
Flurry of Lawsuits Fight Repeal of Net Neutrality - hvo
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/technology/net-neutrality-lawsuit-attorneys-general.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
======
microcolonel
What can they even sue for though? By definition the downgraded classification
is not in effect yet, so I would think it could not have an impact on any of
the complainants.

The A&C argument seems rather weak to me, but I guess that is left to be seen.

I for one feel that the _Start Your Own ISP_ route is a healthy thousand times
more helpful than suing the government for not wanting to stand behind a
minute classificatory nuance that somebody gave a pet name.

~~~
chx
> What can they even sue for though?

I am reasonably sure the Attorney Generals of several dozen states have a much
better understanding of the law than armchair lawyers of HN. Hell, probably
even real lawyers as well. If you are not in the USA think Minister of Justice
(although the US version is more hands on).

My understanding is they won't argue for Net Neutrality -- instead they will
tear apart the process leading to the decision: it'll come down to falsifying
and then ignoring comments because that means an "arbitrary and capricious"
decision making process which makes the result unlawful.

~~~
microcolonel
> _My understanding is they won 't argue for Net Neutrality -- instead they
> will tear apart the process leading to the decision: it'll come down to
> falsifying and then ignoring comments because that means an "arbitrary and
> capricious" decision making process which makes the result unlawful._

Is mere incompetence, laziness, or lack of resources in administering what is
_otherwise_ a functioning process sufficient though? My understanding is that
they didn't _ignore_ comments, but rather they _failed to ignore_ comments of
dubious origin. As for the claim that it is "otherwise contrary to law", well,
I guess I'll just have to wait and hear and see the hearings and opinions,
good luck even defining "law" in the general sense, we don't even have an
accurate count of the number of sentencing guidelines and statutes in current
effect. ;- )

The plain language of the regulation does not, to me (a layman familiar with
the topic, the audience of plain language), indicate anything contrary to the
FCC's actions; especially since the reclassification during the Obama
administration was not ordered by a court.

As for my qualification to comment on the merits of a case, sure, I'm not a
lawyer; but I know there are plenty of cases (even ones with facial merit)
motivated primarily by politics, and secondarily by an inkling that it might
just work. For Mozilla, there is a clear political benefit to even just filing
such a suit.

~~~
chx
The ruling didn't quote any comments. My understanding is they will be torn
apart based on that.

~~~
microcolonel
> _The ruling didn 't quote any comments. My understanding is they will be
> torn apart based on that._

Ahh, well that actually changes everything. I really wonder why FCC (and the
people who are allegedly corrupting them) would overlook that, seems really
risky.

Thanks for responding productively.

~~~
chx
You need to understand the FCC have chosen to gather these comments instead of
holding hearings. Then the NY AG have asked, _repeatedly_ what's up with those
using the stolen identities of NY residents. He also asked the FCC to postpone
the ruling until his investigation into this is done. Once again, the emphasis
was on identity theft not Net Neutrality. Schneiderman argued for Net
Neutrality in interviews but not in legal documents (up until December, I
haven't read the current suit yet). He knows what's he's doing. He doesn't
have much of a standing Net Neutrality wise but he certainly does in identify
theft and breaking the law describing the federal rulemaking process. Roughly
it'll go down like this "Your Honor, this comment was submitted in the name of
X.Y. who resides in New York and here's a sworn affidafit she didn't submit
it. I have a few thousand more should you want to see them. The FCC was aware
of these because I repeatedly drawn their attention to it. They had a duty to
take public opinion into consideration and they couldn't because many of the
comments were submitted under false identities..."

The FCC have ignored this -- as they ignored everyone else to serve their
corporate buddies. They can do that but you need to be an idiot to completely
stonewall a state AG. No wonder he came back with more than a few of his
buddies. It's going to be oh so funny when this ruling will be thrown out not
because Net Neutrality but because they rushed it...

~~~
microcolonel
> _The FCC have ignored this -- as they ignored everyone else to serve their
> corporate buddies._

So they're just incompetent? Because if I were trying to serve my corporate
buddies, I'd do a satisfactory job of it instead of jeopardizing the whole
darned thing.

~~~
chx
Of course they are. Have you seen that video that idiot of a chairman put out?
It looks like something College Humor would do expect he made it seriously.

