>Mozilla's lawsuit was filed the same day as coordinating lawsuits from consumer groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press. The Open Technology Institute also says it also filed its own lawsuit against the FCC.
>All of the lawsuits will attempt to prove that the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act by engaging in an "arbitrary and capricious" reversal of extremely popular policy without proving that the broadband market changed dramatically enough in just two years to warrant it.
Other urls found in this thread:
dictionary.cambridge.org
en.wikipedia.org
theverge.com
techdirt.com
twitter.com
Thank you based Pai.
so suddenly it's okay that corporations lobby the govt, but only if they lobby for something you like? kek, these leftists man
Because waterpipe as coaxial can't providy citywide internet...
I just hate you people.
You may not understand why net neutrality is a good thing, but just realize this: Companies never want the best for their customers.
So if facebook, netflix, youtube etc. want Net Neutrality, it means you SHOULDN'T want it.
>lawsuits
>lobbying
You are clinically retarded.
Let's apply your logic in reverse.
>Comcast, T-Mobile, AT&T, all big ISPs do not want net neutrality
>se we should want net neutrality
???????
What he meant to say is, it's better if a company controls is business rather than other businesses controlling a business.
They do when they are the customers.
FFS those NNlosers need to face the fact that NN is gone for good, and literally nothing will bring it back. Braindead redditors need to kts
...
>r34 still have that shitty "pro NN" headline on their site
Literally stopped me using their site
The only search engine I use these days is Yahoo, it's the only one not constantly shilling this NN bullshit.
lawsuits can be used as a lobbying strategy used often to change the opinions and influence govt. this is the case here, where an organization sues a government agency frivolously in order to pressure them one way or the other - how else would you call this?
>frivolously
Their argument is correct though, Ajit Pai did violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Every law breaks some law that's been buried somewhere. You'll find that's how the legal system works in the US; there's so many laws that basically they only apply when someone pays a lawyer to find them. And to get out, you also pay a lawyer to find the loophole.
>Their argument is correct though
>bbbbbut its different this time because we're right
so the FCC overstepped their authority by dismantling a regulation that they themselves instated? also, how is the reversal arbitrary and capricious? they'd have to prove the FCC just randomly did it without any research or cause, which they'd be hard pressed to do as the FCC can just bring on experts and research papers and say no we did research it and it'll be that
Jesus christ, all this virtue signaling. Nobody has any right to sue the FCC over a changing of their internal policy. You can't even sue without showing damages, anyways. There are no damages. "Net neutrality" had nothing to do with net neutrality. Repealing Title II is massively beneficial for consumers.
It's all the left using semantics to trick low information teenagers into thinking "left=good right=bad". It's gong to blow up in their face when the facts about title ii start trickling down to the retards and ISP competition drives down prices and improves service in complete contrast to the left's claims.
So if it's gonna be so easy to prove before the court that they were right, then why are you so scared?
MOST LIKELY what will happen is they'll use it to fish for corruption stuff behind the scenes. Arbitrary and capricious has legal definitions though which might also apply but mostly they're just trying to fry Pai.
>they'll use it to fish for corruption
And that's bad because...?
Not bad just not purely good either. A lot of different people are using it for a lot of different political reasons, some are probly less pure than others.
What, again with this asswipe NN shilling?
I seriously hope none of you are falling for this bullshit.
>so the FCC overstepped their authority by dismantling a regulation that they themselves instated?
Yes, they are not allowed to overstep any of the laws, including the once they created
>how is the reversal arbitrary and capricious
This is legal term, it means that they did it based on fee fee not based on the law.
Net neutrality is a good thing. Obama's net neutrality that allows the government to censor the internet is not.
>and ISP competition drives down prices and improves service
What competition? I live in a major city and have two real choices for ISP. ATT/Comcast
Net neutrality will by definition need enforcement by the feds. Who censors what will change with administrations but it will be part of it forever, assuming they ever get enforcement power which obama's shit never gave them.
All these cucks who think net neutrality is a bad thing and wanna suck Pajeet Pai's shitty cock should go back to Sup Forums.
It's okay if their interests heavily overlap with that of general population.
>scared
Y'all are creating these slide threads. The only thing this does is cause reddit salt. So stop projecting. Y'all said Sup Forums would be gone. We're still here.
Wew, good thing the 1st amendment is a thing.
Over 80% of USA fell for it. I think humanity is doomed in the long run.
Fuck, this is the one single instance where Russia does something better than the USA.
