>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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case. The law should have been updated to make it clear that ISP's are common carriers after that ruling.
> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.
The classification of cable modem service in the specific factual context surrounding the way it was found by the court to be provided, used, and perceived by users at the time as an “information service” by the FCC was upheld in NCTA v. Brand X as sufficiently well-supported by factual evidence referenced in the FCC docket supporting the classification to be allowed to stand given the usual deference due administrative decisions.
The factual circumstances have changed since 2005, the rulemaking record is different, and, the Supreme Court has several new justices, at least one of whom (Neil Gorsuch) has a past judicial record suggesting a much more narrow view of Chevron deference to start with.
I don't understand your point. The current law isn't clear enough, and should have been amended a long time ago to make this a non issue. That this case might work isn't the point, this case shouldn't be necessary.
> The classification of broadband as an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service" has been shown to be valid in a 2005 Supreme Court case.
It's really invalid. What makes sense is to treat Internet services like information services, and actual Internet access service as telecommunication service. I.e. Internet is the medium of transferring information, same as telephone lines are. And services that go through it are already information services (think e-mail provider).
Turning ISPs into information services was their crooked and clearly illogical step to avoiding regulation.
> 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?
> Does the law unambiguously define "common carriers" as including ISPs or does it empower FCC to make that definition?
The law unambiguously defines that all telecommunications carriers are common carriers, and defined what makes a business a telecommunication carrier. The FCC is charged with applying the law.
> If the former, why FCC needed to make that definition at all
The FCC never made any definition, it only applied the definition in the Act.
> and why it made it only in 2015
Arguably, because the people who wanted neutrality didn't care so much about the statutory basis and were content not to sue the FCC over their failure on classification so long as they were generally advancing neutrality polixy, as they from 2004–2017.
> So who is empowered to decide whether certain company or type of companies is "common carrier" or not? I thought that's FCCs job?
It's the FCCs job, in the first instance, to apply the law, but they do not have free and unreviewable discretion in doing so.
>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.
> 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?
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.
The FCC gets to apply the definition written into the law bases on the factual circumstances, and is entitled (under current case law) to significant deference in its application of the law, but it's decisions still need to be grounded in the facts and law.
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.