8 ms·

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 M

by smsm42 9y ago

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'll think of something"? I don't think that's how law and lawsuits should work... Am I missing something? I.e., the matter is clearly political, so if Mozilla lobbied the Congress for it, it'd be clearly the right thing to do. But lawsuit implies there's already a law that mandates the result Mozilla wants, and FCC is violating this law. What law is this? How comes this law wasn't enforced before 2015 - was it created later? The only argument I find is "it is arbitrary and capricious" - which sounds clearly false to me. Even if you are NN supporter, you can't fail to recognize there is a certain political theory behind what FCC is doing, and even if you completely disagree with this theory and think it is very harmful, you can not ignore that FCC is doing this for a specific reason and not just "arbitrarily". Can someone explain to me what serious arguments Mozilla has here?

superioritycplx 9y ago
More than anything else, Mozilla is in the business of virtue signalling.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>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 carriers" under the 1934 Communications act, which mandates that preferential treatment isn't shown, allowing net neutrality. The current decision changed their classification as "common carriers," so they aren't legally required to enforce net neutrality. Mozilla is arguing that they're clearly common carriers, the court agreed that they were, and changing their status would violate the law. 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. This was always going to be decided by the courts or congress, the FCC had no certain power.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 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.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >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. The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers, meant for things like broadband, that aren't regulated as common carriers. It did not see internet access essentially replacing cable and phone access, and did not explicitly give the FCC the authority currently needed.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > 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, your claim that “information service” is “meant for things like broadband”; the definitions, BTW, specifically recognize overlap between the basic categories and specifically note that to the extent there is overlap, the “telecommunication service” classification prevails. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153
fjabre 9y ago
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 services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. It appears as a government agency they have acted against their legally defined mission statement by putting consumers at greater risk of discrimination. I don't know if this is a legal argument to be made and it doesn't answer your question about Mozilla in particular but still I wonder if there is some legal standing here. The repeal seems to put them odds with their stated purpose as an agency.
- smsm42 9y ago
  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?
  - fjabre 9y ago
    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.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      This sounds like "world ends, poor people hardest hit". Of course, any price increase would affect poor people, but that's not how "discrimination" works - you can't just claim that anything that increases the price of any good is "discriminatory" (otherwise we couldn't have most of regulations, since many of them do increase costs, whatever are their other perceived or real benefits). And, "poor people" are not enumerated there anyway - it's "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex". You could of course claim that since there's more poor people among, say, blacks than whites, it's related to race, but that would extend "discrimination" way beyond point of any usability - you could then claim that producing and selling any expensive good is racist, which is insane.
tech2 9y ago
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 Verizon challenged the order and managed to get the blocking and discrimination parts vacated. So the FCC introduced net neutrality to restore the intent of their order in the first place. There have been other such challenges by ISPs before as well, and various violations. So, in 2015 we got NN as a replacement for the open internet order which was a legal description of the FCC's principles of network neutrality that harks back to 2005... NN isn't arbitrary, and seeking to have it restored isn't; it's an attempt at restoring the spirit/intent of legislation, rather than how case law has caused some aspects to be interpreted.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > 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?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > So, does it mean FCC in 2015 created some rules in the absence of the law No, actually, the court striking down the 2010 Open Internet Order as impermissible given the FCCs citation of Title I authority as it's basis specifically pointed to Title II common carrier classification as a basis that would support the kind of rules that the FCC had adopted. (Why the FCC resisted Title II classification up through the 2014 draft of what became the 2015 order is an interesting question, of course.)
metafunctor 9y ago
Not your point, but what law is not based on a certain political theory? Laws codify values. They are always evaluated in the context of what society wants, what the leaders want, what previous law exists, and how it all fits together.
lr4444lr 9y ago
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/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/%24file/15-1063-1619173.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E491... [1]

by smsm42 9y ago

superioritycplx 9y ago

More than anything else, Mozilla is in the business of virtue signalling.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>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 carriers" under the 1934 Communications act, which mandates that preferential treatment isn't shown, allowing net neutrality. The current decision changed their classification as "common carriers," so they aren't legally required to enforce net neutrality. Mozilla is arguing that they're clearly common carriers, the court agreed that they were, and changing their status would violate the law. 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. This was always going to be decided by the courts or congress, the FCC had no certain power.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> 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.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >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. The 96 update specifically lays out another class, information carriers, meant for things like broadband, that aren't regulated as common carriers. It did not see internet access essentially replacing cable and phone access, and did not explicitly give the FCC the authority currently needed.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > 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, your claim that “information service” is “meant for things like broadband”; the definitions, BTW, specifically recognize overlap between the basic categories and specifically note that to the extent there is overlap, the “telecommunication service” classification prevails. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153

fjabre 9y ago

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 services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. It appears as a government agency they have acted against their legally defined mission statement by putting consumers at greater risk of discrimination. I don't know if this is a legal argument to be made and it doesn't answer your question about Mozilla in particular but still I wonder if there is some legal standing here. The repeal seems to put them odds with their stated purpose as an agency.

smsm42 9y ago
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?
- fjabre 9y ago
  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.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    This sounds like "world ends, poor people hardest hit". Of course, any price increase would affect poor people, but that's not how "discrimination" works - you can't just claim that anything that increases the price of any good is "discriminatory" (otherwise we couldn't have most of regulations, since many of them do increase costs, whatever are their other perceived or real benefits). And, "poor people" are not enumerated there anyway - it's "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex". You could of course claim that since there's more poor people among, say, blacks than whites, it's related to race, but that would extend "discrimination" way beyond point of any usability - you could then claim that producing and selling any expensive good is racist, which is insane.

tech2 9y ago

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 Verizon challenged the order and managed to get the blocking and discrimination parts vacated. So the FCC introduced net neutrality to restore the intent of their order in the first place. There have been other such challenges by ISPs before as well, and various violations. So, in 2015 we got NN as a replacement for the open internet order which was a legal description of the FCC's principles of network neutrality that harks back to 2005... NN isn't arbitrary, and seeking to have it restored isn't; it's an attempt at restoring the spirit/intent of legislation, rather than how case law has caused some aspects to be interpreted.

smsm42 9y ago
> 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?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > So, does it mean FCC in 2015 created some rules in the absence of the law No, actually, the court striking down the 2010 Open Internet Order as impermissible given the FCCs citation of Title I authority as it's basis specifically pointed to Title II common carrier classification as a basis that would support the kind of rules that the FCC had adopted. (Why the FCC resisted Title II classification up through the 2014 draft of what became the 2015 order is an interesting question, of course.)

metafunctor 9y ago

Not your point, but what law is not based on a certain political theory? Laws codify values. They are always evaluated in the context of what society wants, what the leaders want, what previous law exists, and how it all fits together.

lr4444lr 9y ago

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/3F95E49183E6F8AF85257FD200505A3A/%24file/15-1063-1619173.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3F95E491... [1]