
Mozilla Files Suit Against FCC to Protect Net Neutrality - lainon
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/01/16/mozilla-files-suit-fcc-protect-net-neutrality/
======
smsm42
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?

~~~
boomboomsubban
>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.

~~~
smsm42
> 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'm still not sure how it works - if FCC has no power to decide it, what
happened in 2015? Congress certainly didn't do anything. So who is empowered
to decide whether certain company or type of companies is "common carrier" or
not? I thought that's FCCs job?

~~~
boomboomsubban
>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?

The law defines common carriers in a vague way meant to refer to a telephone
provider. The vague way allows one to argue that internet is also included,
but it's all on interpretation. Which is why it's in the courts.

>what happened in 2015?

Before 2014, ISPs were not labeled common carriers, but the FCC enforced net
neutrality through some other vague part of the bills. In 2014, the courts
ruled on a case between Verizon and the FCC, stating they could not grant the
privileges of common carriers while not designating them common carriers,
ending that. So in 2015, the FCC labeled them common carriers.

~~~
smsm42
> So in 2015, the FCC labeled them common carriers.

Which gives me the impression FCC is empowered to decide what "common carrier"
means, thus making both "yes" and "no" decisions with regard to ISPs equally
legal. Is there some other law that breaks the symmetry?

~~~
boomboomsubban
The FCC doesn't get to decide, it just isn't currently clear whether they are
a common carrier under the laws given. So the FCC chooses what side to back,
enacts regulations based on it, and waits for the courts to decide who is
right.

------
lr4444lr
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 restraint of trade doctrine?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This can only be fixed by the FTC, yes. But it's against Google's interests
for antitrust law to come back into vogue, so they've put a lot of money into
getting folks on board with the FCC, which doesn't have jurisdiction over
Google, being in charge. In fact, the Title II classification that net
neutrality supporters are so big on actually exempts ISPs from FTC regulation,
preventing the government from breaking up their monopolies!

Net neutrality, as implemented, is really flawed in a lot of ways (there's a
lot of practical uses for more limited types of Internet plans being available
in world of IoT, especially), but this comment will be -4 shortly anyways. We
shouldn't be regulating the Internet. We should be breaking up monopolies and
fining companies for unfair business practices.

~~~
drawkbox
> _We should be breaking up monopolies and fining companies for unfair
> business practices_.

Ultimately in a perfect world if the agencies did as their mission statements
said that would work. Monopolies need to be broken up and it can lead to good
things, even just threatening Microsoft in the 90s led to Google, Apple, etc
emergence.

The problem is there has been zero sign that anyone is willing to go after
monopolies, especially after the Great Recession even though it would probably
help us get out of the next one easier with more breakups.

The local ISP monopolies are really against net neutrality, Google isn't the
monopoly we need to be worrying about yet. ISPs/broadband have local
monopolies built on fake competition on purpose.

The vast majority US only has 0 or 1 valid ISP with decent speeds if that at
25-100 Mbps[1][2].

ISPs are the biggest monopoly threat regarding open internet as they control
the levers, not a company that operates on top of the internet in the market.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-
br...](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-
still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/)

[2] [https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-
broadb...](https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadband-
competition-looks-like-in-map-form/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google is a global monopoly with it's hands in literally everything. A
significant percentage of all inter-human communication, whether voice,
internet, email, or messaging goes through Google. Possibly a majority.

Regional/local monopolies are barely a concern worth mention in comparison.
It's as if you're worried about the street dealer, and not worried about the
head of the cartel.

~~~
maxander
Look up the definition of a "monopoly." Google is giant, sure, but it's not
the only search provider, or email provider, or anything else that it does
(aside from some random niche things.) And everyone has perfect freedom to
switch from Google to another provider of these services, which isn't true for
ISPs if only one company has fiber going to your house.