Yeah sure it does except for all the times it doesn't.
that also applies to corporations, it's going to be a tough legal battle doing anything and thats probly good cause fuck governments doing anything.
First amendment does not mandate the government to allow everyone access to their infrastructure. It just says they can't infringe your right to freedom of speech. You'll still have the right to speak your mind offline.
Mozilla are such low T faggots.
Low energy pessimists. This is why lawyer is a profession.
dictionary.cambridge.org
>the activity of trying to persuade someone in authority, usually an elected member of a government, to support laws or rules that give your organization or industry an advantage
>hurr durr, a lawsuit doesn't involve persuading people
idiot
1st ammendment doesn't assure anything. Second amendment is clear as fuck but go ahead cut the barrel of a shotgun too short.
The job of a lawyer is to take advantage of the law to further their clients goals. The first amendment is a law, and it's limitations are to be taken advantage of.
1A is an anti-law
What would be the advantage that Mozilla would be receiving here?
PR, probably working with charity legal teams (like EFF's) so very likely tax deductible. Maybe they've already committed money to those charities and are just exercising that differently.
Respect from non-braindead users
Not wanting the best != wanting the worst.
While it definitely sounds like it can be a strategy in conjunction with other forms, by itself this is just a lawsuit. More importantly they are not trying to pressure an elected official to see their way but out right calling him out.
If you extend the definition that much, all lawsuits become lobbying and differentiating them becomes meaningless since most judges are elected members of government.
+50 rubles, comrades.
Another excellent attempt of crippling US democracy with buzzwords and partisanism in non-partisan politics.
Trump won. You have to do what he says.
Most of the population supports NN, according to surveys. It isn't a problem when they're acting the way the majority of citizens are.
ITT
itp necro crypto
>so suddenly it's okay that corporations lobby the govt, but only if they lobby for something you like?
This. Leftists only hate corporations when they aren't run by SJW's.
When they are they drop that "WE DA 99%" shit and can't seem to suck that millionaire cock fast enough.
>lawsuits aren't a tactic for lobbying, or otherwise influencing the government through money and legal petulance
is there any argument in favor of the repeal? or is it just Sup Forums memes like
Nah fuck that shit. I just got a nice speed upgrade from my ISP after they got rid of this net neutrality shit.
You were bribed you faggot. If you had a spine would turn on them for trying to bribe or cajole you. They didn't even get rid of NN yet. You still have it.
just look at the entire thread, Sup Forums is retarded or there are paid shills like:
>Repealing Title II is massively beneficial for consumers.
There's nothing wrong with getting rid of Title II if they get rid of all the other regulation preventing actual competition against the big ISPs. But they aren't going to do that because the big ISPs own the FCC and law makers.
No you dont. In fact you never had it. It was written not enforced
here are the times it was enforced, stop being retarded and stop posting
In 2007, Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network using a technique which involved creating 'reset' packets (TCP RST) that appeared to come from the other party.[38] An August 2007 report by TorrentFreak (based on substantial nationwide research led by chief researcher Andrew Norton) noted that ISPs had been throttling BitTorrent traffic for almost two years, since 2005, but Comcast was completely blocking it in at least some cases.[39] This was later verified by both the EFF[40] and Associated Press[41]. On March 27, 2008, Comcast and BitTorrent reached an agreement to work together on network traffic where Comcast was to adopt a protocol-neutral stance "as soon as the end of [2008]", and explore ways to "more effectively manage traffic on its network at peak times."[42] In December 2009, Comcast reached a proposed settlement of US$16 million, admitting no wrongdoing[43] and amounting to no more than US$16 per share.[44]
They would be sued if it was proved that they shaped traffic. Everyone pays for their internet. ISP want some to pay twice which isn't fair.
>which involved creating 'reset' packets (TCP RST) that appeared to come from the other party
ah the good ol' days
where they had to use deception to throttle your traffic
Net neutrality doesn't exist. Try to forward port 25 and host a mail server in France.
George Washington was right. Political parties have fucked this country up so fucking bad
Stop thinking about your political football team, and start thinking with your brain
How the fuck will the abolition of net neutrality laws benefit you? As far as I can it, they won't
How will the abolition of net neutrality laws benefit competition? It fucking won't. Spectrum can throttle netflix and youtube with next to no consequences, because the only other isps out there are equally shitty cable companies that gained their power by eating all competition
THAT FILENAME SHOULD BE ILLEGAL
Because it's owned by Verizon.
