Hacker News Reader

Comment by microcolonel | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

The problem with that is cables and infrastructure. Public has paid trillions to build existing copper and fiber networks as telephones were proliferating. Ths infrastructure either has to be unbundled, or newscomers will be at immediate disadvantage, with an exception of aglomerations with high concentration of population.

> 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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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...

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com