~~~
smsm42
Google is as much of a monopoly than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft never was
the only OS provider or browser provider or sole provider of anything, yet the
parent comment calls it a monopoly and praises the effort to hurt it. You
can't have it both ways - if Microsoft was a monopoly, then Google is.

~~~
curun1r
Microsoft was never a monopoly and Google can never be a monopoly. It's not
something that a company is, it's something that a company has. In Microsoft's
case, it was Windows and it was considered a monopoly not because it was the
only operating system, but because of its market share. The only product that
Google has that has anywhere near the required market share to be considered a
monopoly is Google Search.

Even so, Microsoft didn't get in trouble with the Justice Department for its
Windows monopoly, it got in trouble for leveraging its monopoly to support its
other, non-monopoly products. If you want to argue that Google should be
constrained under anti-trust rules, you need to show how they're abusing a
monopoly to compete unfairly with other products. People have made that
argument but it's less cut-and-dry than it was in Microsoft's case.

As it is, your lack of understanding of the basic definition of 'monopoly'
makes what you're saying somewhat nonsensical.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google not only has monopoly-level market shares in Search, Ads, and Android,
they also have a massively dominant market share with Chrome. The magic, and
where Google runs afoul, is how they leverage those to assist each other in
ways you clearly ignore.

\- Chrome will soon start directly blocking Google Ads' competitors based on
standards Google invented through an organization it runs.

\- Chrome pushes Google Search default, Search pesters you to get Chrome like
three times.

\- Android devices are required to ship with nearly all of Google's products
pre-installed. Literally through a confidential contract almost every phone
manufacturer on the planet save like... Apple and Amazon have signed on.

There are more, mind you, but this is kinda a taste. Microsoft did nothing
this illegal, ever.

~~~
drawkbox
Net neutrality and ISP monopolies are important to observe here because only
ISP monopolies can control packet level what goes through every single
internet connection you make, that is why ISPs and local monopolies are
important to the impact of net neutrality going away. ISPs inspecting packets
to slow some down also leads to encroaching packet inspection that leads to
more surveillance.

Talking about Google here is a distraction and a false equivalency as they
control nothing in the lower level of your network like ISPs do.

Google is not a monopoly, they are a market leader with mind share. They were
able to get the word "google" as a verb, that is through a good product and
marketing.

It seems you really prefer companies that buy their monopolies via legislation
and bribes like ISPs (Comcast/AT&T/etc) over companies that build market share
in the actual market (Google/Apple/Facebook/Netflix/Amazon etc).

You need to read up on your Microsoft history, you are precluding lots of
history, Microsoft is well known to do the "embrace, extend and extinguish"[1]
technique back when they were essentially monopoly mind share level. Just one
small thing in many that they did, they killed Quicktime, Real Player[2] when
Windows player was created by making them not work on the OS level.

ISPs want to do the same thing with competitive products, it is a natural
progression for a market leader, you can't blame them you have to prevent it
with regulation/laws.

The only control Google has is to control technology via their browser, which
Microsoft did with IE4 especially - and you can use others, and what kind of
search results you can get. AMP is an overstep and their control but not
monopoly level yet -- and they are overstepping on stomping internet standards
in a new 'embrace, extend, and extinguish'. But even then, Google has less
monopoly ability to control your network compared to ISPs that control
everything you do on the internet and Microsoft could control OS level when
Windows was 95% share and only desktop existed, which they pushed IE then as
well and crushed competition, preinstalled and all that.

I like Google and Microsoft though, they earned their mind share through
innovative products. ISPs just buy off legislators and create state assisted
monopolies. The latter is very anti-business and anti-competitive much more
than building support in an open market.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)

[2] [https://www.cnet.com/news/real-hits-microsoft-
with-1-billion...](https://www.cnet.com/news/real-hits-microsoft-
with-1-billion-antitrust-suit/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
"Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one. Google
controls whether or not websites effectively _exist_ on the Internet, for all
intents and purposes. Google controls how those websites operate, what they
must look like, and what security protocols they must use. If in any way, a
website doesn't obey Google, it ends up delisted from Google Seaarch, and then
it loses all it's profitability and ceases to exist.

I'm well aware of Microsoft's twenty-year-ago history, but it pales in
comparison to Google's present. Your suggestion that Google earned it's place
is horribly incorrect: It got it's power through buying off legislators (About
half of all Congressmembers have received money from Google), working directly
in the White House (During Obama's term, no company visited the executive
more), and using secret agreements with other companies to pack in default
apps, adware, and browser toolbars.

