They would repeat the same explanation in the courts. It's up to the courts to decide whether or not they actually are being "arbitrary and capricious".
  - fny 9y ago
    Unfortunately, in a case like this the courts use "deferential review" as opposed to what you're implying (known as "de novo review"). The decision would be upheld for as long as the administrator can produce some evidence to support the decision, even if the decision were wrong! > The Court's focus is upon whether the plan administrator's final decision was "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion" . Under this standard, the administrator's decision can be upheld by the Court, even if it is technically wrong, as long as there is "substantial evidence" in the administrative record to support the decision. "Substantial evidence" is a rather nebulous term, which has been defined by the appellate courts as: "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" . It does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence. It requires "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Source: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Defer.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Defer.html Other sources that might interest you: [0]: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/I_Definitions.html http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_o... [1]: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2006/08/standards_of_re.html http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2006/08/stand...
boomboomsubban 9y ago
They are an advocacy group, "filing lawsuits" isn't really what they do. They don't provide a product that they can claim is damaged by this, while Mozilla does. Here's the past cases they've been involved with, none of them filed by the EFF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_the_Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_t...
j_s 9y ago
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-Georgios_Leris.html https://www.steptoe.com/professionals-Markham_Erickson.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?

by MollyR 9y ago

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.

neduma 9y ago

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

MollyR 9y ago
EFF's mission statement : ... . Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development... https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about
anfedorov 9y ago
Not a lawyer, but would guess because it would be a waste of their lawyer's and the court's time.
IncRnd 9y ago
What would they legally sue for? Just suing for an environment that existed for only 2 years, because they feel it is right, is not the purpose of a lawsuit. That needs to come through legislation.
earenndil 9y ago
Because it is in google/netflix's interest that net neutrality be abolished.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?
  - livus 9y ago
    They've reached a market position where NN doesn't really impact them much. They, now, have the cashflow to pay their way out. They can pay, smaller companies cannot, thus cementing their position in the market. Absence of NN, in an indirect way, helps them competitively by constructing artificial barriers to entry without taking the heat. Sure ISPs have their own equivalent offerings, but dealing with one or two competitors in an area is easier than dealing with a couple of them.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Not so when their major competitors are literally part of the ISPs they have to negotiate with. I know Netflix has pretty good penetration and awareness with customers, but people are fickle and will jump ship as soon as something better (or less shit, due to less bandwidth squeezing) is available.

fny 9y ago

A few guesses. 1. These things cost money and resources to initiate. EFF may see this as going nowhere†, so why spend the time and money? 2. EFF can always file a brief if the case ever does go to trial. 3. Almost forgot: Mozilla wants the PR. †Here's Mozilla's claim: > Mozilla seeks review of the Order on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706, it abdicates the FCC's statutory mandate, and it is otherwise contrary to law. IANAL, but I'm pretty damn sure the FCC can come up with a few decent arguments about why they're not behaving in an arbitrary and capricious manner...

madeofpalk 9y ago
The FCC has already explained why they believe they're not being arbitrary and capricious. They would repeat the same explanation in the courts. It's up to the courts to decide whether or not they actually are being "arbitrary and capricious".
- fny 9y ago
  Unfortunately, in a case like this the courts use "deferential review" as opposed to what you're implying (known as "de novo review"). The decision would be upheld for as long as the administrator can produce some evidence to support the decision, even if the decision were wrong! > The Court's focus is upon whether the plan administrator's final decision was "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion" . Under this standard, the administrator's decision can be upheld by the Court, even if it is technically wrong, as long as there is "substantial evidence" in the administrative record to support the decision. "Substantial evidence" is a rather nebulous term, which has been defined by the appellate courts as: "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" . It does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence. It requires "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Source: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Defer.html http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Defer.html Other sources that might interest you: [0]: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/I_Definitions.html http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_o... [1]: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2006/08/standards_of_re.html http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2006/08/stand...

boomboomsubban 9y ago

They are an advocacy group, "filing lawsuits" isn't really what they do. They don't provide a product that they can claim is damaged by this, while Mozilla does. Here's the past cases they've been involved with, none of them filed by the EFF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_the_Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_t...

j_s 9y ago

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