Well, yet another reason to use it. It's the only search engine owned by a company that offers an actual tangible product, and not just an advertising company.
yeah I'm pretty sure this thread is propaganda.
You idiot, that is not his statement in reverse you brainlet. The mathematically logical reverse would be if you want something, then the company wouldn't want it.
P -> Q is logically equivalent to -Q -> -P
t. /sci/ logician
But that's exactly what I said, you illiterate brainlet.
>I want net neutrality
>so Verizon, Comcast, etc., don't want it
Go back to your shithole board
Could someone tell me why NN is a bad thing already?
Because if you let your ISP extort more money from you, that money will eventually trickle down back to you.
(You) clearly implied that companies don't want net neutrality and "so" we should want net neutrality.
-P does not imply -Q
Congrats on being a waste of space
Boils down to government meddling.
We've never needed it before, the FCC has exercised its authority successful in the past to prevent unfair traffic shaping or service blocking without Title II.
Sup Forums whats going on? you guys are a well informed high IQ board, how come nobody can post images? what's happening? is Sup Forums died?
Those two are the same, faggot.
You must be trolling.
So you're saying that we got rid of NN because it was useless?
This is retarded. Even if you liked the net neutrality regulations, the FCC certainly has the right to remove them. They were never law.
So we got rid of NN because it was useless?
Imagine if they put this much time and money into making a good web browser.
This ISP shill is trying to bamboozle you.
What Ajit Pai is doing is not just repealing Title II. He's doing far more, including removing the state's autonomy to legislate on the issue and the FCC's capacity to, using the shill's own words, "exercise its authority to prevent unfair traffic shaping or service blocking" as it has done in the past.
They've been trying to politicize the issue as some form of "left-wing government meddling", but this is not a heavy-handed regulation that prevents competition as you can read here: theverge.com
And the entire right as well as the libertarians have always been in favour of net neutrality. See: techdirt.com
The only ones that are against it are politicians that received campaign funding from ISPs, which happen to be Republican, but it's a bipartisan issue. ISPs were smart by funding Republicans because it would fit their politicization narrative well, and create divisiveness where previously there wasn't. And they were successful.
>France
Of course you have no freedom, you lost all wars.
> t. /sci/ logician
cringed hard
>Repealing Title II is massively beneficial for consumers
Bullshit.
In an actual free market where ISPs could enter and leave without investing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars before they could even compete, I earnestly believe that net neutrality is not needed.
That being said we do not and will not live in such a world for the foreseeable future. The average american has like 2 choices of ISPS if that, and more often than not both choices are shit. If you give those essential duopolys even more power there is no path where the average consumer or small businesses come out on top.
Good. The USA is already being used as an example by my country's ISP's lobbyists to dismantle our own net neutrality. If you think they will innovate anything but new customer assraping methods you're beyond retarded. Even with NN they're still anti-consumer.
This is not how it works in ameriland, they are governmental branch and if they inforce rules then everyone needs to follow them, yes even other branches of government and yes even themselves. To remove a ruling they need a court order
>port 25
lrn2tls, faggot
Yep. The whole point of establishing a republic is so that representatives are accountable directly to their voters (ideally reducing individual corruption) and properly distributing voters will ideally prevent tyranny of majority.
Political parties circumvent the entire political design. Representatives are no longer accountable to their voters, just the party. Parties provide financial backing for elections which drives out anyone who isn't a part of a powerful enough party. The power a political party has over media allows it to in influence the will of the people directly, so in practice the party tends to be able to elect themselves. The anti-corruption measures no longer have any impact and you're back to oligarchy.
how do i get to the filesystem when i install debian without a desktop environment? dir returns nothing
>ISP competition
What competition, you mong? The cable companies lobby the shit out of local governments to make starting an ISP difficult as fuck, and if that doesn't work, they tie them up with lawsuits.
I'm not a USAian, so I don't understand all this hassle. Please explain.
With NN, is it illegal for ISP to have "Free messengers traffic" packages?
>The only ones that are against it are politicians that received campaign funding from ISPs, which happen to be Republican, but it's a bipartisan issue. ISPs were smart by funding Republicans because it would fit their politicization narrative well, and create divisiveness where previously there wasn't. And they were successful.
damn dude
if this is true that is some house of cards shit
You clearly have no idea how our government currently works. Corporations basically have been buying out our government from under us.
This is what the whole Occupy Wall Street movement was supposed to be about, but it got dragged so far off message by faggots who all wanted to shove in their retarded agendas.