People make the misleading belief that everyone switched to Google because of
how great it was (or used to be). I did. You probably did. Most people did
not. Either a program they installed like Adobe Reader had Google Toolbar
packed in which forced their default browser to switch, or they ended up on a
device that comes preloaded with Chrome. Sundar Pichai's rise to stardom was
the Google Toolbar, which gained penetration buy being one of those sleezy
addons that came with nearly everything a Windows user wanted to install.

Now with Android, Google has every phone manufacturer doing their job for
them: In order to get access to the Play Store, phone manufacturers have to
ship Chrome as the default browser, Google Search as the default search
engine, and include about twenty other Google apps.

~~~
drawkbox
> "Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one.

It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do
it to have the ability to slow you down and throttle you. NN prevents packet
level bias.

Even if you still want to beat the Google is a monopoly drum, I don't totally
disagree that some of their tactics are that level, this is just a distraction
from NN and local ISP monopolies using Google is a false equivalency to ISPs
that are your entry to the internet, before Google can even get to you.

You are literally off topic at this point, this isn't a thread on Google
monopoly level tactics, this is about NN which Google would be market leader
with or without. Google issues for another day, today is ISP local monopolies
which you continually distract from almost as if you are purposefully doing
it. If you aren't being paid by the ISPs you should at this point.

If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient?
Google obsession aside, do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue
regarding ISPs?

Current ISP talking points on ISP monopolies are to distract to Google,
Facebook, Amazon etc just as the WSJ has been doing. You've joined the club in
distracting from the real issue, NN, unrelated to whether Google is a
monopoly.

You go and call out Google for lobbying, they have to the way ISPs and
Comcast/AT&T etc buy off legislature. You seem to like the companies that buy
off legislature and provide NO innovative benefits to them running the web
today, at least with Google/Amazon/etc there are benefits not degradation of
service like the ISPs of today.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Again, packet level bias isn't a big deal when there's a company that controls
the whole freaking Internet. There's no "distraction" with Google, Google is
the problem, and they're distracting you by saying "Look at these little
companies who aren't that big a deal. They're evil! Focus on them!"

Everything you are pitching is right out of their guidebook, Google has funded
every net neutrality supporting organization out there today, and is behind
every single move you see to defend it. Ask yourself why.

~~~
drawkbox
If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient?

Google obsession aside, could care less about what they do in regards to NN
really though I am glad that they and most companies and people in the country
support NN, the ISPs matter on this policy.

ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers really are the ONLY ones that don't want it,
ask yourself WHY they want it removed so badly...against most _people 's_
demands. They say it changes nothing, I don't want SLOW lanes, unless they are
massively increasing infrastructure they will be SLOWING you down and
INSPECTING packets. This is anti-internet behavior. If Google was actually
using their monopoly about it they would crush NN because they will be top in
mind share either way. When Netflix, who was affected by NN, stopped
supporting NN for a while people flipped. Same with Google, people would be
pissed if Google didn't support NN, this comes from PEOPLE's demands [1][2].

Why all the ISP love? You got some massive trust in them to both mostly have a
monopoly control and to be able to control traffic (including speeds/data
caps) AND have all your private info for every single connection you make.

Do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Do you think
ISP competition is good enough in the US?

Do you see the difference in the level of control ISPs have over ALL your
traffic while Google has to have you USE them?

I have acknowledged some issues with Google but you have yet to acknowledge
anything regarding ISP abuse and questions regarding broadband availability
where ISPs are failing the US (Google Fiber was an awesome competitive boost
we needed), nor that most people want NN [1][2]. Yes, your Google obsession is
a distraction from the main NN point, the only people that want NN are
ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-
am...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-
political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/)

[2] [https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-
neu...](https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neutrality-
rules-fcc-considers-repeal/)

------
urda
Mozilla is one of the few groups on the internet I'm proud to support. Keep up
the good fight!

~~~
msla
I supported them until the adware incident.

~~~
benatkin
Please rethink your position. There are many people who genuinely care about
freedom and privacy working at Mozilla, while at Facebook, Google, and Apple,
developers are selling us out every day.

~~~
maxlybbert
I’m sure there are many people working at Facebook, Google and Apple who also
genuinely care about freedom and privacy, while there are developers working
at Mozilla who are just as willing to sell out users as anyone.

It is true that Mozilla’s a nonprofit, but that doesn’t mean a lot to me when
I try to guess what they’ll do in the future.

~~~
Larrikin
I think his point was that instead of throwing your hands up in the air and
declaring all options to be equally terrible, it might be better to support
actors that are generally good.

~~~
maxlybbert
The original comment seemed to be “sure, some people working for Mozilla are
bad, but some are good, and some people working for their competitors are also
bad.”

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.

------
Ajedi32
So, legally speaking, does Mozilla have any ground to stand on here?

I'm having trouble imagining what law might exist that would legally require
the FCC to enforce NN rules. Especially given the rules the FCC overturned
here were originally instituted only 3 years ago. Could Mozilla have
successfully sued the FCC back then if they'd failed to create these rules in
the first place?

~~~
joshuaheard
I would like to read the suit, because I don't think they have a leg to stand
on. If the FCC can make the regulations, they can rescind them. The only thing
maybe is process, but that only delays the inevitable.

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

~~~
earenndil
Because it is in google/netflix's interest that net neutrality be abolished.

~~~
KozmoNau7
How so? How would Netflix benefit from NN being abolished?

~~~
livus
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
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.

------
bb88
Either you do net neutrality or you do all of the following:

1) Remove "franchises" from localities.

2) Simplify right of way provisions to allow new cable to be buried easily.

3) Companies with installed poles must allow fiber to be run across them. (If
they don't like that, go underground)

4) ISP's must tell consumers in plain english what restrictions exist on their
service. Bandwidth caps. Throttled or Blocked ports, protocols, and sites.

~~~
matt4077
None of these have any power to mitigate the risks net neutrality is supposed
to tackle, namely providers using their customer base to squeeze third parties
that wish to reach them.

~~~
bb88
If you make the ISP market a truly competitive market then the market will
come to a natural equilibrium, hopefully addressing those concerns. But as
long as ISPs hold artificial monopolies in localities, it is anything but a
free market.

------
bluetwo
Good luck!

One more vote in the senate and they can pass a bill to do this.

It seems the major providers are holding off on any large changes until they
feel it is safe from political blowback. I find this interesting.

~~~
dragonwriter
> One more vote in the senate and they can pass a bill to do this

Which would matter a lot more if the US had a unicameral legislature with no
executive veto; the Senate passing a CRA bill shooting down the FCC repeal of
open internet rules would be a potent symbol, but have no binding effect since
it has near zero chance in the House and, doesn't have the supermajority in
either chamber needed to survive a near-certain Presidential veto.

~~~
jopsen
> a near-certain Presidential veto

Nothing is certain with Trump :)

(we can think about whether that's good or bad)

~~~
earenndil
True, but it's not unlikely he's sold out and thus won't sign it.

------
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.

------
tomger
This is great! Though I wonder if there’s anything more we can do than call
our representative like the article suggests.

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

~~~
xahrepap
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.

~~~
j_s
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.

------
yoshuaw
It's great that Mozilla is stepping up to do the right thing. Hope that other
tech giants follow suit.

------
OptionX
I think that most efforts to revert the Net Neutrality to the Obama-era state
is severely hampered by how much the current administration is swayed by
lobbyists. Though sad, the only course of action that seems available now is
damage control until the next elections. I do still fully support Mozilla's
efforts in the matter anyway.

------
zaidf
Lobbyists provide a better ROI than most lawsuits.

------
exabrial
This is an unpopular opinion, but the disagreement point is trying to use the
FCC to enforce Net Neutrality, not Net Neutrality itself. Since everyone has
decided to stop talking about the end goal (an open internet) and instead
insisting "my way or the highway", we've gotten ourselves to this point. Thank
you for your downvotes. I'd rather talk about working together towards an end
goal and finding similarities instead of differences.

~~~
drawkbox
FTC probably can't enforce net neutrality, this came from one of their
commissioners [1]:

> _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.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-
_dec_14_2017.pdf)

